Is a Straight Stroke All That Important?

[Patrick Johnson]

The CB will squirt differently but not necessarily go in different directions. With both strokes you can hit the same spot on CB to make the same shot. Your aimpoint might be a little different.

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

If both strokes are straight and you hit the same spot on the CB both times, you must hit the CB at the same angle or the CB will go in different directions.

To put it another way:

You cannot hit the same spot with a straight stroke but from a different angle and make the CB go in the same direction.

pj
chgo

 

[Jaden]

no they're not...

If there's a difference between a swoop and backhand english, it must be that a backhand english stroke is straight. Then what's the difference between backhand english and "parallel" english? They're both a straight stroke through the same bridge, right?

pj
chgo

In parallel english, the bridge is shifted parallel to the original aim line. The only time that it works is with a LD shaft.

It still doesn't work on longer shots without some minimal adjustment.

That's why the pivot point on a LD shaft is farther back, because you're pivoting from farther back, you are closer to shifting parallel to the original aim line.

Jaden

 

[Jal]

PJ,

...With a straight stroke the direction of force is the direction the stick is moving.

Pretty much, but when the contact point is off center, the direction of force is along the cueball's initial direction (i.e., it differs from the cue's pre-impact direction by the squirt angle).

Therefore there are two differences. One, we reach the miscue limit slightly sooner with backhand english. Two, since the effective distance from the center axis of the cue ball to a point at a right angle to the cue ball's primary path is greater, backhand english generates slightly more spin for the same offset.

Very true (but the operative word is slightly). However, for a given desired cueball direction, I think it's pretty clear that you can generate the same amount of spin with either method...and with the same miscue limit (see Patrick's diagram linked to earlier).

...The line of force using a swoop is substantially different than the line of force using parallel english when hitting the cue ball in the same spot.

Hu, I don't think the numbers bear this out. They show that for a moderately hit cueball (approx. lag speed), while applying half of maximum english (1/4 radius tip offset), to get enough sideways speed on the tip before contact to merely negate squirt, you'd have to accelerate almost the entire mass of the cue sideways - say, by flicking the wrist - to a speed approaching break speeds, and in a time period much shorter than it normally takes to get a cue up to break speed. And the only gain in spin from this would be the slight difference in going from squirt to no squirt (a percentage point or two), which also means the line of force would be only slightly different. At greater tip offsets, greater cueball speeds, or to generate substantially more spin, the task becomes even more daunting.

And, after all that, you're still limited by the miscue limit, which is limited by the coefficient of static friction, which limits the maximum spin/speed ratio, which is the same no matter what method of attack you use.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In parallel english, the bridge is shifted parallel to the original aim line. The only time that it works is with a LD shaft.

It still doesn't work on longer shots without some minimal adjustment.

That's why the pivot point on a LD shaft is farther back, because you're pivoting from farther back, you are closer to shifting parallel to the original aim line.

Jaden

How do you reconcile the two statements in blue above? How can you "shift parallel" and also pivot?

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

If both strokes are straight and you hit the same spot on the CB both times, you must hit the CB at the same angle or the CB will go in different directions.

To put it another way:

You cannot hit the same spot with a straight stroke but from a different angle and make the CB go in the same direction.

pj
chgo

Pat:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think with a high-enough deflection shaft, you *can* hit the cue ball in the same spot, but at different angles, and have the cue ball travel down the same line. That is to say, you can shoot the cue ball down a line with a center-axis hit. Then, slide your body over a bit either to the left or to the right, and hit the exact same spot on the cue ball, and the deflection of the shaft alone can squirt the cue ball down the same line.

An exaggeration of this is demonstrated in Mike Page's video about deflection; fast-forward to 6:00 in the video (this link will do just that):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mXJ7bDafTms#t=6m

Obviously, the vice-grips on the ferrule exaggerates the deflection, but if one knows the exact deflection characteristics of his/her cue, it *is* possible to position oneself whereby an off-angle shot with squirt sends the cue ball down the same line as a center-axis hit -- and the cue ball was hit in exactly the same spot on both shots.

Am I missing something?
-Sean

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think with a high-enough deflection shaft, you *can* hit the cue ball in the same spot, but at different angles, and have the cue ball travel down the same line. That is to say, you can shoot the cue ball down a line with a center-axis hit. Then, slide your body over a bit either to the left or to the right, and hit the exact same spot on the cue ball, and the deflection of the shaft alone can squirt the cue ball down the same line.

An exaggeration of this is demonstrated in Mike Page's video about deflection; fast-forward to 6:00 in the video (this link will do just that):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mXJ7bDafTms#t=6m

Obviously, the vice-grips on the ferrule exaggerates the deflection, but if one knows the exact deflection characteristics of his/her cue, it *is* possible to position oneself whereby an off-angle shot with squirt sends the cue ball down the same line as a center-axis hit -- and the cue ball was hit in exactly the same spot on both shots.

Am I missing something?
-Sean

That would be a cue with a 0" pivot point.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hu:
...The line of force using a swoop is substantially different than the line of force using parallel english when hitting the cue ball in the same spot.

Jim:
Hu, I don't think the numbers bear this out.

Jim, I don't follow your numbers, but I have a conceptual question about swoop strokes.

A swoop stroke results in the tip contacting the CB while moving in a direction (at least slightly) not parallel with the cue - i.e., if we drew a line from the tip in the direction the tip is moving it would point farther from the CB's center than the stick is pointing.

This means that, compared with a straight stroke in the direction the tip is moving, the sideways force on the cue produced by the rotating surface of the cue ball should be a little more parallel to the cue. My instinct tells me this would result in more squirt (because more end mass would be "involved").

Does that sound right to you?

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

That would be a cue with a 0" pivot point.

pj
chgo

PJ:

"Technically," yes. But I'm sure the deflection characteristics of a normal maple shaft can be exaggerated (or "enhanced") by choking up on the bridge length? By using a shorter bridge, I'm betting it's a trivial matter to find the proper angle that, when struck on the same spot on the cue ball as a center axis hit, there'd be enough squirt on the cue ball to send it down the same line as that center axis hit, albeit the cue ball will have spin.

Agree or no?
-Sean

 

[cookie man]

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

If both strokes are straight and you hit the same spot on the CB both times, you must hit the CB at the same angle or the CB will go in different directions.

To put it another way:

You cannot hit the same spot with a straight stroke but from a different angle and make the CB go in the same direction.

pj
chgo

Why Not? Take BHE and parallel english, same spot but cue is coming from a different angle and CB goes in the same direction.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Take BHE and parallel english, same spot but cue is coming from a different angle and CB goes in the same direction.

With a straight stroke BHE and "parallel" english are identical. "Parallel" is the wrong word to use.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

With a straight stroke BHE and "parallel" english are identical. "Parallel" is the wrong word to use.

pj
chgo

Not really. There is a slightly different bridge position so BHE would bring the cue in from a slight angle to hit the same spot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There is a slightly different bridge position so BHE would bring the cue in from a slight angle to hit the same spot.

Why is there a slightly different bridge position?

pj
chgo

 

[Luxury]

I always liked it when Danny D would comment that he would shoot a certain shot and when the pro would choose something different he would comment, "Well he shoots straighter than I do so he chose the right shot for him."

He wouldn't say better. Just straighter.

 

[softshot]

Almost no one with an elbow drop has a TRULY straight stroke. Almost NO ONE.

fixed that for ya..

the elbow is a hinge it can only move in a straight line..

the shoulder is a ball and socket joint .. it's nearly impossible to move your shoulder in a straight line.

I'm not saying you can't play with an elbow drop.. but it's a lot easier without.

every single player without an elbow drop.. and with a relaxed wrist and grip has a perfectly straight stroke.. it's impossible not to

 

[lfigueroa]

I spent way too much time in the past missing balls and then having no idea what went wrong when I did miss. I was the typical pool player, having the whatever felt right at the time mechanics. If I was missing a lot of shots I would adjust this or that. Or I would conclude that my aim was off, which a lot of times it probably was since I wasn't getting the proper feedback since I didn't have rock solid fundamentals. Now that my fundamentals have gotten better (huge part of this is a straight stroke) and I've burned into my memory how this stroke feels, I can now feel why I miss.

I know the OP is specifically about the straight stroke and not about fundamentals overall so with that in mind I recall what Johnny Archer said in a recent podcast. He was talking about the straight stroke and how working on that is about the only drill that he does. He shoots a shot and pays close attention to his finish position, making sure that he is stroking straight. He also mentioned that he believed that Francisco Bustamante had one of the straightest deliveries of any player on the planet. I've heard several other pros recently say a very similar thing about how they focus on straight cueing.

Jesse Allred made a very compelling post about cueing a while back here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3328621#post3328621

Here's what he said if you don't want to follow the link:

"I think the misconception happens because talented players can overcome not having sound form and stroke principles with disgusting amounts of practice and competition. I don't like the term fundamental either because it has multiple meanings.

I spent 10 years gambling and playing every waking moment after dropping out of school at 13 years old using a form and stroke that wasn't " fundamentally" correct and it kept me from getting past a certain level and the progress stopped. A couple sessions with a coach to "fix" bobbing elbow, inward arm, rear hand too far forward, bridge hand too loose, head raising, stance wrong, eye pattern backwards, crooked stroke..etc, 6 months of doing nothing but drills on my form and stroke without a single recreational game and the jeers from the gamblers I stopped playing with and painful countless hours spent learning the new stroke in front of a mirror and camera and

I went from being an average player to winning $7,000 the first month back playing, two big regional tournament wins, suddenly winning 90% of the weekly tournaments and being one of the top players everywhere I moved from then on.

If anyone asks me if they can get past the "amateur" level without fixing issues that make sense to the pool form and stroke ("fundamentals") I have to stop myself from choking with laughter. Those that do become world class without it have an extra level that the majority of us can't attain without a lifetime of practice. Just because those special exceptions can do it doesn't make fundamentals a myth."

Now maybe he's not talking specifically about a "Straight Stroke" but I would imagine that's a least a major part of it. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much all I care about.

I think, if you are a pro, or pool is that big a part of your life, maybe then the pursuit of a super straight stoke is just that important.

But how many of us a fit that criteria?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I always liked it when Danny D would comment that he would shoot a certain shot and when the pro would choose something different he would comment, "Well he shoots straighter than I do so he chose the right shot for him."

He wouldn't say better. Just straighter.

I've always thought that different strokes gives afferent players different tools, or shots, in their bag of tricks. For some guys, hitting a shot with a lot of inside is easy. For others, power follows, or maybe draws look like hangers. Others have the little sideways motions of the CB down pat. And I think of that a lot of that is dependent on the stroke you have, or don't have.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Masayoshi]

Almost no one has a TRULY straight stroke. Almost NO ONE.

Therefore, regardless of what we discuss theoretically, one's advancement in this game is in direct proportion to how they manage inherent imperfections: learning how to "play" your imperfect stroke "consistently."

People often think they stroke straight. They don't. They merely stroke "straight enough." Earl and Hopkins have the straightest strokes I've ever seen, imo.

So, while we all agree straight strokes are the nirvana of pool --- very, very, very, very few ever really achieve that. Those who don't, however, might still be able to spot you the 5-out. There really isn't any correlation between playing ability and having a laser-straight stroke (straight strokes play well; but, crooked strokes can still play super well and are not guaranteed to be dogs).

Super consistent imperfect stroke = straight stroke (players learn to make the required adjustment)

Check out Yukio Akagariyama (especially in the last year). Imho, he has one of the straightest strokes in the world.

 

[Maniac]

Check out Yukio Akagariyama (especially in the last year). Imho, he has one of the straightest strokes in the world.

Seldom on AZB do people like to mention the women when this type of subject arises, but how in the heck can one not mention Allison Fisher's stroke when talking about those with the straightest???

Maniac (gives credit where credit is due, regardless of gender)

 

[ShootingArts]

just a little confusion as to at what point we are talking about direction of force

Pretty much, but when the contact point is off center, the direction of force is along the cueball's initial direction (i.e., it differs from the cue's pre-impact direction by the squirt angle).


Very true (but the operative word is slightly). However, for a given desired cueball direction, I think it's pretty clear that you can generate the same amount of spin with either method...and with the same miscue limit (see Patrick's diagram linked to earlier).

Hu, I don't think the numbers bear this out. They show that for a moderately hit cueball (approx. lag speed), while applying half of maximum english (1/4 radius tip offset), to get enough sideways speed on the tip before contact to merely negate squirt, you'd have to accelerate almost the entire mass of the cue sideways - say, by flicking the wrist - to a speed approaching break speeds, and in a time period much shorter than it normally takes to get a cue up to break speed. And the only gain in spin from this would be the slight difference in going from squirt to no squirt (a percentage point or two), which also means the line of force would be only slightly different. At greater tip offsets, greater cueball speeds, or to generate substantially more spin, the task becomes even more daunting.

And, after all that, you're still limited by the miscue limit, which is limited by the coefficient of static friction, which limits the maximum spin/speed ratio, which is the same no matter what method of attack you use.

Jim

Jim,

Concerning direction of force, our only confusion is we are talking about two different things. I am talking about direction of force when we stroke the cue stick, you are talking about the direction of force for the cue ball which has of course been modified by several factors including the off center hit.

Afraid we have a larger difference of viewpoint about a swoop or swipe being possible at the cue ball. Mechanically it can be done. After years of working in R&D and Design Engineering I have learned when the math and theory don't match what is happening it is the math and theory that is in error. One of those things, I know that a perfectly timed swoop or swipe makes the cue ball behave radically different coming off a rail than you can get with simple english of any type. In one respect I don't actually care why as far as the physics and math involved, the real question is does it work? With this stroke it is a pretty mixed bag, it works executed properly. This shot is used to deal with a lot of congestion around a pocket with very little cue ball travel, maybe a foot or two total. I have executed it successfully many times, as in applying a great deal of spin to a cue ball. Rarer to make the cue ball do exactly what I want it to. It is almost impossible to control the exact angle of the cue ball off the rail since you are using a motion that is pretty much impossible to calibrate to achieve the spin to begin with.

This is pretty much debating angels sitting on the head of a pin anyway because none of us think this stroke has a practical application. I think that swiping across the face of a cue ball has the same effect as swiping across the face of any other ball. Based on what I have seen and done and my belief that physical properties remain basically the same regardless of the exact application my beliefs seem justified.

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

so close but yet so far

With a straight stroke BHE and "parallel" english are identical. "Parallel" is the wrong word to use.

pj
chgo

PJ,

At times we seem so close to communicating then it is obvious that we are miles apart. You are using a different definition of parallel english than anyone else. It would be ridiculous to say that it isn't exactly parallel, it is a parallel shift from the line the stroke would be on for a centerball hit. Both the bridge and the grip hand move over. The stick moves parallel to the original line of aim. Then of course slight adjustments in aim are required to make the shot. However when we split hairs very finely few things are absolutely true.

Your image, in post seventy-five I think, does a good job of delivering your information. However what it illustrates is false if I split hairs. None of the three shafts send the cue ball on exactly the same vector or path. They all send the cue ball to the same place on the object ball at a certain distance and that is the message you are trying to deliver. Not bashing your drawing but just pointing out that few of our simplified explanations hold up to exact scrutiny. Not really surprising, even spending hundreds of thousands in design projects we often had to include a fudge factor found in actual testing that resulted from many small variables that were impractical to calculate even if we could have separated them. It was more important to make something work than it was to explain and define every tiny factor. We might have .5% of an action caused by a half-dozen or dozen small variables. Enough to note that they exist and have minimum effect.

Unless I am mistaken you agree that hitting the cue ball at the same place at two different angles will send the ball in two different directions. This is pretty huge in itself, we have hit gridlock in our discussions multiple times in the past over just this point. If you agree with this, lets consider it accepted fact and no longer debate this detail.

Moving on to the accepted definition of parallel english it is neither the same bridge location or the same grip location(side to side) as back hand english. If we look at the point of contact on the cue ball as being one point on a line we know that a second point defines a line. The third point is merely reference.

If the contact point on the cue ball is point A and the bridge and grip are point B and C respectively when defining a line for back hand english and we now accept that the bridge and grip using parallel english are on a separate line then by definition these lines have to be at different angles to both intersect at point A. If I recall correctly you have said in this thread that hitting the same spot on the cue ball at different angles with the same shaft creates different paths or words to that effect. Again please correct my impression if you don't believe this.

A serious suggestion: If you can't get past what you are thinking of as parallel english as being the same as back hand english which is parallel to absolutely nothing I can think of, label an equal shift of both the bridge and grip hand in the same direction something else. Call it old school english if you like. It was much more commonly used by the older players than back hand english at least where I started playing.

If you agree that both the bridge and grip are in different places in the two types of english we are discussing and that this creates different cue ball paths we will sincerely have made a huge advance in our discussions.

Hu