Earl's Elbow

PistolPat said:
It's funny that A LOT of people agree that Earl Strickland has a flaw in his stroke..but yet with this alleged flaw he's a champion of champions and a God given talented cueist.....Maybe all of US are the ones with the flawed stroke......
Click to expand...

NO its not like that.....of course Earl has tons of talent.....he plays with the best of them with a wrist twist and elbow drop.....

BUT that doesn't mean that its better.....the best thing is the mechanically most simple and stable, that would be the pendulum stroke.

Jeff Bagwell hit many homeruns taking a step BACKWARDS! Somehow such a crazy energy robbing motion worked for him, but you ain't going to see anyone much less the man himself trying to promote that type of stride when swinging a bat.

You learn correct mechanics and custom tailor it to fit you as a player since we are all diff. But the truth remains that the simplest form thats most repeatable is the way to go, I don't care if the best player does everything exactly opposite of what many of us say on here, its still the stone cold truth.

Oh but Earl does it.....NONE OF US ARE EARL

-Grey Ghost
 
Parallel cue, CB directed straight to a rail keeping with 1 tip center side english and "medium" speed. Once executed with a short follow through and once with a long one.
So aim/english/speed remain stable and the only thing changed remaings the length of follow through controlled by the robot, once short and once long resembling non drop and drop elbow techniques respectively.
A short follow through should make the CB come off the cushion at a greater angle compared to a long follow through.
If not, the physical explanation of different results obtained by the two types of strokes, still not eliminating practical value, goes to subconscious adjustment by the player.
This should do it.
Thank you,
Petros
 
Petros Andrikop said:
Parallel cue, CB directed straight to a rail keeping with 1 tip center side english and "medium" speed. Once executed with a short follow through and once with a long one.
So aim/english/speed remain stable and the only thing changed remaings the length of follow through controlled by the robot, once short and once long resembling non drop and drop elbow techniques respectively.
A short follow through should make the CB come off the cushion at a greater angle compared to a long follow through.
If not, the physical explanation of different results obtained by the two types of strokes, still not eliminating practical value, goes to subconscious adjustment by the player.
This should do it.
Thank you,
Petros
Click to expand...
I don't have the squirt robot anymore, but I can describe what would happen. If the only thing I changed were the amount of follow-through (i.e., if I had the robot hit the CB with the exact same speed at the exact same tip-contact point, and only changed how fast the robot slowed the cue down after impact), there would be absolutely no difference in how the CB moves. This I can guarantee with complete confidence.

However, I think I might have a reasonable explanation for why you have observed less English effect with the elbow-drop stroke. With the elbow-drop (long follow-through) stroke, there might be a tendency for the player to drop the elbow slightly before CB contact. If this happens, the tip will hit the CB slightly higher than the player thinks. Likewise, with a shorter follow-through, a player might have a tendency to tighten the grip slightly, which would cause the cue tip to lower some. With changes in tip contact point, there will be slight changes in swerve and drag, both of which can change the effective English reaction off the rail. Detailed explanations and demonstrations of these effects can be found here:

BTW, the changes in tip contact point also explained the effects described in Tom's April '08 article.

As you have implied, all that really matters is results. If a player can consistently and confidently achieve an effect by changing the stroke, then that's what the player should do; although, sometimes there are alternatives (e.g., just aim lower on the CB) that might be just as (or even more) consistent. I think my posts and links have sufficiently beaten this topic to death, so I'll stop now.

Regards,
Dave
 
Too bad there is no way of perfoming the test I proposed in the immediate future..
I'm not talking about the robot slowing down the cue after impact, I'm talking about releasing parallel to the table the cue at the exact same speed("medium"), direction (aim), with identical side english (1 tip center right english for e.g.) altering just how far it follows!!
I believe it's simple as a concept!
This is the ultimate purely mechanical recreation of a short and long follow through and the definite proof on the matter.
Thanks,
Petros
 
Petros Andrikop said:
... altering just how far it follows!!
I believe it's simple as a concept! ...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a simple concept.

Would it help you to know about how far the tip is on the cue ball during the stroke? What I mean by that is how far the cue stick and cue ball move while they are in contact.

I think we can all agree that what the stick does after the ball leaves the tip is not important and can have no effect on the ball. If we agree on that, then I think it leads directly to an answer to your question.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Yes, it is a simple concept.

Would it help you to know about how far the tip is on the cue ball during the stroke? What I mean by that is how far the cue stick and cue ball move while they are in contact.

I think we can all agree that what the stick does after the ball leaves the tip is not important and can have no effect on the ball. If we agree on that, then I think it leads directly to an answer to your question.
Click to expand...
I just ran some rough numbers and got about a tenth of an inch for a typical fast-speed shot. There is also some good online visual evidence in the HSV clips listed here:

Regards,
Dave
 
I'm not intersted in the exact measurement of how far the tip is on the cueball but how this affects the final outcome of the shot..
As stated already, by me and by the scientific experiments run by others, there is a minor difference in how far the tip is on the cueball between the two follow through types - short and long.
All we have to see is the effect on it of the final outcome of the shot.
The robot shot I proposed will show.
Any other conclusions without it are not enough.
Since we agree (finally but not all of us) that there is an essential difference between them from a practical point of view (in terms of execution and obtaining different outcomes in CB path - proven in action by world champions) then we have to seek the physical explanation behind it.
This shot will reveal if the minor physical differences are the only reason or subconscious adjustments from the player take up the major role in this.
I need to see it and I believe people here need to see it recorded in video.
Thank you,
Petros
 
greyghost said:
NO its not like that.....of course Earl has tons of talent.....he plays with the best of them with a wrist twist and elbow drop.....

BUT that doesn't mean that its better.....the best thing is the mechanically most simple and stable, that would be the pendulum stroke.

Jeff Bagwell hit many homeruns taking a step BACKWARDS! Somehow such a crazy energy robbing motion worked for him, but you ain't going to see anyone much less the man himself trying to promote that type of stride when swinging a bat.

You learn correct mechanics and custom tailor it to fit you as a player since we are all diff. But the truth remains that the simplest form thats most repeatable is the way to go, I don't care if the best player does everything exactly opposite of what many of us say on here, its still the stone cold truth.

Oh but Earl does it.....NONE OF US ARE EARL

-Grey Ghost
Click to expand...

The most mechanically simple is not necessarily better. If that were the case, the best pool players wouldn't even be moving their elbows, they would just be flicking their wrists to shoot the ball.

The human body was meant together, not as separate pieces like a robot. Isolating joints to make a simple motion is often more difficult than coordinating multiple joints and muscles to put out the same amount of work. If you want an example, try eating with a fork while keeping your fingers locked in one grip.

I think until there is a significant study on biomechanics and the pool stroke that conclusively says one is more consistent than the other, pendulum stroke supporters should stop touting their word as the only truth and that virtually every notable pro player in the world is wrong, but so unbelievably talented that they can get away with it.
 
Last edited:
Masayoshi said:
The most mechanically simple is not necessarily better. If that were the case, the best pool players wouldn't even be moving their elbows, they would just be flicking their wrists to shoot the ball.

The human body was meant together, not as separate pieces like a robot. Isolating joints to make a simple motion is often more difficult than coordinating multiple joints and muscles to put out the same amount of work. If you want an example, try eating with a fork while keeping your fingers locked in one grip.

I think until there is a significant study on biomechanics and the pool stroke that conclusively says one is more consistent than the other, pendulum stroke supporters should stop touting their word as the only truth and that virtually every notable pro player in the world is wrong, but so unbelievably talented that they can get away with it.
Click to expand...


The pendulum and piston are exactly the same stroke prior to CB contact.....if your doing both correctly.
 
Hi,

i agree for sure with Keebie and Neill-

facts are: If I teach/show the pendulum stroke, i also tell her/him why i recommend it. It s just simple, because you can show the student easily to use natural given mechanics of your body. Even the alignment to go into your stance and stroke with a pendulum stroke is very easy to show and further again i ll be able to instruct him here and also again i ll be able to tell him WHY it works.
No matter if he later will fall back into old habits or what ever. This kind of dicussion is getting boring- the most ppl are just too lazy to work a bit on their own. Not all-but many!
I would never *force* somebody who s shooting like hell to use a another stroke-stance or what ever. But i m allowed to ask myself or discuss with another person: Wow, how good he would be with good fundamentals and a better stroke-nothin less and nothin more.

lg from overseas,
ingo

Masayoshi said:
The most mechanically simple is not necessarily better. If that were the case, the best pool players wouldn't even be moving their elbows, they would just be flicking their wrists to shoot the ball.

The human body was meant together, not as separate pieces like a robot. Isolating joints to make a simple motion is often more difficult than coordinating multiple joints and muscles to put out the same amount of work. If you want an example, try eating with a fork while keeping your fingers locked in one grip.

I think until there is a significant study on biomechanics and the pool stroke that conclusively says one is more consistent than the other, pendulum stroke supporters should stop touting their word as the only truth and that virtually every notable pro player in the world is wrong, but so unbelievably talented that they can get away with it.
Click to expand...
 
Masayoshi said:
The most mechanically simple is not necessarily better. If that were the case, the best pool players wouldn't even be moving their elbows, they would just be flicking their wrists to shoot the ball.

The human body was meant together, not as separate pieces like a robot. Isolating joints to make a simple motion is often more difficult than coordinating multiple joints and muscles to put out the same amount of work. If you want an example, try eating with a fork while keeping your fingers locked in one grip.

I think until there is a significant study on biomechanics and the pool stroke that conclusively says one is more consistent than the other, pendulum stroke supporters should stop touting their word as the only truth and that virtually every notable pro player in the world is wrong, but so unbelievably talented that they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

1) The human body is NOT designed to play pool (or the many other highly specialized uses that people have put it to).

2) Most of the "multi-joint" actions you tout are simply programmed moves we ourselves created as children--depending on happenstance much more than ideal mechanics. There's no doubt that some people wear down joints and have aching muscles BECAUSE they had inadvertently trained their bodies to make inefficient or conflicting movements.

3) It is quite settled general sports performance dogma that precision aiming is best aided by minimizing extraneous muscle input. But it probably is true that some of the higher powered pool shots are near the area where accuracy and power may somewhat come into conflict regarding ideal form.

4) The conclusion that "most pros, who have all sorts of 'errors' in their strokes" are actually doing well IN SPITE of not using what some would call "ideal stroking" seems to have sensible argument behind it: Most older American pros learned on their own--certainly before the time when much performance knowledge was applied to pool. It's fully plausible that they became good in spite of less than ideal mechanics. ALL other sports (e.g. Olympic sports and professional sports) that have made use of insights from the field of sports performance have seemed to benefit by it--pool so far has been the exception. I do note, though, that the recent crop of Chinese/Taiwanese players all seem to show a form that was "trained" and not just picked up by playing on their own. And those players are young, but VERY good!
 
Neil said:
The goal is a straight stroke. The pros have that, no matter how they do it, they achieve the end result.

The whole goal is to have a straight stroke.

The goal is not to see how little you can move the elbow, but to see how straight you can get the cue to go.
Click to expand...

very good point Neil. This is what Tom Rossman always told me, and what i've always believed. Tom has always been more worried about stroking that cue tip straight through the contact line than what the elbow is doing.

along those lines, the nuggets i gathered from Mark Wilson and Scott Lee are as follows:

1) Wilson - strike the CB with the cue tip right where you are aiming, right at the contact point and not a hair off.
2) Lee - by keeping the elbow still and having less moving parts then its easier to do what Rossman and Wilson advocate.

thats why i still continue to do things i've learned from various instructors. most people dont think i listen, but i can 100% guarantee you that i do. i just dont seem to be able to get over the hump to that glorious next level.

Mike
 
Neil said:
Don't make the mistake of getting hung up on form that you make the ball and get perfect position 10 times in a row, but you dropped your elbow an inch or two, so you feel you have to correct that. The end results are what really counts- did you accomplish your goal repeatedly??
Click to expand...

I think my problem is two-fold:

1) The break kills me. 98% of the time i dont have any chance to run out and it just deflates my attitude and i get ticked. to me, unless you can consistently break and run racks of 9-Ball its not going to do any good to try and venture out and play in tournaments. i put in TONS of practice and i have no idea if i can consistently break and run out because 98% of the time there is no chance to run out.

2) i get fooled on where the cue ball is going, or what its going to do. as a result i get out of position. and that isnt a good thing.

Mike
 
Neil said:
1. You would be surprised at how few times a rack is run from the break overall. While necessary to put packages together, it's not necessary to win. The key is to make a ball on the break, and to at least be able to see the one. From there, you are still in control, and can play a safe if necessary. Some tables break real well, some don't. It's what you do after the break that counts.

2. That's remedied in practice. Learn Kinnisters 60 min. workout, or Target Pool, or something similar. While different tables are different, and fine tuning can change, the general principles still apply. You should never be fooled by where the cb goes after hitting the ob. Not if you hit the cb where you wanted to (biggest area to go wrong on a shot) and have been practicing position.

You have to KNOW where you hit the cb, and what speed, and then really pay attention to what happens. It all goes in the memory bank for future use.
Click to expand...


1) Very true. On an Accu-Stat tape they said Earl had broke and run 30% of the time at a tournament and that was an amazing stat.

2) I've got Kinister's 60 Minute Workout tape. problem is TONs and TONS of shots come up that are always different and i somehow get fooled on where the cueball is going to go at times. plus my speed often times is off too, which is why i work on simple speed shots during my practice routines. 1 rail, 2 rail, and 3 rail speed shots.

however, dont get me wrong. on good nights i can break and run racks. other nights, however, Helen Keller could beat me. got to get that consistency.

Mike
 
Petros Andrikop said:
I'm not intersted in the exact measurement of how far the tip is on the cueball but how this affects the final outcome of the shot..
As stated already, by me and by the scientific experiments run by others, there is a minor difference in how far the tip is on the cueball between the two follow through types - short and long.
All we have to see is the effect on it of the final outcome of the shot.
The robot shot I proposed will show.
Any other conclusions without it are not enough.
Click to expand...
You don't need a robot. All you need is a CB with markings on it (e.g., a striped ball, an Elephant Practice Ball, or a Jim Rempe Ball). Clean and line up the CB the same way before each shot. After each shot, observe the CB reaction and check the chalk mark location (i.e., tip contact point) on the CB. If the cue elevation and speed are the same (or close enough) on all shots, and the CB reaction is different, then the chalk mark will be in different positions on the ball. This will indicate that the "stroke differences" resulted in different tip contact points, for reasons I summarized earlier in the thread.

Please do this experiment. This is the exact experiment I did with Tom (see his April '08 BD article) to convince him the different "stroke types" were creating different tip contact points on the CB, even though he was sure he was aiming and hitting the CB in the same spot on each shot. He wasn't ... pre-contact elbow drop and/or grip pressure and/or wrist position changes affect the actual tip contact point and resulting CB reaction.

I hope the chalk marks give you answers you seek. I am confident they will.

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top