What is your PSR?

[Dan White]

I agree, stroking the cue is extremely important. Both aiming and stroking are Like shooting a gun accurately or sniper rifle the aiming part is extremely important AS WELL AS the execution of trigger control with the finger and breathing so the pistol/rifle isn't jerked ever so slightly off line. BOTH have to be in sync and executed properly just like aiming and stroking for pool. Have you ever seen what snipers go through for aiming to hit a target a mile away that MUST be made to take out an enemy? There's math for distance, wind, humidity and the crosshairs have to be calibrated perfectly to fit all of the parameters or it will result in a MISS. You can't sit there and tell me aiming in pool is any less important. You wouldn't say it if you had a shot at the last ball or any balls over 11 racks like Earl did to win a million dollars.

Stroking the cue isn't an independent action all on it's own. The stance and all the other fundamentals which many check in their PSR determines the straightness and effectiveness of the stroke.


GRAVITY, DONE. (unless more is forthcoming)

My last word on gravity. First of all, the question in our discussion was never "what is gravity." I said Einstein figured out what causes gravity, ie, curvature of space. Period. Your links do litte to contradict that, much as you think they do. I also said earlier that of course everything can be defined to a greater degree at some point. I mean, using the same standard, we don't really even know what matter is made of. The people in your articles say we won't understand gravity until there is a Theory of Everything that will explain what happens in a black hole. Well, don't hold your breath.

Let's say we are both right about some things and both wrong about some things, OK?

As to the PSR, who cares what I said? It's somewhere in the thread but nothing earth shattering.

Don't obsess so much over the word, "stroke." You use that word more specifically than I do. I just say stroke as compared to aiming. To me a straight stroke requires everything from some kind of PSR to correct visual alignment for that individual, etc. Basically, everything required to deliver the cue in a straight line. IMO, the stroke is far, far more important than knowing where to aim. You can pick the right spot to send the cue ball to all day long, but if you can't deliver the ball to the spot with the cue, you will never pocket a ball. I'd say the stroke is 95% of ball pocketing, leaving english aside for the immediate discussion.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I have never said that about PSR, at least not in recent memory. What I DID say is that the ability to deliver the cue in a straight line through the cue ball is far, far more important than aiming. Stroking the cue straight can give aiming the 1-out and all the breaks.

Dan,

Did you see my thread?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=459493


Even if you have the world's straightest stroke, you're still going to miss if you aim wrong. In fact, you'll miss more. At least with a non-straight stroke, you might subconsciously compensate for poor aim.

 

[BC21]

Dan,

Did you see my thread?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=459493


Even if you have the world's straightest stroke, you're still going to miss if you aim wrong. In fact, you'll miss more. At least with a non-straight stroke, you might subconsciously compensate for poor aim.

I saw it and agree. Consistent shot making requires two parts -- Stroke and Aim -- to act in unison. With an accurate stroke and a known aim, pocketing balls is simple.

No PSR is needed to be able to pocket balls. But since pocketing balls is only half of the entire pool playing package, a great stroke and perfect aim aren't enough to complete the package. A player needs a sense of feel in order to play position, and that comes from experience and knowledge. Feeling just the right amount of speed and/or spin and having the knowledge to apply it as needed....that's the other half of the playing package.

The PSR is a useful tool that can be used to tie these two halves together in order to create a more consistent overall playing package.

 

[Dan White]

Dan,

Did you see my thread?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=459493


Even if you have the world's straightest stroke, you're still going to miss if you aim wrong. In fact, you'll miss more. At least with a non-straight stroke, you might subconsciously compensate for poor aim.

I agree with part of that. Here's my point: Grab someone off the street and put a cue in their hand...obviously someone who has never played before. I'm saying that 95% of the problem is getting them to stroke straight, and 5% in knowing where to hit it.

Let's say you could turn your body into one of the robots with perfect stroke. Now set up a table length 41.5 degree shot (or whatever) into the corner pocket with hole reinforcers. How long do you think it will take to dial in the correct aim point to pocket the ball? 1st shot a little thin, 2nd shot a little thick, 3rd shot right on, 4th shot maybe a little thin again, 5th through 1,000,000th shot right on.

I believe one of the major reasons people miss as much as they do is that they don't get consistent feedback. They are unable to deliver the cue in any consistent way, so they can't hit the aim point. This inconsistency makes it more difficult for the brain to subconsciously understand the correct aim point so that for the next shot, it just "looks right." If you have robot mechanics, then the only variable is the aim point, which you can now zero in on quickly and commit to the subconscious much more quickly.

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, but it is based on my experience and observations over the years.

 

[Dan White]

But since pocketing balls is only half of the entire pool playing package, a great stroke and perfect aim aren't enough to complete the package. A player needs a sense of feel in order to play position, and that comes from experience and knowledge. Feeling just the right amount of speed and/or spin and having the knowledge to apply it as needed....that's the other half of the playing package.

I always feel like playing with stroke problems is like driving a car with a flat tire, or missing on one cylinder. You are too busy worrying about the mechanics to enjoy the drive. If everything is running properly, then you can really appreciate the art and beauty of the game played at a high level. (Still tryin'.)

 

[BeiberLvr]

I agree with part of that. Here's my point: Grab someone off the street and put a cue in their hand...obviously someone who has never played before. I'm saying that 95% of the problem is getting them to stroke straight, and 5% in knowing where to hit it.

Let's say you could turn your body into one of the robots with perfect stroke. Now set up a table length 41.5 degree shot (or whatever) into the corner pocket with hole reinforcers. How long do you think it will take to dial in the correct aim point to pocket the ball? 1st shot a little thin, 2nd shot a little thick, 3rd shot right on, 4th shot maybe a little thin again, 5th through 1,000,000th shot right on.

I believe one of the major reasons people miss as much as they do is that they don't get consistent feedback. They are unable to deliver the cue in any consistent way, so they can't hit the aim point. This inconsistency makes it more difficult for the brain to subconsciously understand the correct aim point so that for the next shot, it just "looks right." If you have robot mechanics, then the only variable is the aim point, which you can now zero in on quickly and commit to the subconscious much more quickly.

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, but it is based on my experience and observations over the years.

Ah, but that variable is a variable in and of itself.

Depending on the condition of the balls, humidity level, the cloth, the pockets, etc. The aim point can easily change.

Is stroking straight harder than aiming? Sure. But is it far, far, far more important? Not quite.

 

[BC21]

I agree with part of that. Here's my point: Grab someone off the street and put a cue in their hand...obviously someone who has never played before. I'm saying that 95% of the problem is getting them to stroke straight, and 5% in knowing where to hit it.

Let's say you could turn your body into one of the robots with perfect stroke. Now set up a table length 41.5 degree shot (or whatever) into the corner pocket with hole reinforcers. How long do you think it will take to dial in the correct aim point to pocket the ball? 1st shot a little thin, 2nd shot a little thick, 3rd shot right on, 4th shot maybe a little thin again, 5th through 1,000,000th shot right on.

I believe one of the major reasons people miss as much as they do is that they don't get consistent feedback. They are unable to deliver the cue in any consistent way, so they can't hit the aim point. This inconsistency makes it more difficult for the brain to subconsciously understand the correct aim point so that for the next shot, it just "looks right." If you have robot mechanics, then the only variable is the aim point, which you can now zero in on quickly and commit to the subconscious much more quickly.

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, but it is based on my experience and observations over the years.

I suppose my little aiming test with my non-pool playing wife proves your point, as long as there is a well-defined aim point and we're not talking about ghostball or contact points. I mean, her stroke is so bad I had to move the CB from a 2ft distance to about a foot just to be able to compare aiming methods. With a foot separating CB from OB she was able to make a few shots, especially using specific fractional aim points vs an estimated ghostball location. She has no PSR, and with her lack of basic fundamentals it wouldn't do her any good anyway.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Let's say we are both right about some things and both wrong about some things, OK?

Agree to a stalemate? Heaven forbid! It has to be a fight to the death or nothing. LMAO As far as gravity goes, how is the "cause" of gravity on Earth explained by the curvature of space? (Ok, forget it. Jump off a 10 story balcony and you'll more than likely go in a straight line with concrete the winner)

As to the PSR, who cares what I said?

I do.

It's somewhere in the thread but nothing earth shattering.

You mean a generic version that's pretty much a cliché, right?

EDIT: I found your PSR post and here it is: "I'll give you the edited version since it's getting late:
In a standing position I look at a straight line going through the cue ball and object ball and into the rail. This gives me a reference point as I view the pocket and determine the actual shot line. This step may well not be necessary, but it is very quick and I don't see that it hurts anything at this point. Then, I place my front foot as I get down on the shot and shift into the predetermined shot line. From there is is a matter of confirming that everything (eye position, body, arm etc) is in the right position (which should be the same for every shot other than when obstructed). I take a couple of small practice strokes and make sure the grip is relaxed before taking the shot. That's most of it." END OF YOUR PSR POST.

BIG DEAL!! 98% of pool players do that and it's generic. WHAT DO YOU DO IN YOUR PSR THAT GUARANTEES YOUR STROKE TO BE STRAIGHT IN THE POSITIONING OF YOUR HEAD, BODY AND BODY ANGLE, BRIDGE LENGTH, AND DISTANCE YOUR ARM UPPER ARM-FOREARM-AND HAND IS AWAY FROM THE BODY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT DELIVERS THE STROKE.

Don't obsess so much over the word, "stroke."

I don't but you do ever since getting Mark Wilson's book. Obsession would be the apt word.

You use that word more specifically than I do. I just say stroke as compared to aiming. To me a straight stroke requires everything from some kind of PSR

Here we go around and around in a circle again. What kind of PSR? What you posted above does NOTHING to guarantee a straight stroke. What have all of your experiments provided?

Basically, everything required to deliver the cue in a straight line.

Which is WHAT? Please break it down from highly important to minutia.

IMO, the stroke is far, far more important than knowing where to aim. You can pick the right spot to send the cue ball to all day long, but if you can't deliver the ball to the spot with the cue, you will never pocket a ball. I'd say the stroke is 95% of ball pocketing, leaving english aside for the immediate discussion.

Well here's where we disagree and it doesn't require going into outer space at the speed of light for that to happen.

Picking the right spot to send the cue ball to the pocket has NEVER been a problem for anyone. That can be taught to a raw beginner in less than a minute and will not only be fairly accurate but will last for the rest of his/her life with NORMAL contact point or fractional aiming systems.

The most difficult part about aiming is how do you consistently get the FRONT side of the CB, the unseeable side, the contact side to accurately strike the right spot on the OB with the right spot on the CB. And a damn good aiming system better be in place to do it even with a pure pro stroke.

95% stroke and 5% aim is absurd as is trying to fit a blanket % to all shots. A good part of it has to do with distance between the two balls and the severity of the cut angle to a pocket. Sometimes aiming is everything and the stroke plays a small role.
You can have an 8' shot along the side rail of the table with both balls about a foot apart and there's virtually NO STROKE because it's so short. Aiming and alignment is everything.

Other times when the balls are long distances from each other with a tough cut the stroke plays the highest percentage.

And at other parts of the table with distance and cut angles somewhere in a normal to easy range stroke and aiming probably play an equal role or 50-50.

I'm certainly not discounting the importance of an accurate stroke, not by any stretch of the imagination. But we aren't even in the same constellation when you place such a low value on aiming and I don't think we'll ever agree.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I suppose my little aiming test with my non-pool playing wife proves your point, as long as there is a well-defined aim point and we're not talking about ghostball or contact points. I mean, her stroke is so bad I had to move the CB from a 2ft distance to about a foot just to be able to compare aiming methods. With a foot separating CB from OB she was able to make a few shots, especially using specific fractional aim points vs an estimated ghostball location. She has no PSR, and with her lack of basic fundamentals it wouldn't do her any good anyway.

Raw beginners like your wife who don't even have the coordination to hit a bowling ball if it was placed on the table with a wonky stroke going all over the place proves pretty much nothing other than they need only the CB and no OB to work with.

Get them to consistently stroke straight enough to pocket the CB into various pockets from all distances to develop a stroke before teaching aiming with another ball.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I saw it and agree. Consistent shot making requires two parts -- Stroke and Aim -- to act in unison. With an accurate stroke and a known aim, pocketing balls is simple.

UNLESS, there's a lot of money on the line that's at a gag level where it would hurt like hell to lose it and the nerves are jumping out of your skin.
Then nothing is simple.

No PSR is needed to be able to pocket balls. But since pocketing balls is only half of the entire pool playing package, a great stroke and perfect aim aren't enough to complete the package. A player needs a sense of feel in order to play position, and that comes from experience and knowledge. Feeling just the right amount of speed and/or spin and having the knowledge to apply it as needed....that's the other half of the playing package.

The PSR is a useful tool that can be used to tie these two halves together in order to create a more consistent overall playing package.

Otherwise, what's wrong with this post you just made? Uhhhh, not a damn thing. Right on.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Here's what posted as my psr: "Quote:

I scope the table prior to each shot, not a complete walk around everytime, but at least a view from the OB to the pocket and a quick full-table scope to make sure what I am thinking of doing is my best option. I might have a plan to shoot 4 or 5 balls really quickly and know exactly where and how to move the CB for each one, but a glance around the table between shots can sometimes reveal a better option or a previously unseen opportunity. This is also when I'm chalking my cue.

Then I stand behind the CB and imagine exactly what I intend to do, getting a feel for exactly how much speed or spin is needed. I imagine the CB striking the OB, and sometimes I even make a little suction-like click sound between my tongue and the roof of my mouth...lol...seriously. I imagine the OB going to the pocket and the CB going where I intend it to go. All of this occurs in less than about 4 or 5 seconds. Longer on more difficult or tricky shots.

Next I step into the shot, paying no attention to exactly where my feet are being placed. They go where they need to go in order for my stroke to be in tune with the alignment of the shot. As I bend over into the stance and place my bridge hand on the table, I sort of bounce the butt of the cue around loose in my hand while fine-tuning my alignment, like the waggle I do just before taking a swing at a golf ball. Sometimes my bridge is open, sometimes it's closed, and it just happens automatically depending on the shot. I don't think about it.

I stroke the cue several times with a normal grip, then take three slower strokes [2 or 3], the first two verifying my shot/aim line [typically an intuitive shot line], and the final one closing the deal. I release that final stroke and stay down until the ball hits the pocket, unless I have to move out of the way.
/QUOTE]

I read it this time never to bug you again. What you said in your first paragraph is very similar to what I do other than I'm really looking for where I want the CB to be for angles on multiple future shots.

 

[BC21]

Raw beginners like your wife who don't even have the coordination to hit a bowling ball if it was placed on the table with a wonky stroke going all over the place proves pretty much nothing other than they need only the CB and no OB to work with.

Get them to consistently stroke straight enough to pocket the CB into various pockets from all distances to develop a stroke before teaching aiming with another ball.

Years ago when my girls were around 7 and 9, I started them off by having them shoot all 15 balls into the pockets with no CB. The goal was simply to try and send each ball cleanly into the pocket without hitting the facings. By the time they could do this with consistency they had formed decent bridge hands and decent natural stances. Then we moved on to using the CB and trying to imagine a ghostball for aiming. The learning process was slow and could not hold their interest as well as dance, music, and cheerleading.

That's when I first started messing around with aiming systems, trying to find one that would help them learn to pocket balls in a more efficient manner than traditional ghostball. Ended up developing my own system, but I had already lost the girls to dance.

My experiment with my wife was not to try and teach her, but to get immediate feedback on aiming methods for someone that has no stroke. Once I got the CB and OB close enough the stroke flaws were irrelevant. From a two foot distance she could not consistently make a straight in shot with the OB sitting about 2 ft from the pocket. Moved the CB closer and she only missed a few out of 30 shots. So I use this close distance and we tried a couple of of cut shots using ghostball first then fractional aim points. She did 600% better using a known fractional aim point instead of estimating a ghostball center location. This tells me her alignment was naturally in tune as long as she had a solid aim line, if she had a decent stroke she could learn to play very quickly using known aim points instead of guessing.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So I use this close distance and we tried a couple of of cut shots using ghostball first then fractional aim points. She did 600% better using a known fractional aim point instead of estimating a ghostball center location.

And that makes 600% more sense. (just don't tell that to duckie. If you don't know what I'm talking about, he's the king of GB, but currently a ghost himself)

 

[BC21]

And that makes 600% more sense. (just don't tell that to duckie. If you don't know what I'm talking about, he's the king of GB, but currently a ghost himself)

Lol! "There's no such thing as a half ball hit!"

 

[lfigueroa]

I have never said that about PSR, at least not in recent memory. What I DID say is that the ability to deliver the cue in a straight line through the cue ball is far, far more important than aiming. Stroking the cue straight can give aiming the 1-out and all the breaks.

I agree with your sentiment however I think it goes beyond just stroking straight. You need to be able to deliver the cue accurately and consistently, at whatever point on the CB, and at whatever speed the shot and position dictate. Meaning you need to be able to strike the CB high, low, left, right, and in between at all different speeds.

Creating a PSR that delivers the cue straight through the center of the CB is easy. It's when you try and create a PSR that allows you to consistently and accurately do stuff with the CB that it gets hard.

I also agree that once you master the above aiming is an afterthought.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I agree with your sentiment however I think it goes beyond just stroking straight. You need to be able to deliver the cue accurately and consistently, at whatever point on the CB, and at whatever speed the shot and position dictate. Meaning you need to be able to strike the CB high, low, left, right, and in between at all different speeds.

Creating a PSR that delivers the cue straight through the center of the CB is easy. It's when you try and create a PSR that allows you to consistently and accurately do stuff with the CB that it gets hard.

I also agree that once you master the above aiming is an afterthought.

Lou Figueroa

Completely disagree with aiming being the afterthought. VISUALIZATION and AIMING is the FORETHOUGHT and the PSR that follows brings it all together.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Lol! "There's no such thing as a half ball hit!"

LMAO. You know duckie.

 

[Dan White]

BIG DEAL!! 98% of pool players do that and it's generic. WHAT DO YOU DO IN YOUR PSR THAT GUARANTEES YOUR STROKE TO BE STRAIGHT IN THE POSITIONING OF YOUR HEAD, BODY AND BODY ANGLE, BRIDGE LENGTH, AND DISTANCE YOUR ARM UPPER ARM-FOREARM-AND HAND IS AWAY FROM THE BODY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT DELIVERS THE STROKE.

One of the reasons I gave up responding to you is because it is too much work to untangle your blue text because you refuse to use the quote function. All you have to do is highlight the text you want to quote and then click on the quote wrap button (4th icon from the right in the menu). Then hit preview post and clean up any stray quote tags.

Regarding the above, why the double standard? You seemed to like Brian's PSR yet his didn't explain why it provides a straight stroke, either. The things I do were found through trial and error with video feedback to tell me when I am doing it right. It hasn't been easy but my stroke is straighter now and nearly, but not quite, where I want it to be.

I have had to change almost everything about my set up to get there. Some of the variable I understand better than others. There is always the thought that I'm correcting for the wrong thing and if I understand that one thing finally, then maybe I can undo all the changes. For instance, I might change my foot position, eye position and elbow in order to correct for clenching the cue at impact, causing the cue to go off line. So in that hypothetical case I am putting band aids on the problem (clenching) rather than solving the problem. Maybe if I find that clenching (or whatever) problem, the rest of the changes become unnecessary.

On the other hand, I've been at this long enough that I doubt that is the case. If there were such a problem my bet is that it is in the fingers and/or wrist. Anyhow, my feet are much more sideways to the shot now, and my right eye is now over the cue, rather than my dominant left eye. Hey, maybe I'm using CTE! :wink:

BTW, I didn't become a stroke "fanatic" after I got Wilson's book. I got Wilson's book because I was a stroke fanatic. Maybe you don't appreciate nuances in the stroke because you don't play straight pool much. I'm not perfecting my stroke only to pocket balls, but for cue ball control. I have found that small stroke errors (that you discount) have a significant enough impact on where the cue ball goes for position that it is worth fixing. BTW, my mechanics currently resemble little of what Wilson teaches in his book, but shot mechanics are not the only thing of interest in that book.

I'm certainly not discounting the importance of an accurate stroke, not by any stretch of the imagination. But we aren't even in the same constellation when you place such a low value on aiming and I don't think we'll ever agree.

I had to think about how you assign a percentage to aim vs stroke for easy or difficult shots. My conclusion is that his is the wrong way to think about it. Whether the shot is 6 inches away or 9 feet away, you still know where the cue ball has to go to pocket the ball (if you've been playing any time at all).

I think maybe we have different definitions of aim vs stroke. Example: The cue ball is in the jaws of a corner pocket and the ob is frozen to the opposite end rail at the center diamond. Tough shot, right? Let's ignore using english for this discussion. I'm saying that knowing the aim point is easy. You have to hit the spot on the rail just next to the ob to pocket it. The stroke is the problem here. You will be a bit jacked up and it is so far away and there is little margin for error so your stroke better be good. Now consider the exact same shot only move the cb to within 1 foot of the ob. Much easier to pocket because a bad stroke won't cause as much trouble from that close range. However, the aim point is the same and the difficulty of the shot doesn't change your ability to see that. You know where to send the ball from 9 feet away just as easily as you do from 1 foot away.

Here is another scenario: ob in center of table, cb in jaws of corner pocket, corner to corner straight in shot. Aim point is easy, full ball. Move the cb to within 1 foot of the ob and the shot is much easier but the difficulty in aiming the shot hasn't changed, still full ball hit.

Finally, to address your point. You said making the far side of the cb hit the contact point is the real problem with aiming. Agreed. However, I believe that training your brain to make this happen is not all that difficult in comparison to getting the stroke right. You can train to make the cb hit that contact point in fairly short order while the stroke/alignment takes years and years for most people. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but it isn't the reason people don't improve more quickly. In my first example above, the contact point was the edge of the ob, in the next example the cp was the center of the ob. Those are "objective" aim points - you can't mistake the correct aim point, yet most people can't make those shots because of a bad stroke. Every other shot is in between those two, and it just takes a little time to train yourself to see the line the cb needs to take.

I'd even go so far as to say that aiming has a lot of room for error on many shots, depending on pocket size. On a lot of shots, you can find the contact point (spot opposite the pocket on the ob), point the cue ball at that contact point, and then just change your aim a little bit thinner to pocket the ball. In not too long your brain will figure it out. If you want to speed up the process, get a copy of Poolology and it will tell you exactly where to aim the ball. It only takes a few minutes to learn the system, so you can focus on shooting the ball, not learning an aiming system so complicated it is like learning a new language.

So what do I really think aiming is? To me, aiming is knowing where you have to hit the ob (the contact point) AND ALSO knowing where to send the cb so that the back of the cb hits that spot. When you get down on a shot you can see where you want to send the cue ball. THAT process, to me, completes the aiming portion of the game. When you put the tip of the cue up to the cue ball, the rest is the stroke. At this point you know where you need the cue ball to go, but your cue might not be lined up correctly to send it there. That's a stroke problem (or call it set up, or whatever) not aiming.

Oh, that reminds me of one last thing. You are saying 50%/50% or 80%/20% or whatever aim vs stroke on a shot by shot basis (which I disagree with above). When I say the stroke is like 95% of the game, I see that 95% in terms of the difficulty it takes to become a good player over the years. (or 90% or 87.5%, I don't know exactly, but I believe it is in that ballpark.) It is simply a general estimate of what makes the game challenging.

 

[stan shuffett]

Cb back and front

Dan, don't you stand behind the CB at ball address? Wouldn't that make the front the part of the CB the part that contacts the back of the OB?

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Dan, don't you stand behind the CB at ball address? Wouldn't that make the front the part of the CB the part that contacts the back of the OB?

Stan Shuffett

I guess it just depends on your point of view. I said earlier in my post that the "far side" of the cb hits the ob. Without thinking much about the terms, the part of the cb I am looking at looks like the front to me, and the "far side" of the cue ball is the back. However, if there is a different accepted convention for this I'm happy to use it.