Whenever I go out to big tournaments, there is usually a couple of pros and a ton of shortstops. One thing that really stands out about all of these shortstops is their mechanics. It seems that every single one of them has some type 'flaw' in their mechanics that is incorporated into their style. It's either they have a really big pump stroke, their head is cocked sideways when they are down on the shot, or they try to copy the Filipino stroke and have these extra winding-up strokes with alot of elbow movement. I've noticed that the majority of the professional players do not have these types of styles. While there are some that do, probably about 90% of the pros have very solid fundamentals. Even Bustamante's stroke, as loose and wavy as it is, he has a very smooth and consistent cueing action. These shortstops that try to copy that stroke dont. Most of these shortstops have been shortstops for a long time, and I believe that they will remain shortstops, because their 'flawed' styles hold them back. Of course I realize that you can make any style work if you do it consistently, but I believe that many people could play much better if they made some changes to their mechanics or stance. It seems the popular stroke style with the young guns is the pump stroke. The young guns that eventually become pros are often the ones that dont have that type of stroke. I have come to the conclusion that some techniques may be good for others, but not good for many, and that people who continue to use these flawed techniques will hit a "wall" and never reach their full potential. How many of you agree with this, and if you don't, please tell me why.
The Shortstop Wall
- Thread starter cuetechasaurus
- Start date
I agree ...
to a point. That will be why their wins and loses, when
charted in Excel, will look like a roller coaster ride. The
best most consistent players usually have good mechanics,
i.e., Sigel in the 80's. I have been rebuked a little for my
advocating that players should adopt and adapt to the
form and style that is recommended for Pool with only
allowing for very slight adjustments due to physicality of
the person. It seems that some instructors today advocate
letting a person's form adapt to them, which may be easier
in the beginning, but can result in exactly the situation that
you have presented, with flaws in their form or mechanics
that become a stopping point in advancing in the sport.
Everything you do and the way you do it is what gives you
the results you receive, and most of the time with a fairly
decent shooter or above if their game takes a nosedive, it
is because of doing something wrong in their form or stroke.
I will probably get blasted for my opinion again, but they should
remember that I was teaching Pool when they were still in
short pants, and yes, I am Old School Pool.
to a point. That will be why their wins and loses, when
charted in Excel, will look like a roller coaster ride. The
best most consistent players usually have good mechanics,
i.e., Sigel in the 80's. I have been rebuked a little for my
advocating that players should adopt and adapt to the
form and style that is recommended for Pool with only
allowing for very slight adjustments due to physicality of
the person. It seems that some instructors today advocate
letting a person's form adapt to them, which may be easier
in the beginning, but can result in exactly the situation that
you have presented, with flaws in their form or mechanics
that become a stopping point in advancing in the sport.
Everything you do and the way you do it is what gives you
the results you receive, and most of the time with a fairly
decent shooter or above if their game takes a nosedive, it
is because of doing something wrong in their form or stroke.
I will probably get blasted for my opinion again, but they should
remember that I was teaching Pool when they were still in
short pants, and yes, I am Old School Pool.
cuetechasaurus said:
Several months ago, I met Don "The Preacher" Feeney at a 3 cushion tournament at Chris's in Chicago, and we shot some 9 ball and straight pool. Boy does he know a lot...
He gave me some pointers about aiming and sighting and so on, and I asked him about the slip stroke, and he showed it. Then he showed a whole bunch of other strokes. The filipino style, which he said much to recommend it, with the constant motion and pumping and so on, he said is very good because the muscles in the arm are always moving and it can be used to really generate a whole lot of juice on the ball when you want it. He did it for a few seconds and then shot a whippy snap draw and the rock took off. He also showed me different types of swipe strokes, and without calling it back hand english, showed how to shoot combining BHE with swoop. I couldn't help but be persuaded by his performance.
Would he show all this to a beginner? I doubt it. He said all these strokes are "legitimate" strokes, and one thing became clearer for me. When someone says your stance is all wrong, your stroke is terrible, your alignment is totally off, yada yada, and you already know what you're doing, take their "advice" with a grain of salt. While they may help you, oftentimes they'll just screw you up...
While some have said the best pros do it this way or that, I think the variations on the themes make it clear that while specific mechanics will often produce more predictable results, the ultimate weapon in this game is truly the mind...
Flex
look at some of the great so-called shortstops
Some of these guys are still shortstops because of their willing-ness to get a real job to support their family with a consistent income. I know several very high caliber players who have incredibly bad mechanics. Anyone know Norm Wines, or stood behind Keith with that side-arm stroke {I could imagine an instructor who didn't know keith trying to change that}. Of course any who's been around pool enough to teach knows who he is and wouldn't try to change his stroke. No offense to the people who teach good mechanics, but both these guys are incredible players. It's like flex said, Most of this game is in the mind and poor mechanics can survive. But for those who want to play better, better mechanics will definitely help you along the way to a more consistent game. No matter what, have fun and it all gets a lot easier. Stress is bad in this game. SamFlex said:
Snapshot9 said:
What are "flaws in their form or mechanics?"
You advocate that there's some ideal form - what is it? I've asked you before (and you didn't answer), but what is this supposed "form and style that is recommended for pool?"
Personally, I don't think there's such a thing. Watch professionals in any sport - baseball, football, basketball, etc. Do any of them do things exactly the same way? Sandy Koufax supposedly had the best "form" of any pitcher in history - is he the best pitcher ever? Nobody would ever say Jordan's form was picture perfect, yet he is consistently rated as the best basketball player ever. Allison Fisher and Karen Corr are the two best players in the WPBA. Are their forms identical? Are their forms ideal? Reyes and Willie are highly regarded as the best pool players ever. Are their forms identical? Are their forms ideal? Just what is it about their forms that makes them ideal or not?
-djb <-- not a BCA Master Instructor, but knows there's more than one way to skin a cat
satman said:
I've never seen Norm play, but I have countless tapes of Keith playing. Yeah, he sets up off to the side, has a side arm stroke (so did Willie Hoppe, I understand), but Keith has great mechanics. If you'll look at a tape of him playing, his routine is always the same, he always takes exactly the same backstroke, he always finishes well through the ball to the same place, etc., etc, etc... I've heard people say "Man, he jumps up out of every shot". Actually, he jumps ups AFTER every shot. btw, a lot of players that started when they were small kids have sidearm strokes... it was the only way they could hit a ball with a full stroke when they were 3 1/2 feet tall!
As for a standard and accepted stroke... sure, I have my idea of what it should be, but the most important thing is that it's exactly the same stroke every time! (Hope I don't insult anyone here). Nick Varner has the worst looking banana stroke I've ever seen... but it's exactly the same every time. Keith sets up so far sideways that I'd end up in traction if I tried it... but it's exactly the same, every time. David Matlock... awww... forget it. David has as great a stroke as I've ever seen... and it's exactly the same every time.
Point is, as davidhop pointed out, repetition is the most important thing... so why not adapt to a stroke that is easy to burn in and easy to repeat time after time.
I think we got way off track here, but Cuetechsaurus is right. I go to and play in a lot of tournaments and, being an instructor, I see a lot of great mechanics and a lot of terrible mechanics, but the first thing I see isn't their form, but whether they do the SAME THING every time. Those that don't, won't last long in a big tournament. Those that do, usually come out on top.
Later,
Bob
Cane said:
I agree with you. The most important thing is aim and focus. Once players realize this, the rest becomes self styled is a matter of experience through repetition. The other stuff like BHE and .. become intuitive as a result of being out of position and having to figuring things out. Without lots of play none of this stuff falls into place. Great topic!
davidhop said:
I don't think his mechanics are bad. Yeah, his whole arm moves during his stroke, but the whole thing moves together in a straight line, which is in line with his cue.
bgb said:
...and yet Tiger continues to take golf lessons from quality instructors and continually get coaching! Hmmmmmmm....might be some reason for that! LOL
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
I think for a player to get to the "shortstop" level, they have to have a very sound understanding of the game, and I could care less how their stroke looks. As others have eluded to I think the biggest hurdle when going from good player to excelent player is mastering the inner demons, or mental game. I only think you can blame fundamentals when a person is missing the same shots over and over for the same reason. Like putting, it makes no difference how you got the ball in the hole, just that it is in the hole!
Gerry
Gerry
I disagree with the premise of this thread.
As we've so often discussed on the forum, as long as a stroke is repeatable, it's generally effective, regardless of what it looks like.
Where do the differences between the best and the rest lie? Forgive this obvious oversimplification, but it tends to be through some combination of the following:
stroke fundamentals
shot conceptualization
the mental game
tactical decision making
the break
In my experiences, I've encountered players that are shortstop level rather than pro level because they were deficient in just one of these areas.
The generalization that weak stroke fundamentals explain each and every shortstop's inability to reach pro level is, in my opinion, unreasonable.
As we've so often discussed on the forum, as long as a stroke is repeatable, it's generally effective, regardless of what it looks like.
Where do the differences between the best and the rest lie? Forgive this obvious oversimplification, but it tends to be through some combination of the following:
stroke fundamentals
shot conceptualization
the mental game
tactical decision making
the break
In my experiences, I've encountered players that are shortstop level rather than pro level because they were deficient in just one of these areas.
The generalization that weak stroke fundamentals explain each and every shortstop's inability to reach pro level is, in my opinion, unreasonable.
S
Scottster
Guest
The "C" rating Wall maybe....
What I dont understand is the incapability for some to comprehend the fact that a player classified as a "shortstop" has a skill rating above "A" level and is the player that is generally spotting the locals when matching up.
When a player is defined as a "shortstop" it means he plays pretty sporty.
What I dont understand is the incapability for some to comprehend the fact that a player classified as a "shortstop" has a skill rating above "A" level and is the player that is generally spotting the locals when matching up.
When a player is defined as a "shortstop" it means he plays pretty sporty.
Swing
Most great players are very observant of their errors and 'always' go over in their mind, questioning/why they missed?. If you're repetitive within your style/mechanics, its 'way' easier to "go back" remember the shot, take it apart and FIGURE OUT where the break down occurred. From our mistakes, like when we first burned our finger, we learn, but some of us instead of learning, just say to ourselves "THAT WAS STUPID" and by your own choice/ you have taken the path of no relearn (did I mean return/improvement,ckle). Boy, path of no relearn, I like that. This method of learning, eventually gave me the ability to beat anyone in match play, and I did.
Scott Lee said:...and yet Tiger continues to take golf lessons from quality instructors and continually get coaching! Hmmmmmmm....might be some reason for that! LOL
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Most great players are very observant of their errors and 'always' go over in their mind, questioning/why they missed?. If you're repetitive within your style/mechanics, its 'way' easier to "go back" remember the shot, take it apart and FIGURE OUT where the break down occurred. From our mistakes, like when we first burned our finger, we learn, but some of us instead of learning, just say to ourselves "THAT WAS STUPID" and by your own choice/ you have taken the path of no relearn (did I mean return/improvement,ckle). Boy, path of no relearn, I like that. This method of learning, eventually gave me the ability to beat anyone in match play, and I did.
Tiger has made major swing changes TWICE in his career already. As his body changes, and as equipment changes, and as his understanding of the golf swing changes, he'll likely keep doing things like this.bgb said:
The golf swing is probably 10x more complex than the pool stroke. I find comparisons and analogies involving the two to be quite strained. While both are best served when they're kept simple, and while both have examples of people with funny fundamentals that still overcome them to become great, the similarities largely stop there, imho.
I agree with people that any stroke will work as long as it finds that straightline upon contacting the cue ball. If you look at any of the pros, all of the waggles and movements of their stroke occur on the back stroke. It doesnt matter what happens on the back stroke as long as it is straight during the follow through. I think this is something people miss when comparing snooker players to pool players. Both have straight strokes, its just snooker players remain on the line throughout the entire motion.
But a stroke like Bustemante's requires alot of practice and repetition, and someone who is not as gifted as he is, in terms of hand eye co-ordination, may not be able to develop it well. Bad fundamentals can have limit how far you progress. What are considered good fundamentals are that which are the easiest to repeat consistently. Personally I don't understand trying to copy Francisco's stroke. Why not just try to keep your cue on the line of the shot? This way you don't have to worry about getting your cue back on line.
Would any golf instructor recommend Jim Furyk's stroke, I would hope not.
But a stroke like Bustemante's requires alot of practice and repetition, and someone who is not as gifted as he is, in terms of hand eye co-ordination, may not be able to develop it well. Bad fundamentals can have limit how far you progress. What are considered good fundamentals are that which are the easiest to repeat consistently. Personally I don't understand trying to copy Francisco's stroke. Why not just try to keep your cue on the line of the shot? This way you don't have to worry about getting your cue back on line.
Would any golf instructor recommend Jim Furyk's stroke, I would hope not.