IMO a straight stroke is one of the elementary skills to play pool sucessfully. As important as aiming the right way. You are just lying to yourself if you don't believe it.
Is a Straight Stroke All That Important?
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
IMO a straight stroke is one of the elementary skills to play pool sucessfully. As important as aiming the right way. You are just lying to yourself if you don't believe it.
Patrick, sorry about the delay. It seems appropriate to mention here that Dr. Dave once indicated that a full analysis of squirt could be the subject of a PHD thesis, or two, or three. The fine details of what constitutes endmass (and how it may evolve during the collision) are not given any attention in Ron Shepard's and Dr. Dave's treatments. In their analyses, endmass is assumed to be a fixed value.
So while this is, admittedly, groping in the dark, I doubt that a swooping stroke results in a higher effective endmass. The reason being that with a straight stroke, the business end of the cue also gets deflected (bent) to the side, acquiring a sideways component of velocity. And according to the "numbers" I mentioned in the other post, this velocity is likely more than you could hope to achieve with a swoop at typical shot speeds and moderate to large tip offsets. (Of course, with the straight stroke, it takes time for it to develop, whereas the swooping stroke has it from the get go.)
Specifically with regard to the mechanism you mention (the sideways force acting a bit more parallel to the cue, at least the part that's bent), I have to admit I haven't got a clue at this point as to its effect. The complications are a bit overwhelming (but entirely eliminated when assuming a constant endmass
).Overall, though, I can't see that the net effect of a swoop wouldn't be anything but to reduce the squirt angle. Instead of the cueball having to do all the work of pushing the tip aside, the swoop action takes care of part of it. I have done the math on this, but with the necessary simplifying assumption of a constant endmass. The tests done by Dr. Dave, which show little change in the squirt angle with shot speed, offer evidence that a this is probably a pretty good approximation to reality. The faster the shot, the greater the spin, the more the cue is bent, yet the squirt angle remains about constant. This agrees with Ron's and Dr. Dave's theoretical workups in which endmass is taken to be single valued (as a practical matter).
Beyond those murky observations....?????
Jim
Last edited:
Depends on the definition of a straight stroke. Even with zero elbow drop (perfect pendulum) your forearm can rotate wrist movement ect. To many varibles that can cause a problem. I feel the pendulum gives a person the best chance at a straighter stroke, however I feel you lose some feel or touch with it too.
I think the only lie here is that we should all be trying to look picture perfect when less than picture perfect can give most of us pretty good results.
Lou Figueroa
Not only that Lou, but we're always discovering new things in pool. Today's 'crooked' may very well turn out to be tomorrow's genius. Never rule anyone's style out, especially if it brings them success.
If it's wrong, it won't hold up over time.
straight or consistent?
Lou,
I think we both know that a consistent stroke is far more important than a straight stroke. There are very good players that set up to one side of where they think they are. It takes a little compensation to cut right or cut left depending on which side they set up on. They have shot like this for many years and have adapted. Works just fine for them.
A lot of people have a little crook to their final stroke and don't hit center ball when they extend their motion through the cue ball location too. I set up a shot for the player to hit center ball on the cue ball and make a shot a year or two ago. I flagged down passing players as they went by and got them to try the shot instructing them to hit center ball. Shortstops, A players, B players, not one hit exactly center ball trying the shot over and over until I told them the object was to hit the cue ball dead center. Then most could do it. All quickly made the adjustments to make the shot after a few tries when they weren't hitting center ball though.
Interestingly there were a few bangers that hit dead center of the cue ball every single time from the first shot. Every one of them looked at the cue ball last as quite a few pro's do. Ask people which ball they look at last and almost all will tell you the object ball and honestly believe it. Video often shows a shift to the cue ball at the last instant however. Saw the same disconnect in other sports too. What people think they do and what they do are often two different things.
Hu
Lou,
I think we both know that a consistent stroke is far more important than a straight stroke. There are very good players that set up to one side of where they think they are. It takes a little compensation to cut right or cut left depending on which side they set up on. They have shot like this for many years and have adapted. Works just fine for them.
A lot of people have a little crook to their final stroke and don't hit center ball when they extend their motion through the cue ball location too. I set up a shot for the player to hit center ball on the cue ball and make a shot a year or two ago. I flagged down passing players as they went by and got them to try the shot instructing them to hit center ball. Shortstops, A players, B players, not one hit exactly center ball trying the shot over and over until I told them the object was to hit the cue ball dead center. Then most could do it. All quickly made the adjustments to make the shot after a few tries when they weren't hitting center ball though.
Interestingly there were a few bangers that hit dead center of the cue ball every single time from the first shot. Every one of them looked at the cue ball last as quite a few pro's do. Ask people which ball they look at last and almost all will tell you the object ball and honestly believe it. Video often shows a shift to the cue ball at the last instant however. Saw the same disconnect in other sports too. What people think they do and what they do are often two different things.
Hu
Dave: HUGH!!!
:thumbup2:
Only who i would add here is for sure Thorsten and Jeff Carter.
Sure there are some more great players who have a wonderful straight stroke- but those 2 names you shown up and Thorsten and Jeff Carter are immediatley in my head, too!
Hmmm. I guess it boils down to two different schools of thought:
1. Control the balls and the body will follow. This is what I think a lot of pool players do and it can be very effective. Like most people this is what I did when I first started playing. But a few years back I realized I was focusing on the wrong thing. Now I do:
2. Control the body and the balls will follow. This has really helped my game a lot. As strange as this may sound, I don't worry about the balls all that much anymore. I'm more concerned with my body and by extension the cue stick. A big part of this for me is straight cueing.
Changing my focus from something I had very little control over (the balls) to something I have nearly total control over (my body & stick) really helped my game. Of course, I don't have much of a resume and I'm just another 10-15 hour a week guy that's trying to get better. When I find something that works for me I can't help but share it with others on this same journey.
Anyway, another interesting thread Lou. Keep them coming.
There is an older guy who plays at the club I belong to, and has early onset of parkinsons. His arm wobbles back and forth, side to side, during address, practice strokes and actual delivery. He still beats most people that play there, or at least is in the thick of it, every time.
Makes me wish I'd seen him shoot 20 years ago.
Ah, I see. My error.
I can see you getting more spin by swooping where you have a very slow forward cue speed (per your example) and are hitting relatively close to center. (Of course, you can achieve the same thing with a straight stroke and hitting a little farther off-center, if room allows). But as you approach more typical speeds and larger offsets, it just isn't going to happen (beyond a few percentage points).
I might be being a bit rude by challenging your direct observation - it's unclear at this point which of the above situations you've generally been referring to. At times I've felt that I'm getting more spin by swiping, but given my understanding of the physics, such as it is, I don't even believe my own experience (i.e., I think I was simply making contact farther off-center).
Jim
Hu, first let's agree for clarity that in both cases we're talking about (1) using the same cue, (2) using a straight (not swooping) stroke, (3) hitting the same spot on the CB and (4) trying to hit the same OB target.
If you're not arguing that, then I don't understand what difference you're claiming between "parallel" and backhand english.
If you are arguing that, then you haven't explained how it can be so. You've only said in so many words "it's complicated".
pj
chgo
The "slight adjustments" made after parallel shifting consist of angling the cue so that it will hit the same CB spot at the same angle. This is why "parallel" english is a misleading label.
Yes, assuming the same stick; I've never argued against that. But you seem to be arguing that the complement of this, that hitting the cue ball at the same place at the same angle will not send the ball in the same direction.
If you're not arguing that, then I don't understand what difference you're claiming between "parallel" and backhand english.
If you are arguing that, then you haven't explained how it can be so. You've only said in so many words "it's complicated".
I'd say the common misuse of the term.
That's your assertion. Sorry, I don't agree.
I agree it's not parallel to the centerball aim line - that's why I have always said "parallel" is misleading terminology. However it's the same position arrived at by adjusting your aim using backhand english.
I don't, so I guess we haven't - but I enjoy discussing and trying to clarify slippery concepts like this. Thanks.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
On certain shots, I use what I call a rising tip stroke. This is the tip rising above the stroke line as contact with the CB is being made.
I use this on shots like in this pic when shooting over a ball. First, imagine this shot without the blocking ball where you can cue the CB easy unlike jacked up over a ball.
If your were to hit this in the sweet spot of the CB, it will roll without sliding. Something to remember is that the table is pushing up on the CB. With a applied force that is almost parallel to the table, ie a level cue, the CB will easily start rolling when hit in the sweet spot. The ease that the CB starts rolling is not affect by the table pushing up.
Now, put the blocking ball in place. The cue now has a higher angle of attack, but hitting in the same spot as before, the CB will not start to roll as easy as when the cue was level because of the table pushing up on the CB. There is one force pushing up, the table, another pushing down, the cue, at a angle to the tables force. Not the same for a level cue.
For clarification, "in the same spot" means that the spot moves as the angle of the cue changes. Say for a level hit but with some follow, the impact will be on the vertical but above the horizontal. When the cue makes contact with the CB, there is a angle created between the impact point and the center of the CB. To keep this angle the same as the cue angle changes, the "spot" has to rotate on the vertical of the CB.
This is where I will raise the tip of the cue as I'm stroking the CB in order to get the CB rolling easier. This is not needed when I can cue almost level. I use the speed of the stroke for this.
FWIW
I use this on shots like in this pic when shooting over a ball. First, imagine this shot without the blocking ball where you can cue the CB easy unlike jacked up over a ball.
If your were to hit this in the sweet spot of the CB, it will roll without sliding. Something to remember is that the table is pushing up on the CB. With a applied force that is almost parallel to the table, ie a level cue, the CB will easily start rolling when hit in the sweet spot. The ease that the CB starts rolling is not affect by the table pushing up.
Now, put the blocking ball in place. The cue now has a higher angle of attack, but hitting in the same spot as before, the CB will not start to roll as easy as when the cue was level because of the table pushing up on the CB. There is one force pushing up, the table, another pushing down, the cue, at a angle to the tables force. Not the same for a level cue.
For clarification, "in the same spot" means that the spot moves as the angle of the cue changes. Say for a level hit but with some follow, the impact will be on the vertical but above the horizontal. When the cue makes contact with the CB, there is a angle created between the impact point and the center of the CB. To keep this angle the same as the cue angle changes, the "spot" has to rotate on the vertical of the CB.
This is where I will raise the tip of the cue as I'm stroking the CB in order to get the CB rolling easier. This is not needed when I can cue almost level. I use the speed of the stroke for this.
FWIW
Last edited:
some headway made
PJ,
The adjustment needed for parallel english is normally a very slight adjustment in where you are aiming, nothing like bringing the stick back to the same location as back hand english. Pretty easy to see our communication problem, we are talking about totally different things. Using parallel english the grip hand is on the opposite side of the centerline of the cue ball from the side it is on when shooting the shot with backhand english. The bridge is on that same side as the grip hand also when using parallel english whereas when using backhand english the bridge is in the same spot as if we were using no english at all.
A little frustrating, this would be dead simple to draw but I have no way to draw and no place to store it. Face to face on a pool table this can be shown in about ten seconds, with the written word preconcieved ideas are getting in the way.
Hu
PJ,
The adjustment needed for parallel english is normally a very slight adjustment in where you are aiming, nothing like bringing the stick back to the same location as back hand english. Pretty easy to see our communication problem, we are talking about totally different things. Using parallel english the grip hand is on the opposite side of the centerline of the cue ball from the side it is on when shooting the shot with backhand english. The bridge is on that same side as the grip hand also when using parallel english whereas when using backhand english the bridge is in the same spot as if we were using no english at all.
A little frustrating, this would be dead simple to draw but I have no way to draw and no place to store it. Face to face on a pool table this can be shown in about ten seconds, with the written word preconcieved ideas are getting in the way.
Hu
not in error or rude
Jim,
You were not in error or rude. In trying to explain the difference between backhand and parallel english I was talking about initial lines of force you were talking about something different. I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. I have a bit of a problem writing. As a former technical writer and illustrator of procedures in a nuclear power plant I have been trained to painfully dot every I and cross every T. When I try to be less wordy I tend to do a poor job of explaining myself. You have been far from rude also. Those that feel any difference of opinion is rude are those that have made technical discussion almost impossible on AZB. It is very nice to have a pleasant discussion with someone. As we continue we aren't really that far apart.
Getting back to the discussion of this little shot, I would say that the swoop is far faster than the forward motion. Put another way, the swoop is the predominant motion in the shot. Another factor that might have made this effective is that back then I shot with tips that were about 12.75mm, flat across the center with a lightly radiused corner. My cue shop is in mothballs at the moment or I would like to shape a tip like this to play with awhile. The soft tips I commonly used, the large gripping surface, and the comparatively slow forward speed were probably all significant factors in that stroke. Executed perfectly there was no comparison to how much spin you could get from this shot as compared to what you could get with english before miscueing, I'm talking about the cue ball going straight into the rail and coming off at maybe a sixty to seventy-five degree angle from the angle it contacted the rail on. It compared to Mike Massey playing finger pool with the huge spin he gets.
Hu
Jim,
You were not in error or rude. In trying to explain the difference between backhand and parallel english I was talking about initial lines of force you were talking about something different. I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. I have a bit of a problem writing. As a former technical writer and illustrator of procedures in a nuclear power plant I have been trained to painfully dot every I and cross every T. When I try to be less wordy I tend to do a poor job of explaining myself. You have been far from rude also. Those that feel any difference of opinion is rude are those that have made technical discussion almost impossible on AZB. It is very nice to have a pleasant discussion with someone. As we continue we aren't really that far apart.
Getting back to the discussion of this little shot, I would say that the swoop is far faster than the forward motion. Put another way, the swoop is the predominant motion in the shot. Another factor that might have made this effective is that back then I shot with tips that were about 12.75mm, flat across the center with a lightly radiused corner. My cue shop is in mothballs at the moment or I would like to shape a tip like this to play with awhile. The soft tips I commonly used, the large gripping surface, and the comparatively slow forward speed were probably all significant factors in that stroke. Executed perfectly there was no comparison to how much spin you could get from this shot as compared to what you could get with english before miscueing, I'm talking about the cue ball going straight into the rail and coming off at maybe a sixty to seventy-five degree angle from the angle it contacted the rail on. It compared to Mike Massey playing finger pool with the huge spin he gets.
Hu
Hu, I think our difference boils down to this:
I believe that for a given cue stroked straight, to produce a given initial cue ball direction and spin, there is only one possible combination of tip/CB contact point and stroke direction.
Am I right that you don't believe that?
pj
chgo
I believe that for a given cue stroked straight, to produce a given initial cue ball direction and spin, there is only one possible combination of tip/CB contact point and stroke direction.
Am I right that you don't believe that?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
..........
absolutely correct, I don't believe that
PJ,
Technically speaking there is an infinite number of contact points and angles that will give basically the same result. By that I mean that will pocket the ball and have the cue ball come off of the rail(s) in a desired manner. We agree that one and one are two, however there is an infinite amount of other number combinations that we can add together to equal two also when we consider fractions and negative numbers. By varying angle of the stroke and contact point we can achieve what is for all practical purposes the same result. The cue ball path won't be 100% identical but the cue ball will hit the object ball in the same place and take basically the same paths after contact.
Because the directions of force are different, hitting the cue ball in the same place with the cue stick at different angles will give different results. Because the angle changes aren't that radical the difference in contact points isn't great but it does exist. You can't hit the cue ball in exactly the same place with back hand english and parallel english and get the same result. That would be achieving the same result with more than one angle and one contact point. That isn't possible although it will certainly work for some shots because of the fudge factors of pocker size and rough shape often being adequate.
Working from old memory here so it would be best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth but years ago Joe Tucker said he preferred to move about half the distance of the english he wanted with parallel english and then move the rest of the way with back hand english, or possibly he said that he liked to move halfway with front hand english and the rest of the way with back hand english. I remember he combined two different englishes. That give yet a third angle and contact point. Front hand english yields a fourth contact point and angle. Of course we can combine any two of these methods of english in any ratio giving us an infinite number of angles and contact points. I think front hand english has more merit than back hand english but is to me the most unnatural of all englishes to apply.
Bear in mind that physically speaking these contact points will often leave overlapping chalk marks. We aren't talking hugely different locations. However if we set up a robot to hit exactly the same contact point with different englishes that give different angles of stroke it would result in misses on a moderately difficult table length shot. Likewise, if we vary the contact point while using only one angle of stroke obviously we will miss the shot also.
Two variables work when we can adjust one to offset the other. That is exactly what we are doing when we alter both the angle of the stroke and the contact point on the cue ball.
Hu
PJ,
Technically speaking there is an infinite number of contact points and angles that will give basically the same result. By that I mean that will pocket the ball and have the cue ball come off of the rail(s) in a desired manner. We agree that one and one are two, however there is an infinite amount of other number combinations that we can add together to equal two also when we consider fractions and negative numbers. By varying angle of the stroke and contact point we can achieve what is for all practical purposes the same result. The cue ball path won't be 100% identical but the cue ball will hit the object ball in the same place and take basically the same paths after contact.
Because the directions of force are different, hitting the cue ball in the same place with the cue stick at different angles will give different results. Because the angle changes aren't that radical the difference in contact points isn't great but it does exist. You can't hit the cue ball in exactly the same place with back hand english and parallel english and get the same result. That would be achieving the same result with more than one angle and one contact point. That isn't possible although it will certainly work for some shots because of the fudge factors of pocker size and rough shape often being adequate.
Working from old memory here so it would be best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth but years ago Joe Tucker said he preferred to move about half the distance of the english he wanted with parallel english and then move the rest of the way with back hand english, or possibly he said that he liked to move halfway with front hand english and the rest of the way with back hand english. I remember he combined two different englishes. That give yet a third angle and contact point. Front hand english yields a fourth contact point and angle. Of course we can combine any two of these methods of english in any ratio giving us an infinite number of angles and contact points. I think front hand english has more merit than back hand english but is to me the most unnatural of all englishes to apply.
Bear in mind that physically speaking these contact points will often leave overlapping chalk marks. We aren't talking hugely different locations. However if we set up a robot to hit exactly the same contact point with different englishes that give different angles of stroke it would result in misses on a moderately difficult table length shot. Likewise, if we vary the contact point while using only one angle of stroke obviously we will miss the shot also.
Two variables work when we can adjust one to offset the other. That is exactly what we are doing when we alter both the angle of the stroke and the contact point on the cue ball.
Hu
Sorry Hu, but this is where we continue to disagree.
If you can describe clearly how the two forces (forward stick motion + squirt angle) can add up to the same "force direction" with multiple tip/ball contact points and stick angles I'll listen (as long as you limit it to one concrete example, not another laundry list of the "complications").
This is not an uncommon way of doing it, and I think you misunderstand the meaning. It's still just another way to accomplish exactly the same thing.
pj
chgo
at least we understand each other this time
PJ,
At least we understand what each other is saying this time which is an advancement over the many years we have tried to talk. Simply put, the stick is at totally different angles using backhand english and parallel english. Front hand english results in an angle between that created by back hand english and parallel english. Any shot requiring english can be made using any of the three styles of acquiring english. Since the angles are different and we have agreed that hitting the cue ball in the same place at different angles gives different results we must be hitting the cue ball at different contact points to get the same results with different angles.
A serious question: Have you ever tried front hand english? This is another static form of english that might let you prove the different angles thing for yourself. In back hand english we move the grip to create a fairly acute angle compared to front hand english. In front hand english we move the bridge while leaving the grip hand in the same place as no english while setting up. You should be able to satisfy yourself that you get the same action off the rail with these two different angles.
Simply put, no I don't have the mathmatical proof of what creates the path of the cue ball using any offset hit and have never seen mathmatical proof of how any english works. Far too many variables involved. Some things are far easier to prove empirically and you can prove the different angle thing to yourself with the above suggestion of using front hand and back hand english. If you did your homework and discovered what is normally referred to as parallel english you would also understand that different angles can give the same result. You are asking me to prove something to your satisfaction that every person with an understanding of mechanical principles already knows. I don't feel the need to invest the considerable effort or believe that complete proof would change your position one iota.
Back hand english, front hand english, five minutes testing for yourself instead of days of me studying math you will argue with. I have already performed a simple test for myself simply hitting a cue ball into the same point on the rail using back hand, front hand, and parallel english, three different angles as I apply them. All can produce identical results as closely as can be measured on a pool table.
Hu
PJ,
At least we understand what each other is saying this time which is an advancement over the many years we have tried to talk. Simply put, the stick is at totally different angles using backhand english and parallel english. Front hand english results in an angle between that created by back hand english and parallel english. Any shot requiring english can be made using any of the three styles of acquiring english. Since the angles are different and we have agreed that hitting the cue ball in the same place at different angles gives different results we must be hitting the cue ball at different contact points to get the same results with different angles.
A serious question: Have you ever tried front hand english? This is another static form of english that might let you prove the different angles thing for yourself. In back hand english we move the grip to create a fairly acute angle compared to front hand english. In front hand english we move the bridge while leaving the grip hand in the same place as no english while setting up. You should be able to satisfy yourself that you get the same action off the rail with these two different angles.
Simply put, no I don't have the mathmatical proof of what creates the path of the cue ball using any offset hit and have never seen mathmatical proof of how any english works. Far too many variables involved. Some things are far easier to prove empirically and you can prove the different angle thing to yourself with the above suggestion of using front hand and back hand english. If you did your homework and discovered what is normally referred to as parallel english you would also understand that different angles can give the same result. You are asking me to prove something to your satisfaction that every person with an understanding of mechanical principles already knows. I don't feel the need to invest the considerable effort or believe that complete proof would change your position one iota.
Back hand english, front hand english, five minutes testing for yourself instead of days of me studying math you will argue with. I have already performed a simple test for myself simply hitting a cue ball into the same point on the rail using back hand, front hand, and parallel english, three different angles as I apply them. All can produce identical results as closely as can be measured on a pool table.
Hu
To get back to the original question:
Is a Straight Stroke All That Important?
For Americans playing on a barbox with 5 inch pockets - NO
Try Russian Pyramid billiards and see if your theories work.
Hypnoses should always be tested in a variety of conditions before they are considered valid.
Have to get back to the Canadian Championships now.
Is a Straight Stroke All That Important?
For Americans playing on a barbox with 5 inch pockets - NO
Try Russian Pyramid billiards and see if your theories work.
Hypnoses should always be tested in a variety of conditions before they are considered valid.
Have to get back to the Canadian Championships now.