Alignment v Stroking

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Alignment v Stroking - Part 1

I think that the biggest error that most players make when trying to become more accurate players is when they presume that their missed shots are caused by poor Stroke Mechanics, while they overlook the most common and significant cause which is poor Initial Alignment.

By Initial Alignment, I basically mean the positioning of the bridge point.

If you do not get your bridge to a point + or - a millimeter or less from the required line, then you are going to have to play an off center or sweeping stroke to pocket the OB as hoped.

In fact, it is common for players to subconsciously make this stroke adjustment when they feel that the shot is not going on line. This creates tension in their swing...their brain is fighting their heart is one way to describe it. So after they miss, they recall the sense of tension in the stroke, so confusedly start practicing their stroke, blaming their wrist action or some other aspect of stroke mechanics which is usually just a symptom of their poor Initial Alignment.

So to establish some proof for my contention, I set up a test as diagrammed below.

A mechanical bridge was wedged into position as shown. A piece of chalk sat under the rail as a firm point to keep the bridge from moving. CB and OB were put into positions that lined up for pocketing to the corner. Once established, I tapped the balls into place marked by a cross on the cloth. Hence I could replace the balls to almost identical positions each shot.

Using the bridge, fixed in place, my stroking did not feel very stable, yet I was able to pocket this shot 20 times in a row with very little variation in the pocketing accuracy. Not a single time did the OB hit the jaw.

Now I could make this shot miss by striking deliberately with english, but the point is, that it's not hard to hit the CB center ball accurately enough to provide satisfactory accuracy for most shots on the table.

The hard part is getting the bridge hand in perfect position for the shot...that is, to align perfectly.
Bridge_Placement_test.JPG
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Josh Palmer said:
Colin...you have wayyyyy too much time on your hands... but I'm glad!:D

Thanks Josh,
It's been a while since I had the time or energy to produce some technical articles and diagrams.

Hope they help some players and also hope they stimulate interesting discussion that leads to better - clearer insights.

* Just in case anyone tells me to practice real pool- don't worry, I'm getting regular practice in with my table 6 feet away. I can't hit hard shots late at night so it gives me a chance to work on these systems :D
 

Gerry

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well written Colin!.....I have recently fixed a longtime alignment issue with my stroke, and I'm playing at a much higher gear because of it. Now the only time I miss is when I forget to run thru my preshot routine, and get properly aligned...


Gerry
 

RSB-Refugee

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Colin Colenso said:
Using the bridge, fixed in place, my stroking did not feel very stable, yet I was able to pocket this shot 20 times in a row with very little variation in the pocketing accuracy. Not a single time did the OB hit the jaw.

Now I could make this shot miss by striking deliberately with english, but the point is, that it's not hard to hit the CB center ball accurately enough to provide satisfactory accuracy for most shots on the table.
It seems the first paragraph supports the BHE theory. The second one, contradicts it. I am not really trying to make a statement here, just bringing up a question. Do you feel, your experiment supports BHE?

Tracy
 

CaptainJR

Shiver me timbers.
Silver Member
Colin Colenso said:
Alignment v Stroking - Part 1

If you do not get your bridge to a point + or - a millimeter or less from the required line, then you are going to have to play an off center or sweeping stroke to pocket the OB as hoped.

Sorry, but I laughed so hard when I saw this. Not because it is wrong, but because it is right. And I've been saying it is right on here for a long time.

I'll do a "If/than" on this.

If - this statement it true.

Than - All this 1/4 ball stuff is bologna.
 

tedkaufman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Colin, I agree wholeheartedly with your basic premise, that misalignment will induce stroke anomalies. However, I assert alignment is a vital and fundamental part of mechanics. Proper mechanics are based on proper alignment.

If a player's plane line (which I define as the rear foot, bridge hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder and eye line) is not aligned to the target line, or aim line, he must make a stroke compensation to deliver the cue to the target line, or miss the shot. If any part of the plane is off kilter, the player must make a compensatory adjustment in stroking.

Two great examples of this are Bustamante and Varner. Both are technically misaligned when they address the cueball, yet make an adjustment during delivery. They achieve shotmaking success because they are consistent in the alignment of their eyes and bridgehand, as you contend, and manage somehow to consistently bring the cue on plane for delivery.
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
RSB-Refugee said:
It seems the first paragraph supports the BHE theory. The second one, contradicts it. I am not really trying to make a statement here, just bringing up a question. Do you feel, your experiment supports BHE?

Tracy
Tracy,
You bring up an important issue by mentioning BHE.

If in fact I had the appropriate pivot length and hit at the appropriate speed, then yes, I still would have made this shot hitting to the side of the CB.

However, through quite a lot of experimenting I have found that most shots which are played with low to medium speed, with bridge lengths from 10"-16" on shot lengths under 5', the squirt is not enough to cancel out the directional change of the cue and the spin induced throw on contact.

So on most shots, if you align correctly through to the center of the CB, and then strike to the right of that point applying english, the result will be for the OB to be deflected left of the original aim. And vice versa. This is why so many players get away with aligning thick and pulling across to make most of their shots.

This is especially true if there is elevation on the shot as there was the way I set it up using the mechanical bridge.

BHE really comes into use (cancels out effects) on quite firm shots generally speaking.

btw: All this naturally leads to the question of why should we look at the OB on delivery. I had no use for looking at the OB during this test. I looked only at the CB so I could see if I was hitting it centrally. If I'd have looked at the OB, it would help me nought, but to perhaps second guess and make an incorrect adjustment in my stroke.
 
Last edited:

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
tedkaufman said:
Colin, I agree wholeheartedly with your basic premise, that misalignment will induce stroke anomalies. However, I assert alignment is a vital and fundamental part of mechanics. Proper mechanics are based on proper alignment.

If a player's plane line (which I define as the rear foot, bridge hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder and eye line) is not aligned to the target line, or aim line, he must make a stroke compensation to deliver the cue to the target line, or miss the shot. If any part of the plane is off kilter, the player must make a compensatory adjustment in stroking.

Two great examples of this are Bustamante and Varner. Both are technically misaligned when they address the cueball, yet make an adjustment during delivery. They achieve shotmaking success because they are consistent in the alignment of their eyes and bridgehand, as you contend, and manage somehow to consistently bring the cue on plane for delivery.

Good point Ted,
Yes, it is a mechanical process to position oneself so that the eyes can guide the bridge into an accurate position.

It is startling to watch a player like Ronnie O'Sullivan smoothly slap his bridge hand down into perfect position with hardly a hint of any adjustment. His first guess is usually so close to perfect that any small twisting of the bridge hand is unnoticeable. That's what you get from thousands of hours of practice, great mechanics in taking stance and great visual perception of the line and angles.

However, the main reason I am pointing this out, is that nearly every player I watch, even some pro-level players, think the blame for some of their bad misses comes from the accuracy of their stroke delivery, when in many cases it was due to not being properly aligned with the bridge hand.

Without doubt, we can and often do miss shots when we are aligned properly and by nervous habit, doubt or second guessing we sweep the cue on delivery.

My major point really is, that if we really want to stroke to our aim point on the CB, it is not that hard to do so accurately enough to make 99% of the shots that we consider makeable percentage shots in a game. But we may only be able to align accurately enough to make 80% of them.

So by confusing the symptom for the cause, most players are left in a quandry as to the reason they are missing most shots, especially as by looking at the OB on delivery, they are basically encouraging themselves to make adjustments on delivery, changing the path from their initial alignment.

Many players of course have proven this method of adjusting on delivery can work, but many play for years, enduring endless frustration, not realizing the real causes for them missing pots, and hence having an ineffective solution to improving.
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CaptainJR said:
Sorry, but I laughed so hard when I saw this. Not because it is wrong, but because it is right. And I've been saying it is right on here for a long time.

I'll do a "If/than" on this.

If - this statement it true.

Than - All this 1/4 ball stuff is bologna.

I don't think this discounts the houlian type aiming systems, though I prefer a more traditional type of aiming system.

btw: What is it with the 'then' and 'than' usage of Americans? Do you guys use it back to front? Or is it pronounced the same over there, like I heard some Americans pronounce merry, marry and mary all the same way, while we have 3 clearly different vowel sounds for these words.

Just curious, not being a grammar git:p :D
 

Chris

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Colin Colenso said:
Tracy,
You bring up an important issue by mentioning BHE.

If in fact I had the appropriate pivot length and hit at the appropriate speed, then yes, I still would have made this shot hitting to the side of the CB.

However, through quite a lot of experimenting I have found that most shots which are played with low to medium speed, with bridge lengths from 10"-16" on shot lengths under 5', the squirt is not enough to cancel out the directional change of the cue and the spin induced throw on contact.

So on most shots, if you align correctly through to the center of the CB, and then strike to the right of that point applying english, the result will be for the OB to be deflected left of the original aim. And vice versa. This is why so many players get away with aligning thick and pulling across to make most of their shots.

This is especially true if there is elevation on the shot as there was the way I set it up using the mechanical bridge.

BHE really comes into use (cancels out effects) on quite firm shots generally speaking.

btw: All this naturally leads to the question of why should we look at the OB on delivery. I had no use for looking at the OB during this test. I looked only at the CB so I could see if I was hitting it centrally. If I'd have looked at the OB, it would help me nought, but to perhaps second guess and make an incorrect adjustment in my stroke.

What is BHE? From context, it seems to be related to the "pivot point" at which (supposedly) squirt is cancelled by the lateral motion of the CB due to the side spin of the shot, but I'm not clear on what this relationship is.
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Chris said:
What is BHE? From context, it seems to be related to the "pivot point" at which (supposedly) squirt is cancelled by the lateral motion of the CB due to the side spin of the shot, but I'm not clear on what this relationship is.
BHE = Back Hand English

Which is also sometimes called Aim and Pivot.

Though Back Hand English is specifically for aiming Center Ball First and then pivoting the back hand to apply english.

Some aim and pivot systems align off center and then hit center ball.

Here are some threads on BHE - Pivoting:The first may be the most relevant to your question:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21782

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=24148
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=20648

[edit]- Here's the one I was really looking for and just found:
System to Compensate for Squirt and Throw
 
Last edited:

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
I agree Colin...

I went through a period where I thought that all of my errors were due to not executing proper stroke on the missed shots. But many times the problem was actually not trusting my aim because I subconsciously knew that my aimline was off. Aimline is one of the most important things in potting balls.

This is exactly why using an accurate aiming system is important when practicing and when learning...

Because if you just go by feel when learning and practicing it is impossible to know whether you are missing because of poor stroke mechanics or you are using poor stroke mechanics because you are out of alignment....
 

supergreenman

truly addicted
Silver Member
Sounds like you're working on your thesis there Colin, we're going to have to start calling you dr. calculator. Alignment is the first thing I check when balls start running funny on me. Even when they aren't and I'm faced with a difficult or a long shot, I'll align my cue and then step into my stance using the alignment of the cue.

You need a website blog or something to publish all your findings.

Thanks, for sharing.
 

CaptainJR

Shiver me timbers.
Silver Member
Colin Colenso said:
I don't think this discounts the houlian type aiming systems, though I prefer a more traditional type of aiming system.

btw: What is it with the 'then' and 'than' usage of Americans? Do you guys use it back to front? Or is it pronounced the same over there, like I heard some Americans pronounce merry, marry and mary all the same way, while we have 3 clearly different vowel sounds for these words.

Just curious, not being a grammar git:p :D


Than was a typo s/b then. And they are pronounced differently. However the merry marry and Mary thing is true. They are all pronounced the same around here.

As far as the aiming systems, I've been saying all along that they just aren't accurate enough. The only way they can work is if the user uses them to get close and then subconsciously makes corrections to how much they are off. You talk about "+ or - a millimeter or less", it certainly does discount anything that talks about the large difference between 1/4 and 1/2 a ball.
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CaptainJR said:
As far as the aiming systems, I've been saying all along that they just aren't accurate enough. The only way they can work is if the user uses them to get close and then subconsciously makes corrections to how much they are off. You talk about "+ or - a millimeter or less", it certainly does discount anything that talks about the large difference between 1/4 and 1/2 a ball.
That is pretty much how I see it too!

I've read some who use these systems say that they make adjustments for in between angles and others who don't think they are.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll get to a thread soon enough where the topic is aiming systems.:D
 
Last edited:

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
supergreenman said:
Sounds like you're working on your thesis there Colin, we're going to have to start calling you dr. calculator. Alignment is the first thing I check when balls start running funny on me. Even when they aren't and I'm faced with a difficult or a long shot, I'll align my cue and then step into my stance using the alignment of the cue.

You need a website blog or something to publish all your findings.

Thanks, for sharing.
Hi Supergreenman,
I've created a section on my blog at http://calcul8r.blogharbor.com/blog/PoolTechnicalWritings where I will record these articles for easy reference.

I've probably written about 20+ threads along similar related technical / instructional topics here, but it's hard to find them easily now.

I'll gradually add more and more articles there and hope it can provide a handy reference. The feedback I receive here is very helpful and has helped me overcome several misconceptions I started with a couple of years ago.
 

CaptainJR

Shiver me timbers.
Silver Member
Colin Colenso said:
That is pretty much how I see it too!

I've read some who use these systems say that they make adjustments for in between angles and others who don't think they are.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll get to a thread soon enough where the topic is aiming systems.:D


I'm sorry if it seemed like I was hijacking your thread an turning it into an aiming system thread. I really wasn't. What you're bringing up here 'alignment being off' is so true. It is the reason why I have been so non-negotiable about these approximation aiming systems. Your aiming system is what your alignment is based on. If you're not using one that at least has the potential to be correct in every situation, then your alignment is going to be wrong at least some of the time. But your alignment should never be wrong on purpose, which it would be if you thought 1/4 of a ball was right when it actually should have been 5/16 of a ball. God help them if the run across a triple shimmed table.
alignment = aiming, sort of, I think, maybe, well I guess not. But certainly very dependent.
 
Top