Re: Dominant eye Centered over cue....

Well it's easy for you to conclude that because your own special form
happens to be pretty orthodox!  Maybe because it is the best statistically
over the long haul.  Plus, how does one really know what is best for him
unless he is basically a dominant champion?  I mean, isn't the point to
constantly try to achieve perfection?  And if so, how could someone conlcude
that a stroke full of avoidable variables is actually ok, unless they are on
top of everyone else?  I understand your mobile analogy but don't totally
agree.  I think the forearm is the most important variable, and it should be
perpendicular, and a form built around that principal.  I don't think that a
good stroke is all that beneficial if it can't be delivered with any
consistent repeatability given a bent arm, turned wrist, etc.

Deno

"lfigueroa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If so, that's just a coincidence.  I've never said to myself, "Self, I'm
> going to shoot with my forearm perpendicular, or with my cue centered, or
> under my dominant eye, or whatever."  What's way more important than
trying
> to ensure your forearm is hanging straight down, is the organic whole.
You
> can't just say I'm going to shoot with my forearm is this or that
particular
> position, because doing just that doesn't create a consistent relationship
> between your forearm and the rest of your body.
>
> That forearm is like a part of a mobile and it has to be in proper
> relationship to the other parts of the mobile for the entire mobile to be
> balanced, or in this case, produce a good stroke.
>
> The goal should be to achieve balance (good stroke) and if that means that
> the arm needs to be bent a bit here, or the wrist turn a bit there, and
> fingers just so, with the head slightly to one side, so be it.
>
> Lou Figueroa
>
> "Patrick Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Lou:
> > > That all looks good on paper, but I'd rather go by what looks good on
> the
> > > table.
> >
> > Funny you always make this point, since "what looks good on the table"
> > for you is also "what looks good on paper".  From what I've seen you
> > have textbook form.
> >
> > It may seem like you and Ron (or you and I) argue about this, but I see
> > it as just emphasizing different and compatible points:  on one hand,
> > classic form has evolved for good reasons, just as in other sports, and
> > is worth trying to emulate to whatever degree your body (or your
> > substantial investment in a non-standard form) permits -- while on the
> > other hand, it ain't necessarily best for everybody, especially those
> > who already know that a non-standard form works OK for them.
> >
> > For that matter, it's the rare player who achieves pure classic form --
> > but that doesn't negate its value as an ideal or mean its theoretical
> > advantages aren't real for those who can make it (or something close to
> > it) work.
> >
> > Pat Johnson
> > Chicago
> >
>
>
>