The Monk: Useful instruction, or useless mumbo jumbo?

Andrew Manning

Andrew Manning

Aspiring know-it-all
Silver Member
So I've read a few articles by The Monk, and as I was reading this one, it occurred to me that this guy doesn't sound like he understands what really goes on, in terms of details of cue ball dynamics, in a pool shot:

http://www.azbilliards.com/themonk/monk6.cfm

Look especially at #4, the follow strokes. He says several things that are not only physically impossible, but that seem to betray a beginner's view (at best) of what can be done with pool balls and how.

Other articles I've seen are usually less technical, and so have fewer obvious untruths, but it seems to me the guy is totally full of BS. Anyone else feel similarly, or want to present counter-arguments in defense of his instruction?

-Andrew
 
I bought one of his books directly from him in Vegas about 10 years ago. He knows what he is doing and I did not see anything amiss in the article other than he says "cue tip" when he means "cue ball" in one spot.

However, I thought some of his techniques outlined in the book were sharking, pure and simple and I detested that. I wanted to learn how to overcome and win without sharking (no matter how minimal).

Thought he was speaking mumbo-jumbo when he went off on "the shot will shoot itself when it has reached its maximum tension" or something like that. Some of the info was great... some was deep-end.

I think he can give insight into the attitude it takes to win matches, but it may not be insight that is pleasing to the... "less worldly" (for lack of words) or more recreational players.
 
Last edited:
I think that he pretty much has it...

I think that a lot of what he's saying in there other knowledgable players think of under different terms but also do it to an extent. I never gave what I was doing with draw and follow and stop shots much thought, but the way he describes it sounds plausible.
 
I will say this:

The Monk's Volume 2 series "Fundamentals in Kicking and Banking" by Tom Rossman (Dr. Cue) is the bomb. Those 3 DVD's are the best visual kicking and banking explanantions that I have ever seen. You put that knowledge together with Freddy's book, Banking with the Beard and you have yourself a great learning tool, to jump your experience level up in a hurry. JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
Andrew Manning said:
The Monk: Useful instruction, or useless mumbo jumbo?
-Andrew
Click to expand...

Andrew,
You need another category. I'm no expert, but I lump his books into the "useFUL mumbo jumbo" category. Most books have some weaknesses and inaccuracies, but mastering his shots would definitely help any player progress. The psycho-babble part of it gets on my nerves quickly.
 
Donovan said:
I will say this:

The Monk's Volume 2 series "Fundamentals in Kicking and Banking" by Tom Rossman (Dr. Cue) is the bomb. ...
Click to expand...

Maybe the operative part of that title is "by Tom Rossman"!
 
Yeah, the psycho-babble part is sort of what I was referring to as "mumbo jumbo", but also, I see some very glaring inaccuracies in what he writes. For instance:

"With the follow through draw, the cue ball is not spinning backwards until it has traveled a few feet. Your tip pushes through in a follow through motion. When the cue ball contacts the object ball, it will slide away and then begin to come back. This is an important stroke to use when you want to control the position the cue ball will end."

This is a physical impossibility, and I can imagine some beginners reading this and going mad trying to do it. If the cue ball is not spinning backwards as soon as it leaves the cue tip, it sure as hell can't be spinning backwards "a few feet" later! Also, unless the CB and OB are VERY close and you hit a double-hit push-masse shot, THERE'S NO WAY to make the cue ball follow the object ball and then come back. Actually, I guess that's what hapens with a larger (mud) cue ball also. But with equal-mass, non-frozen balls and a legal hit, it can't be done.

"The bounce back draw. This is really a "stun" backwards. You are not trying to spin the cue ball back. You are trying to bounce it back from the object ball. There are times in a game when your command of this stroke is the difference between winning and losing."

The cue ball will only bounce back if it's lighter than the object ball, or if the object ball is frozen to other balls, increasing its effective mass. This is another shot that CANNOT BE DONE as written.

He also says things that are misleading if not inaccurate. "Place your cue tip one-sixteenth below center. Deliver a follow stroke and make the cue ball follow the object ball! There is only one way you will see the cue ball follow the object ball and that is if you deliver a fine follow stroke." This can be done with ANY stroke, provided it's soft enough that the cue ball starts to roll by the time it gets to the object ball. Hell, I can "follow" with an extremely low hit if the balls aren't too close together and I hit the shot softly, and I can do it with a jabbing motion, or a smooth motion, with the same results. Anyone who's not a complete beginner should know this!

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
Hell, I can "follow" with an extremely low hit if the balls aren't too close together and I hit the shot softly, and I can do it with a jabbing motion, or a smooth motion, with the same results. Anyone who's not a complete beginner should know this!

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Andrew...I happen to agree with you, that the Monk is full of hot air. However, your description here is not classified as a follow stroke. It's called "draw-drag", and the CB is spinning backwards for a period of time, before the friction with the cloth rubs off the backspin, and the CB begins rolling forward. A 'follow' or topspin stroke must be struck above center. There is, by the way, a significant difference in repeatable effect on the CB, depending on whether you stroke or poke (jab) the ball. A poke is not a stroke. A smooth stroke (at any speed) will deliver a predictable, repeatable effect for both the OB and the CB. A poke or jab will not.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Scott Lee said:
Andrew...I happen to agree with you, that the Monk is full of hot air. However, your description here is not classified as a follow stroke. It's called "draw-drag", and the CB is spinning backwards for a period of time, before the friction with the cloth rubs off the backspin, and the CB begins rolling forward. A 'follow' or topspin stroke must be struck above center. There is, by the way, a significant difference in repeatable effect on the CB, depending on whether you stroke or poke (jab) the ball. A poke is not a stroke. A smooth stroke (at any speed) will deliver a predictable, repeatable effect for both the OB and the CB. A poke or jab will not.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say here, about the definition of "draw-drag", how to apply top-spin, and the advantage of a smooth stroke, but I think you missed what I'm saying. Read this sentence from The Monk's article again:

"Place your cue tip one-sixteenth below center. Deliver a follow stroke and make the cue ball follow the object ball! There is only one way you will see the cue ball follow the object ball and that is if you deliver a fine follow stroke."

He's saying you can make the cue ball follow the object ball with a below-center hit, which you can, and as you said it's called a draw-drag. But he's saying you need a specific stroke to do it, and I'm saying you can do it with any kind of stroke if you hit the CB softly. To say that this effect is a function of how you stroke is misleading and harmful to a beginner's understanding of the game. And furthermore, if he's been playing longer than two months, he should know about draw-drag and how it's not dependent on how "smooth" or "fine" your follow stroke is!

-Andrew
 
Andrew is correct... if you read the article verbatim, it does not say what The Monk is trying to say. He mixes up spinning and travelling in this case, which kills the meaning and benefit to beginners...

You have to read what he MEANT to say, not what he says! Hahaha!

"I'm a monk, damn it! Not a writer!"
 
There are better writers out there I don't see any point in reading the monk. Advice like, "be the ball" or "be an extension the cue" or anything like that is rather useless advice. The only way I can do either of these is with the use of surgical enhancements.
 
Haha!

Actually I recommend Phil Capelle's books... he has a few misspellings and typos here and there, but packed full of usefull info....
 
Not everything that is written is applicable to everybody. My stuff is tossed aside as useless mumbo jumbo also. It comes with the territory. Tim is very good at what he does. Is his instructional material geared towards the advanced player? That can be debated - but IMO his material is not "useless mumbo jumbo" and Tim has my respect as a instructor.

I have always tried to keep my material written for "players" - and by that I mean "players at every level". I also try to encourage players to follow up what I have written by getting with an instructor - and it doesnt necessarily have to be with me. I enjoy working with players one on one, sometimes the entire message does not come across in the written word.
 
Andrew Manning said:
"With the follow through draw, the cue ball is not spinning backwards until it has traveled a few feet. Your tip pushes through in a follow through motion. When the cue ball contacts the object ball, it will slide away and then begin to come back. This is an important stroke to use when you want to control the position the cue ball will end."

This is a physical impossibility, and I can imagine some beginners reading this and going mad trying to do it. If the cue ball is not spinning backwards as soon as it leaves the cue tip, it sure as hell can't be spinning backwards "a few feet" later! Also, unless the CB and OB are VERY close and you hit a double-hit push-masse shot, THERE'S NO WAY to make the cue ball follow the object ball and then come back. Actually, I guess that's what hapens with a larger (mud) cue ball also. But with equal-mass, non-frozen balls and a legal hit, it can't be done.

"The bounce back draw. This is really a "stun" backwards. You are not trying to spin the cue ball back. You are trying to bounce it back from the object ball. There are times in a game when your command of this stroke is the difference between winning and losing."

The cue ball will only bounce back if it's lighter than the object ball, or if the object ball is frozen to other balls, increasing its effective mass. This is another shot that CANNOT BE DONE as written.

He also says things that are misleading if not inaccurate. "Place your cue tip one-sixteenth below center. Deliver a follow stroke and make the cue ball follow the object ball! There is only one way you will see the cue ball follow the object ball and that is if you deliver a fine follow stroke." This can be done with ANY stroke, provided it's soft enough that the cue ball starts to roll by the time it gets to the object ball. Hell, I can "follow" with an extremely low hit if the balls aren't too close together and I hit the shot softly, and I can do it with a jabbing motion, or a smooth motion, with the same results. Anyone who's not a complete beginner should know this!

-Andrew
Click to expand...

I agree with your observations about Monk's descriptions. He may know what he's talking about, but he sure doesn't say it well. My first and lasting impression of him was he was an awful communicator, such that, even if he had useful information, I couldn't stand to read it.

I think what he was describing in the passage you quoted is a stun draw shot, where the cueball slides off the object ball before drawing. And you are absolutely right, if the cueball isn't spinning backward as it leaves the cuetip, it sure isn't going to magically pick up that reverse spin as it tracks to the object ball.
 
Blackjack:

I have a lot of of your articles and you are being too hard on yourself! It is cerebral, but certainly does not get onto whacked tangents like The Monks stuff. I would not toss it aside as mumbo-jumbo and doubt many people would.
 
BillYards said:
Blackjack:

I have a lot of of your articles and you are being too hard on yourself! It is cerebral, but certainly does not get onto whacked tangents like The Monks stuff. I would not toss it aside as mumbo-jumbo and doubt many people would.
Click to expand...

I agree. Blackjack, everything I've read that you've written about playing pool has seemed totally accurate and usually valuable to me. Of course, like anyone, less than 100% of what you've written applies 100% to me personally, but I've never seen anything you've written that I thought was actually wrong.

I also don't mean to disrespect Tim Miller as a person (even though you'd have to say this thread is a bit disrespectful), but I really think much of what he says is highly suspect, and I think much of it is stuff that actually might impede your progress in learning to understand pool, if you take it literally at all. I wonder how an experienced player and instructor would produce a description of "the four strokes of pool" that doesn't seem to be remotely based in actual billiard ball dynamics.

-Andrew
 
I have read a lot of instructional material by the Monk, Capelle, Kohler, and just about every other instructor who has written a book. There are some very good ones, some not so good ones, and a lot in between. I look at it like gem mining. I might have to read through a lot of dirt, but if I find one gem, it's worth it. I don't think I've ever read a book that I didn't get something useful from....and I don't think I have found one that is absolutely perfect in every point.
Much of what I find useful in the Monk's writing is in helping me to take control of my game and not fall victim to making excuses. Everyone you meet has something to offer. You just need to find what it is they are offering that applies to you.
Steve
 
I read one of his books a few years ago and thought I was having an acid flashback...started looking around for Fillmore West posters and flower children. He's got some good thoughts about the game, but, as is obvious by the previous posts, it's hard to take them seriously with all the "into the mystic" con. If you check out his website, you start to get the feeling he will soon be known as "Maharishiramdam Monk"...one word: Jonestown. Sorry to be a little dismissive and bitter, but that web site is disturbing. Guess I've been away from Cali too long; weird stuff actually seems weird now.
 
Hello All,

I normally read many of the threads on this site without actually replying but i thought with this topic I need to post.

The Monk, who is currently residing in New Zealand is coming to give a seminar at my club on the 9th of March. I was wondering whether you people feel that his knowledge would be better presented in the spoken form rather than written form, basically whether this would be worth attending. As it is only $10 dollars for club members i will be attending regardless as i am sure that there will be something that i can take away from the night.

Just to let you guys know, the night is $10 dollars for club members, $20 for visitors and $30 at the door sales, i thought that this was pretty reasonable even for a few hours of instruction, just want to know your guys thoughts and i will let you all know how it went after the 9th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top