The difference between...

[FranCrimi]

Let's talk about those so-called quirky shooters. You may not realize this if you're not an advanced player, but they have their limitations. What they've managed to do is overcome their limitations by excelling in other areas.

For example: Take those guys with those short choppy strokes. They excel at getting close position and they are masters of cue ball control --- even with close sharp angle-shots. Why? Because they hate long shots and multi-rail position shots. The phrase 'let your stroke out' probably gives them chills.

Wouldn't you rather just be an expert at all types of shots?

 

[maha]

the guy with good fundamentals will be most consistent and know how he is most likely going to play that day so can make the best games and win the most.

those with the better talent and less fundamentals will be less consistent and be the ones looking for backers and a hand out.

 

[KissedOut]

Don't confuse style with fundamentals. Although some players may not be as aesthetic as others they still do the meat-n-potato parts correctly. Perfect example is Allen Hopkins. VERY fundamentally sound but quite odd in appearance. Same thing happens in golf: you've got your RangerRicks and your players. Lanny Wadkins would be the AllenHopkins of golf, sound but quirky style.

Great point. You would be hard pressed to find guys with golf swings more different than Jim Furyk, Sam Snead, Lee Trevino, Tiger Woods, and Jack Nicklaus, but they all had great fundamentals.

 

[randyg]

I think my use of the word "textbook" is causing confusion.

There are are a lot of different strokes for different folks, but when you see a certain look in a player's eyes and when he gets down on the shot in a certain way, you know right away what's coming next.

Without a specific confidence, focus, and intensity, textbook fundamentals seem to amount to just doing the chicken dance.

So, chicken or the egg?

I think you need to understand the difference between Style & Stroke.

Most of us have a pretty good stroke, most of us have different styles.

randyg

 

[ironsoldier71]

There is logic to both sides of that argument. I focused on solid fundamentals for years. It has paid off well for me. However, never forget to just make the freakin ball. Nothing worse that perfect stance, stroke, and shape....but I forget to make previous ball in the pocket.

Kind Regards,
Michael McDonald
Shooters Billiard Supply
www.shootersbilliardsupply.com

 

[Rackemep]

I think you have to have a combination of several things to be what I would concider "solid at the table"

First and formost is desire...Desire alone won't get you to your goals but is the first step in any elective decision. Unless you're born under a lucky star with God given talent you must have desire to be good at anything. I doubt many of us are lacking in this department!

2nd I would say is fundamentals...This is the foundation you build your game on! The stronger the foundation the less problems you'll have to correct in the future i.e. Bad habits formed in the fundamental stage that can limit your game in the future.

3rd Work ethic...You've got the desire to play well, the foundation is laid out and now you have to put in the work to refine these skills and continue gaining knowledge. This is the grind I think most of us get stuck in...It's easy to just play the game instead of working towards getting better.

4th Talent...weather it's natural talent or talent you've worked your ass off to develop you can't be "solid at the table" without it!

5th You have to be mentally strong....Some are naturally resilient to the pressure of competition others have to get some seasoning but being able to remain cool under pressure is a biggie...

On top of those things you need self confidence....confidence can come across in many ways...some people come across as cocky or arrogant some spew confidence with body language and actions...I don't know about you but I can just tell when someone is striking the cue ball with confidence.

Put all those things together and you're looking at a player that's probably pretty solid at the table...I'm sure there are other attributes that could be added to or substituted for the ones I've listed...

 

[John Disque]

textbook fundamentals and being solid at the table. give me the latter any day.

am i even making sense?
disagree?

I understand exactly what you're saying and have spent my life struggling with this issue.

The problem with not having textbook fundamentals is: it makes for a short career. What you're doing is: compensating for improper fundamentals, and your body will eventually give up on you.

If you're not lining up on the shot properly - because your elbow is tucked in.... you're compensating for that with something else... such as aiming in the spot you shouldn't be aiming and throwing the ball in the pocket. "Doing it wrong" will become a habit and what works for you.... but it's the old "snowball effect" and when one thing falters.... it all falls apart and nothing works... and you wind up sleeping behind K-Mart's dumpster.

Hopefully I won't see you there...

 

[DCS_SF]

It all depends on the level of your game.

I personally think working on/building your fundamentals will improve your game much faster than someone who has to put in five times the time to get by with their crappy fundamentals they make work. That player will likely have a tough time getting to top tier playing as well.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

So, chicken or the egg?

It was the egg. Eggs usually come first, early in the morning. Chickens show up later either as Chicken salad sandwiches at lunch, or fried at dinner.
In rare instances they are combined at Brunch, which is mid-morning, or Lupper which is a combination of lunch and supper.
I hope I have been of some help on this matter. :smile:

 

[hang-the-9]

textbook fundamentals and being solid at the table. give me the latter any day.

am i even making sense?
disagree?

If you mean playing like Bustamante vs like Buddy Hall, I'd take Buddy Hall. It's much much easier to teach someone to play good emulating someone like Buddy or Nick than Bustie or someone that has odd habbits (Rob Saezz for example, he always aims low right (I think) before moving the tip on the final stroke).

Of course a good player that can't stay down or moves his arm all over the place or shoots very fast and loose like Jayson or Rodney will beat a B player with perfect form but that is just obvious.

The way I put it when I am teaching people is that you want to play good because of your fundamentals, not in-spite of them.

 

[TheBook]

I've seen a lot of good players with quirky fundamentals, but just to look at them, you know they're solid. Hard to describe. That's why I bring it up.

Better?

Payback for having had to learn four versions of each letter from the nuns.

Keith had a stroke that was against all fundamentals.

I think Hopkins used more a punch type stroke.

Watch the pinos, they wave their cue all around the CB while adressing it but hit it where they want to.