YES I agree a beginner will have better ball control at first using a longer foot and understand it's importance, But IMHO in the intermediate and advanced stages, I think the *more narrow foot without the extra length like the 70's Tornado* is better, because when kicking the ball around in a passing series, it's easier to get around the ball , using movements which include circling the ball, and keeping it moving faster(without having to slow your movement down to prevent/decrease the chance of throwing the ball off line by bumping it with the wider/longer clumbsy foot), changing direction, multi-times, before moving into the final step in passing the ball forward.
Plus it allows you to slice and dice the ball better using a more narrow sharper blade. I also find the running PushKick, running Bank Shot, and running goalie pass to forward, easier to do using the *more narrow and shorter 1970's foot*, mainly because you can get the smaller foot out of the way and run quicker with it, during the kick, slice kicking, running, reversing, hovering, circling manuevers, when shooting my TKO series. Now for squezzing, I think the wider foot allows you to execute those movement options better by having more on contact brushing squeeze range. I think the wider foot makes it easier to shoot a heel shot when starting from a standing position, but I think the run and gun heel shot (utilizing slice/sqeeze/kick back options) is easier to do with the smaller foot.
Anyways not to excessively agrue the point, just to elaborate a little on why I think the *1970's Tornado more narrow foot* is better, by allowing more things to be done. I equate it to using an oversized set of golf clubs for starting out , then at some point moving into the intermediate stages of your stroke, you are ready to get some finer cutting blades to peform at a higher level with more cutting ability. But once again I do shoot the back pin sqeeze (not as good as BPTUNA) and with the wider foot I believe you do have much more range utilizing that one man when staying in contact with the ball. However when I squeeze or slice it to the inside or outside man, from the middle man I prefer to have a more narrow foot/finer blades on those outside men. I can also get around the ball quicker and more error free when shooting a pull or push shot, when moving into the stroke position as there is less Foot to move around the ball.
Theres no question, if the length of the foot is longer, it's easier for a beginner to start and maintain control throughout the shot. For me it gets a little clumbsy when moving the ball around the foot when getting into strike position. The width of the foot does not make it any easier for this lateral control, it just gives them more brushing/sqeezing range when applying the final downstroking brush movement, plus it reduces the margin of error in mistriking the ball, which I agree is good for the beginner.
I also believe the longer and wider Foot used today will last longer than the 1970's foot as it's bigger and less likely to break. This is good for maintenance cost concerns. But because of the reasons mentioned above, I think the 1970's *more narrow and shorter foot*(as opposed to the current clumbsy Tornado Foot) makes the game more exciting and allows you to take it to a higher level.
BPTuna you going to Texas State ?
the wider man would definately be able to block more but on a foosball table, unlike in real life, a small foot does not mean better control, just the opposite
a beginner will do better with a wider foot and conditions which create better ball control meaning the hashing on the foot both sides, the texture of the ball, the surface of the table and the materials all these are made of
28 Replies
15539 Views