I find this shot and its description by commentators a bit odd.
As far as I know, the stun shot involves below centre striking and no follow through. But when I watch a game, I find the use a bit odd and when playing its a bit wierd too.
For example, when splitting the reds from the black, I find that stunning really doesn't do much for me, maybe that is cue power related. But logically, wouldn't playing through the ball be more beneficial it this instance?
Also, in general, if hitting the ball at the bottom is called screw, hitting the ball at the top with follow through is called screw and top, what is it called when you play below centre striking with follow through? Is it still a stun?
As far as I know, the stun shot involves below centre striking and no follow through. But when I watch a game, I find the use a bit odd and when playing its a bit wierd too.
For example, when splitting the reds from the black, I find that stunning really doesn't do much for me, maybe that is cue power related. But logically, wouldn't playing through the ball be more beneficial it this instance?
Also, in general, if hitting the ball at the bottom is called screw, hitting the ball at the top with follow through is called screw and top, what is it called when you play below centre striking with follow through? Is it still a stun?
Comment