WRISTS - Views from the cheap seats

[TheThaiger]

I'm not sure it's a question of right vs wrong, more like science vs belief. Or, describing (packaging/marketing) a technique in a way that makes it sound like something new, when it is not.

Something else to consider is that even us lower level players can execute the vast majority of strokes and techniques. What separates the amateur from the pro is consistency. I mean, who among us has not nailed spectacular draw shots, cut shots, combos, or banks? Who amongst us has not made the CB get up and dance to our beck and call? The problem is doing that day-to-day, session to session, or even from shot-to-shot. The pros aren't so much capable of uber-techniques beyond mere mortals, they are just capable of doing it more frequently.

The ego thing, well that's not so much about pool, it's just testosterone

Lou Figueroa

That's not consistency. That's talent.

 

[TheThaiger]

On of the things i find interesting, is how certain people, who obviously do NOT play at a high level, feel that they can tell someone who does, what is right and wrong, when they can never reproduce what the high level guy does on a pool table in the first place.
That has always annoyed me to no end.


I am a firm believer in the THOSE WHO CAN, DO; THOSE WHO CAN'T TEACH idiom.

I think all those giving regular advice, or shilling their services, should video themselves playing so we know what we're getting. There's no way I'd waste time listening to anyone who I could beat easily.

On a wider point, perceptions are important, and it's difficult to get an accurate handle of who you chose to believe based on a few posts or opinions. Some are articulate and others less so. Some you warm to and some you don't. But seeing skills on video nullifies the personal and accentuates the professional.

Lock n Load is a case in point: a terrible poster, but clearly a good player. Seeing him in print is a turn-off, but 30 secs of seeing him play was enough to change my perception.

It boils down to this: if you can cue a ball, I'll listen to you. If you can't, I won't.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

I'm not sure it's a question of right vs wrong, more like science vs belief. Or, describing (packaging/marketing) a technique in a way that makes it sound like something new, when it is not.

Something else to consider is that even us lower level players can execute the vast majority of strokes and techniques. What separates the amateur from the pro is consistency. I mean, who among us has not nailed spectacular draw shots, cut shots, combos, or banks? Who amongst us has not made the CB get up and dance to our beck and call? The problem is doing that day-to-day, session to session, or even from shot-to-shot. The pros aren't so much capable of uber-techniques beyond mere mortals, they have just capable of doing it more frequently.

The ego thing, well that's not so much about pool, it's just testosterone

Lou Figueroa

Speak for yourself.

Yeah, but having watched the technical discussions on this board for quite some time, it's obvious to me that a lot of the science based guys, while being quite informed, still miss a lot of what actually goes on ON the table.

I mean, to hit a "10:30" inside follow shot, with backhand english, that swipes both to the left and downwards simultaneously, at a SLOW speed to get the maximum amount of work THROUGH the object ball while being semi jacked up and striking downwards in the first place...
Well, I personally can see the results on the pool table when i hit it.
But i dare say that trying to explain that scientifically AS TO WHY IT WORKS, might blow some circuitry in some brains.
Cause honestly, i have no idea why it works.
So i don't go around trying to convince people, because it is futile, ESPECIALLY if you have some scientific type, who wants to break it down, instead of just letting it be.

Plus, everyone's stoke is different, so someone's regular stroke, might = someone else's BHE stroke, which might = someone else's poke jacked up extreme english stroke.

Needless to say, i believe that all phenomena have some form of scientific explanation.
I just don't think that all things pool can be explained properly at this time by physics, despite some people thinking that they can.
Maybe in the future.
But not now.

I mean, just look at Efren.
That guy STILL busts out some magic.
Sometimes, that magic just can't be explained.:wink:

 

[lfigueroa]

Speak for yourself.

Yeah, but having watched the technical discussions on this board for quite some time, it's obvious to me that a lot of the science based guys, while being quite informed, still miss a lot of what actually goes on ON the table.

I mean, to hit a "10:30" inside follow shot, with backhand english, that swipes both to the left and downwards simultaneously, at a SLOW speed to get the maximum amount of work THROUGH the object ball while being semi jacked up and striking downwards in the first place...
Well, I personally can see the results on the pool table when i hit it.
But i dare say that trying to explain that scientifically AS TO WHY IT WORKS, might blow some circuitry in some brains.
Cause honestly, i have no idea why it works.
So i don't go around trying to convince people, because it is futile, ESPECIALLY if you have some scientific type, who wants to break it down, instead of just letting it be.

Plus, everyone's stoke is different, so someone's regular stroke, might = someone else's BHE stroke, which might = someone else's poke jacked up extreme english stroke.

Needless to say, i believe that all phenomena have some form of scientific explanation.
I just don't think that all things pool can be explained properly at this time by physics, despite some people thinking that they can.
Maybe in the future.
But not now.

I mean, just look at Efren.
That guy STILL busts out some magic.
Sometimes, that magic just can't be explained.:wink:

Well, I think that if it's so exotic that a high speed camera, a slide rule, and a Bob Jewett can't explain it it's pretty much useless to most of us anyway.

But I do agree with the Efren part -- what he can do does look like magic sometimes.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Your post sounds all well and good, but you are missing some key pertinent points.

1. Just because someone can't play at a very high level, does NOT equate to the FACT that they can do every shot a pro can do, and maybe even some the pros can't do.

No, but it is one of the factors. Amongst several.
If they can't reproduce a shot the way the high level guy is doing it, should they be allowed to criticize the technique or cry foul, when they do not posses the skills to do it?

2. Playing at a very high level is NOT about what shots you can and cannot make. It's about how the subconscious works in the individual to make every shot work like it's supposed to work. Playing at the pro level is all about doing what any A player can also do, but doing it with less errors thrown in there.


Mind you, this is more about specific techniques used while stroking and pocketing the ball so that the cueball retains a certain effect, more so then who can pocket the ball using whatever technique they want.

3. Just because someone is a master at doing something does NOT equate to them having a clue about how to go about teaching someone else to do the same thing. Almost everyone on here is a master at walking. Yet, if you try and explain how to walk to someone else, once you get past the very basic of bend your knee and move your leg in front of the other leg and put your foot down, then repeat with the other leg, you are totally lost and have no clue how to explain what you actually are doing.

I never said that playing good = good teaching skills.
But if you are going to have someone teach you, at the very least, you want someone who can play at a high level, who also can convey their message on how to do things, properly.
This is not to say that you don't have decent instructors out there, but if push comes to shove, i'll recommend a top level guy showing someone stuff.
Champions breed champions.
I highly doubt that some certified instructor, ever showed anyone the way to world caliber, despite being trained to explain things properly.
They might have helped them out with the basics, but somewhere down the road, some top shelf player got their paws into them, and showed them the way.
That's just how pool works.
Nothing against the instructors, but they aren't the ones taking mediocre guys to the top levels.
That is reserved for the mentor/protege relationship that eventually happens somewhere, with a top shelf guy sharing his knowledge with the pupil.
IMO


4. Thinking that just because one can play at a very high level equates to them knowing what and how to also teach is nothing more than an ego trip. Stating that anyone who can't play at a high level teaches nonsense is also an ego trip. Some high level players ARE very capable of teaching AND playing at a high level, they are the exception. Saying that a high level player can't teach or explain what he is doing is no more derogatory than saying that you can't explain how to walk correctly. It just is what it is.

Already said that skill does not = teaching ability.
See the above post

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Well, I think that if it's so exotic that a high speed camera, a slide rule, and a Bob Jewett can't explain it it's pretty much useless to most of us anyway.

But I do agree with the Efren part -- what he can do does look like magic sometimes.

Lou Figueroa

Efren just loads it up with the magic spice.

 

[JoeW]

I think the essence of the wrist problem is in locking out side motion and I wrote about it three years ago. http://billiards.colostate.edu/PBReview/ShootLikePros.htm. At the time this article was not well received by many people and I took a lot of flak. Primarily from pool instructors and others who emphasized break shots versus regular playing.

CJ talked about cocking or pre-setting the wrist with his hammer grip. This appears to be a useful concept that is used by many pro players I watched after reading his comments. It is a useful idea that could be used by many players, novice and others who had not thought of it before. I have read and reviewed many pool playing materials over the years and had not read about this idea so it is a “new” to me concept that could be quite useful when the teachers among us have given it more thought.

The idea of shooting by using the forearm muscles using downward pressure from the grip hand is also a new and interesting idea I had not read elsewhere. Here too it will take a good teacher to fully develop this idea that could be if use to students of the game.

Using the top of the cue tip to impart top spin from below center is too advanced for me as I find it confusing and do not understand how it can be useful. It seems to be a complication with tradeoffs for induced errors. But then I can’t play anywhere near as well as CJ and some of his contemporaries. A better description is needed here.

I think that CJ’s stating of these three things demonstrates that pro players have things to teach us that can be quite useful if we sort out their sometimes limited ability to state things clearly. What makes sense in one’s head does not necessarily mean that one can articulate it well. When you set aside the ego thing people like Bob Byrne and Bob Jewett, are rare people who play at a pro level and who can teach. Dave Alciatore supplements his ability (or lack of it) with assistance from pro players and his dedicated work and teaching styles are second to none.

I think that when Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave sift through CJ’s ideas they will find better ways to show others what can be accomplished. Teachers make unique contributions to our abilities. The pro often has good ideas but they often tend to muddy the waters because they simply do not have the vocabulary that is readily understood by most of us.

As a side note on the contributions teachers can make. I have long held that psychologists (and related disciplines) are in essence teachers who help others overcome difficulties in their lives. Makes little difference if one is learning to pre-cock a wrist and shoot with the adductor polis muscle or learning to stop beating one’s wife.

I have known men who were at a highly professional level (served prison time for family abuse) with regard to their ability to inflict pain and suffering on the people closest to them. They can describe it quite well including the circumstances that led up to their losing control. Their wives and children will often acknowledge the husband’s description and often agree that they are the cause because “they just did not listen” or other similar statements. The husband may have engaged in the behavior for years and no matter how “good” he is at controlling his family he just can’t stop when the law is now involved.

When a person will work with me I can usually stop the destructive behaviors and instill new “better” behaviors in a very short period of time. I can do this because I understand the theory behind it, I can speak his language, I know what needs to be done to change the family dynamics, and I know how to change the family. I am not an expert at hurting people but I do know how to change these behaviors because I am an expert at teaching. The same can be said for people like Bob Jewett, Dr. Dave and similar people when it comes to changing one’s pool playing behaviors. It doesn’t take an expert player. It does take an expert teacher who is constantly learning new ways to help people make their lives better.

Teaching is a different discipline than Playing. We need both “experts.”

 

[Neil]

Superstar Quote: I never said that playing good = good teaching skills.
But if you are going to have someone teach you, at the very least, you want someone who can play at a high level, who also can convey their message on how to do things, properly.
This is not to say that you don't have decent instructors out there, but if push comes to shove, i'll recommend a top level guy showing someone stuff.
Champions breed champions.
I highly doubt that some certified instructor, ever showed anyone the way to world caliber, despite being trained to explain things properly.
They might have helped them out with the basics, but somewhere down the road, some top shelf player got their paws into them, and showed them the way.
That's just how pool works.
Nothing against the instructors, but they aren't the ones taking mediocre guys to the top levels.
That is reserved for the mentor/protege relationship that eventually happens somewhere, with a top shelf guy sharing his knowledge with the pupil.
IMO


We are in more agreement than you think. If you are an advanced player, looking to get better, you don't go to any "recognized" instructor. You go to a higher level instructor. Most people go to instructors because they are stuck. They are stuck because their mind doesn't utilize the subconscious as well as some others do. Are they ever going to be champions? No. At least, not until they learn to use their subconscious mind better. BUT, they can still learn to play at a real decent level, even shortstop level, by utilizing proven techniques. As to getting to pro level, that takes coaching, meaning constant instruction. Something like Landon Shuffet received from his dad. Not very often that the normal Joe Blow gets the advantage of constant instruction like Landon got, so you won't see many Landon's out there.

Someone with a better, natural use of the subconscious is very unlikely to even go to an instructor. They picked the game up quickly, and see no need of an instructor. They tend to pick up tips along the way from other advanced players rather than bother to pay someone else for the same tips. That is NOT saying that instructors know every little tip out there, they don't. But, a good instructor is able to help any level of player. There's always easier or better ways to do something that lead to more consistency. Any guess as to what the top players ask the instructors for? Believe it or not, but it is the basics. Everyone gets off base at times, starts adding little things by accident and sloppiness that become habit and throw ones game off, and that's where the instructors really shine.

Essentially, no top player is going to show anyone anything that physics can't explain. They can't rewrite the laws of the universe. Now, with that said, each of us has a unique way of accomplishing the same end result. Often times, what you see with the top players can be equated to someone reaching around their back to scratch their elbow. Sure, it works, and to them it is "natural", but wouldn't it be easier to teach someone to scratch their elbow from the front instead of the back? Just because a pro has a certain "technique" they use, doesn't mean that there isn't a simpler way of accomplishing the exact same thing.

Nothing the instructors teach will keep anyone from attaining a very high level of play. The balls don't lie. There is only so much one can do with them. Knowing the principles of that really benefits someone, not holds them back. Any good instructor can teach someone all they need to know to achieve pro ranks. Whether or not someone gets to that level is all about how they utilize that knowledge. That's on the student, not the instructor.

 

[swest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC2R84S0kiw&list=UULo0Kbj9BCnIvTPRO6NZvag&index=2&feature=plcp
Lots of evidence here.

Ok, I have assembled the 5 frames we have available to us that constitute the complete first shot (starting with the one I posted earlier which is the frame before CB strike):

Now, what is it about striking down on the ball and achieving follow that I'm supposed to take away from this?

 

[swest]

Well, I guess the motion carries.

It is nonsense to claim that all professional pool shooters shoot down on the ball.

Thanks for your participation.

 

[cookie man]

Ok, I have assembled the 5 frames we have available to us that constitute the complete first shot (starting with the one I posted earlier which is the frame before CB strike):

Now, what is it about striking down on the ball and achieving follow that I'm supposed to take away from this?

I think its obvious in the second and third picture the tip is lower than in the first, hence shooting down on the ball. Its also a follow shot and i think he is striking it at least at center cb if not slightly below center.

 

[swest]

I think its obvious in the second and third picture the tip is lower than in the first, hence shooting down on the ball. Its also a follow shot and i think he is striking it at least at center cb if not slightly below center.

In the second and third pictures the ball is gone, and his pendulum stroke is bringing his right hand up, and therefore the cue tip down.

And, in my opinion, the first image (before the cue tip strikes the CB) shows his cue tip above center.

So I guess we'll just have to disagree on what the video evidence shows.

 

[cookie man]

In the second and third pictures the ball is gone, and his pendulum stroke is bringing his right hand up, and therefore the cue tip down.

And, in my opinion, the first image (before the cue tip strikes the CB) shows his cue tip above center.

So I guess we'll just have to disagree on what the video evidence shows.

Well there surely isn't contact being made in the first picture, gap between tip and ball, and this is before contact right. Second picture shows a lower tip, put two and two together, and learn. Frame 2 has to be the contact frame.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think its obvious in the second and third picture the tip is lower than in the first, hence shooting down on the ball.

You can see his entire stick - it's at a normal level-as-possible angle.

pj
chgo

 

[swest]

Well there surely isn't contact being made in the first picture, gap between tip and ball, and this is before contact right. Second picture shows a lower tip, put two and two together, and learn. Frame 2 has to be the contact frame.

In the second frame the ball is already moving. So the tip has already struck.

Like I said, I have put two and two together, but I come up with a different answer than you have. I see nothing but a normally level stick, an ordinary pendulum stroke, and the CB struck a little above center. That there should be follow on the CB from that distance is unsurprising. I don't see him shooting down on the CB.

We will just have to disagree.

 

[John Brumback]

I advocate a (as level as you can get) stroke for good banks.Sometimes the rails on a pool table can be in the way,then you need to adapt your bridge to the shot at hand.But I stll try to shoot up through the cball as best as I can.Any good golfer knows that a putt will roll more true and better if hit up through than down on the ball. John B.

 

[Mitchxout]

I advocate a (as level as you can get) stroke for good banks.Sometimes the rails on a pool table can be in the way,then you need to adapt your bridge to the shot at hand.But I stll try to shoot up through the cball as best as I can.Any good golfer knows that a putt will roll more true and better if hit up through than down on the ball. John B.

The putter has a lofted face so there's no need to hit "up" on the ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The putter has a lofted face so there's no need to hit "up" on the ball.

And, like pool, it's also almost impossible to do.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

The putter has a lofted face so there's no need to hit "up" on the ball.

The loft puts under spin on the ball. It actually gets slightly airborne with undersipn & then comes down and skids a bit before it starts to roll. That is why many forward press the grip to de-loft the face & put less back spin on the ball. Hitting up slightly has a similiar effect on the ball by negating some of the under spin. Neither one is necessary but certainly can be advantages. The old reason for the loft on a putter was due to the less refined cut of the grass. The ball sat down a bit in the grass, hence the slight loft.

Regards,

 

[Okie]

I think the essence of the wrist problem is in locking out side motion and I wrote about it three years ago. http://billiards.colostate.edu/PBReview/ShootLikePros.htm. At the time this article was not well received by many people and I took a lot of flak. Primarily from pool instructors and others who emphasized break shots versus regular playing.

CJ talked about cocking or pre-setting the wrist with his hammer grip. This appears to be a useful concept that is used by many pro players I watched after reading his comments. It is a useful idea that could be used by many players, novice and others who had not thought of it before. I have read and reviewed many pool playing materials over the years and had not read about this idea so it is a “new” to me concept that could be quite useful when the teachers among us have given it more thought.

The idea of shooting by using the forearm muscles using downward pressure from the grip hand is also a new and interesting idea I had not read elsewhere. Here too it will take a good teacher to fully develop this idea that could be if use to students of the game.

Using the top of the cue tip to impart top spin from below center is too advanced for me as I find it confusing and do not understand how it can be useful. It seems to be a complication with tradeoffs for induced errors. But then I can’t play anywhere near as well as CJ and some of his contemporaries. A better description is needed here.

I think that CJ’s stating of these three things demonstrates that pro players have things to teach us that can be quite useful if we sort out their sometimes limited ability to state things clearly. What makes sense in one’s head does not necessarily mean that one can articulate it well. When you set aside the ego thing people like Bob Byrne and Bob Jewett, are rare people who play at a pro level and who can teach. Dave Alciatore supplements his ability (or lack of it) with assistance from pro players and his dedicated work and teaching styles are second to none.

I think that when Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave sift through CJ’s ideas they will find better ways to show others what can be accomplished. Teachers make unique contributions to our abilities. The pro often has good ideas but they often tend to muddy the waters because they simply do not have the vocabulary that is readily understood by most of us.

As a side note on the contributions teachers can make. I have long held that psychologists (and related disciplines) are in essence teachers who help others overcome difficulties in their lives. Makes little difference if one is learning to pre-cock a wrist and shoot with the adductor polis muscle or learning to stop beating one’s wife.

I have known men who were at a highly professional level (served prison time for family abuse) with regard to their ability to inflict pain and suffering on the people closest to them. They can describe it quite well including the circumstances that led up to their losing control. Their wives and children will often acknowledge the husband’s description and often agree that they are the cause because “they just did not listen” or other similar statements. The husband may have engaged in the behavior for years and no matter how “good” he is at controlling his family he just can’t stop when the law is now involved.

When a person will work with me I can usually stop the destructive behaviors and instill new “better” behaviors in a very short period of time. I can do this because I understand the theory behind it, I can speak his language, I know what needs to be done to change the family dynamics, and I know how to change the family. I am not an expert at hurting people but I do know how to change these behaviors because I am an expert at teaching. The same can be said for people like Bob Jewett, Dr. Dave and similar people when it comes to changing one’s pool playing behaviors. It doesn’t take an expert player. It does take an expert teacher who is constantly learning new ways to help people make their lives better.

Teaching is a different discipline than Playing. We need both “experts.”

Fixed link...

http://billiards.colostate.edu/PBReview/ShootLikePros.htm

Haven't finished reading yet but I am getting excited about what I am reading! Thanks Joe!

Ken

p.s. I wonder why/how I skipped over this considering the number of times I have dug through Dr. Dave's site :scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead: