High Rake or No Rake?

[Big Splash!]

Bridge shoulder down on the deck of up in the air? We know what most WS coaches will advise. But I'm like yarp but like no yarp. Hmmm

[jimmymoller]

Does this bloke ever speak or write in English?

[GeordieDS]

Does this bloke ever speak or write in English?

Air dried English innit

[Big Splash!]

Air dried English innit

I go to bed, and you're tag teamin em. Relentless. :biggrin-new:

Anyhoo, the reason I've raised this topic is because coaches will advise L shoulder down and getting the cue as parallel to the table as possible. But I'm thinking that the two players who stand out over the last 5 yrs both have their shoulder off the deck (and one of em is the greatest of all time), so they're raking quite high. Is the so called accuracy of Trump/Robertson/Murphy modern technique actually inferior in terms of overall game?

[Big Splash!]

I go to bed, and you're tag teamin em. Relentless. :biggrin-new:

Anyhoo, the reason I've raised this topic is because coaches will advise L shoulder down and getting the cue as parallel to the table as possible. But I'm thinking that the two players who stand out over the last 5 yrs both have their shoulder off the deck (and one of em is the greatest of all time), so they're raking quite high. Is the so called accuracy of Trump/Robertson/Murphy modern technique actually inferior in terms of overall game?

^bump due to the spam.

[djax]

Bridge shoulder down on the deck of up in the air? We know what most WS coaches will advise. But I'm like yarp but like no yarp. Hmmm

Well Splash, despite the other comments, I'm going to take your ask in good faith. Based on my recent re-positioning trials (brought about because of arthritis in the elbow) I am having more success with a lower bridge shoulder. Getting back to where I used to be. As with everything though, there always seems to be a price to pay? My neck very quickly becomes painful, if on a decent run.

[DeanH]

I go to bed, and you're tag teamin em. Relentless. :biggrin-new:

Anyhoo, the reason I've raised this topic is because coaches will advise L shoulder down and getting the cue as parallel to the table as possible. But I'm thinking that the two players who stand out over the last 5 yrs both have their shoulder off the deck (and one of em is the greatest of all time), so they're raking quite high. Is the so called accuracy of Trump/Robertson/Murphy modern technique actually inferior in terms of overall game?

why didn't you say that in the first place?
"raking" not heard that term in snooker
cue as parallel as possible (with bridge shoulder low), is the usual suggest best method (especially for a beginner) but as you say here (and elsewhere) more proficient players move away from the "suggested stance" (and some will have a high shoulder) as best that fits their personal choice/comfort/etc.
As with most thing snooker-related, one-size does not fit all; as it always comes down to personal comfort and choice

I personally can not get the bridge shoulder very low due to physical issues and if I try, it becomes painful

[Big Splash!]

Well Splash, despite the other comments, I'm going to take your ask in good faith. Based on my recent re-positioning trials (brought about because of arthritis in the elbow) I am having more success with a lower bridge shoulder. Getting back to where I used to be. As with everything though, there always seems to be a price to pay? My neck very quickly becomes painful, if on a decent run.

I feel that there may be some age related benefit in a higher shoulder; like Ronnie/Selby, i.e. the cue being more raked. Outright potting wise, Robbo/Trump can't be beat but I'm wondering what happens with age. I recently brought up the Hendry foot-in-line taxation on the body over time. I found yesterday that adopting a forearm down but shoulder slightly raised led to higher raking but bizarrely, better alignment of maybe half a ball over 12ft. This brings the cue inwards a tad. Now if I was 20 and could achieve the same alignment with foot-in-line and with the L shoulder down; ideal. But I'm not at an ideal age. So I'm playing with things, noting that Ronnie is still potting em pretty natural and without too much strain on his muscles/joints and I'm thinking about this for the next decade of play. I'd rather adjust to a different style, than get so frustrated that I can't do as well what I did at 20 and burn my cue (that would be a natural air-wood-fire in the outdoors of course).

[Byrom]

Can't do what you could when u where 20 BS?

Join the club - it takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.

I use my shoulder as like a extra locking point to stop unwanted head movement and aid consistency - a tip I nicked from the great Terry D. as with anything one size does not fit all when it comes to technique. That one worked for me tho I felt.

[Big Splash!]

Can't do what you could when u where 20 BS?

Join the club - it takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.

I use my shoulder as like a extra locking point to stop unwanted head movement and aid consistency - a tip I nicked from the great Terry D. as with anything one size does not fit all when it comes to technique. That one worked for me tho I felt.

There's a song in your words somewhere I think. Yeah, just doing box splits with the offspring. They kick like Chloe and Grace, I'm kicking like a mule. Need more flex. I too, used to use the shoulder to anchor myself down, it's a great trick. But I'm losing half a ball of accuracy with it when the result should be opposite. Alignment is off I guess.

[tedisbill]

I'd love to see the spreadsheet you've got working out how you know you lose half a ball of accuracy.

I never change my technique and sometimes I can't miss, and sometimes I can't pot a ball.

In order to find out how accurate one tiny change in my technique was, I'd have to change it, stick with it, and record my pot success over 3 months, and compare it with my pot success over the previous 3 months.

[Big Splash!]

I'd love to see the spreadsheet you've got working out how you know you lose half a ball of accuracy.

I never change my technique and sometimes I can't miss, and sometimes I can't pot a ball.

In order to find out how accurate one tiny change in my technique was, I'd have to change it, stick with it, and record my pot success over 3 months, and compare it with my pot success over the previous 3 months.

It's not strictly about missing or potting. One session is an outlier. Hence why I've boosted the topic here.

[tedisbill]

It's not strictly about missing or potting. One session is an outlier. Hence why I've boosted the topic here.

Ok. Let us know in 3 months how you're getting on.

[ace man]

Ok. Let us know in 3 months how you're getting on.

I think it is very hard to truly commit to any technical change. Once the initial positive placebo effect starts to wear off people may panic and revert to their old technique, or even worse, try something else...forget their old technique altogether and get lost for a while. For us club guys who are not ton breakers, this is especially true. It is also very hard to stop tinkering with technique for some players. The urge can be irresistible. I try not to be that guy.

[tedisbill]

I think it is very hard to truly commit to any technical change. Once the initial positive placebo effect starts to wear off people may panic and revert to their old technique, or even worse, try something else...forget their old technique altogether and get lost for a while. For us club guys who are not ton breakers, this is especially true. It is also very hard to stop tinkering with technique for some players. The urge can be irresistible. I try not to be that guy.

Yes. There are certain things that are important that all (most) good players do. After that, it's just hours of practice to engrain your own technique.