This thread aims to critique the backhand (pivot) english method.
We hear lots of advice from champions about looking at the object ball at the time you stike the cueball.
But, according to pivot english theory, the cue ball will travel in a line determined by the positioning of the bridge hand. Even if we hit to the left or right or top or bottom. So what is the point of staring at the object ball once you have set your bridge position?
According to pivot english theory, what can you do to make the ball deviate other than move your bridge hand as you are making the hit. I doubt anyone would recommend that as a habit to get into.
I actually think staring at the object ball is important for very accurate play. I'll let you guys argue this out a little before I give you my reasons why we should look at the object ball, and why the pivot english theory is often an impractical method of allignment.
We hear lots of advice from champions about looking at the object ball at the time you stike the cueball.
But, according to pivot english theory, the cue ball will travel in a line determined by the positioning of the bridge hand. Even if we hit to the left or right or top or bottom. So what is the point of staring at the object ball once you have set your bridge position?
According to pivot english theory, what can you do to make the ball deviate other than move your bridge hand as you are making the hit. I doubt anyone would recommend that as a habit to get into.
I actually think staring at the object ball is important for very accurate play. I'll let you guys argue this out a little before I give you my reasons why we should look at the object ball, and why the pivot english theory is often an impractical method of allignment.