What's Good About A Good Stroke?

[sfleinen]

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I was taught the swooping technique in the mid 80s. It was a very popular technique back then. However, swooping and steering are two different things. One is intentional.

Well, if we're talking about mid-80s road players, those techniques are both intentional. They "swoop" down on unsuspecting marks, and "steer" the contents of the marks' wallet to the road player's pocket.

...oh wait, we're talking about something else...


-Sean

 

[ENGLISH!]

"Timing" is most certainly related to tip placement accuracy for people who drop their elbow after CB contact (during the follow through). If the elbow is dropped a little early by accident (due to poor "timing") the tip will hit the CB higher than might be expected. I'm not saying elbow drop is necessarily a bad thing, because many top players can do it quite effectively; however, it does require consistent and accurate "timing" (which top players have).

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

I have a slightly different 'take' on this. With my 'loose' grip & wrist I 'feel' that my stroke is very much 'piston like' both going back & forward, due to a wrist 'differential' or my elbow may actually drop a bit in the back stroke. I 'real eyes' that it may not be a 'perfect' piston. However, the 'pendulum' stroke requires 'perfect' set up & then 'drifts' downward through the ball due to the rising of the bottom of the 'pendulum'. It is either rising or lowering going back if not perfectly set up & then is most probably 'drifting' downward through the CB. So now we're into the 'margin of error' question.

Just my thoughts. I'm not trying to start any war, words or otherwise. I was just wondering what you're thoughts are given my 'feeling'.

 

[weakfingers]

Everybody has their own stroke. For me, I feel a "good" stroke is all about rhythm, follow through, going straight through the cue ball. It should also generate action without losing control slamming the whitey into the OB. Control and follow through are what make it for me.

 

[dr_dave]

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I was taught the swooping technique in the mid 80s. It was a very popular technique back then. However, swooping and steering are two different things. One is intentional.

Good point. "Swoop" and "steer" might look the same, but doing so intentionally (with purpose) is certainly different than doing it by accident (with possible unintended consequences).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Timing to me is primarily about coordinating a sequence of body movements in a way that achieves the best result for the task at hand. The more muscles and joints involved in the chain, the more difficult timing becomes.

A pendulum stroke is pretty basic compared to the full body recruitment involved in a powerful break. A proper piston stroke has more possible timing variations than a pendulum stroke because we are not only adding another joint to the equation, we are adding one that has a vastly larger range of motion than the elbow has (the shoulder) and we must also move the wrist to keep the cue traveling in a straight line.

It's hard enough keeping them all going straight without adding the complexity of timing the various joints correctly. That's why I feel the piston stroke is harder to learn... but worth the effort IMHO. Of course, I can't make a ball with a pendulum stroke, so I'm a bit biased.

As far as timing goes, I'm not a billiard instructor, but I have a lot of experience teaching other physically demanding or complicated activities. In all of these things, I've come to the conclusion that timing is not something that can be directly taught. Like spiritual enlightenment, the master may point the way, but it's up to the student to get it for themselves. By listening to the feedback our bodies are giving us, we will arrive at the desired destination in due time. Along the way, we will probably hit a million balls.

 

[dr_dave]

... the 'pendulum' stroke requires 'perfect' set up & then 'drifts' downward through the ball due to the rising of the bottom of the 'pendulum'. It is either rising or lowering going back if not perfectly set up & then is most probably 'drifting' downward through the CB.

That's not true. With a pendulum stroke, the cue's motion is very level and straight at CB contact (assuming the forearm is perpendicular to the cue at ball address). The downward motion occurs well after the CB is gone. In fact, a primary advantage of a pendulum stroke is that the tip will hit the CB exactly where you are aiming (at address), as long as you don't drop your elbow during the swing into the ball.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Pushout]

I recently had an experience that took me back to a lesson I had from Jim Rempe many, many years ago. I'd been having trouble making balls consistently for a few weeks and remembered that Rempe suggested changing my grip. I tried what he had recommended and it made a big difference in how I delivered the stroke. I think I'd gotten to gripping the butt with all four fingers some how and changing my grip straightened it out.
For what it's worth:wink:

 

[whitewolf]

A parallel point about this is that if a player is careless about chalking, he may also develop the habit of never spinning the ball a lot because he miscues when he tries. I've seen players who had a lot of difficulty with draw even though they knew they were supposed to hit low because a history of miscues forced their elbow to drop just before contact. The result: little or no draw. If such players can be forced to hit the ball low -- after chalking properly -- they can suddenly draw the ball up their sleeve.

MIke Sigel says that getting draw by hitting the cueball 'low' is a recipie for a miscue. Usually to hit a draw shot he recommends hitting about a cuetip low and hitting downward through the cueball. He says that the 'low and level' stroke that the BCA teachers teach is downright WRONG.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

MIke Sigel says that getting draw by hitting the cueball 'low' is a recipie for a miscue. Usually to hit a draw shot he recommends hitting about a cuetip low and hitting downward through the cueball. He says that the 'low and level' stroke that the BCA teachers teach is downright WRONG.

He also says there's no such thing as throw.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

MIke Sigel says that getting draw by hitting the cueball 'low' is a recipie for a miscue. Usually to hit a draw shot he recommends hitting about a cuetip low and hitting downward through the cueball. He says that the 'low and level' stroke that the BCA teachers teach is downright WRONG.

Mike has said an written a lot of things over the years that don't always agree with reality. He might think these things when he plays (which he does quite well), but that doesn't mean what he says is correct or is necessarily good advice for others.

As PJ pointed out, Mike wrote several articles in BD many years ago claiming throw (CIT or SIT) does not exist! This is obviously not correct. He might honestly believe this, and he might just compensate for throw or use it subconsciously without even knowing it, but throw most certainly exists, and it is a very important effect for certain types of shots. For proof and demonstrations, see:

NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV
throw shot examples
spin transfer shot examples​

BTW, I included the link to spin transfer shot examples, because throw and spin transfer go hand in hand ... you can't have one without the other.

Concerning draw, I believe the advice given by most experienced and knowledgeable instructors is better than the advice given by Mike. For more info and demonstrations related to good draw shot technique (backed up by solid understanding and analysis), see:

draw shot technique advice resource page​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

MIke Sigel says that getting draw by hitting the cueball 'low' is a recipie for a miscue. Usually to hit a draw shot he recommends hitting about a cuetip low and hitting downward through the cueball. He says that the 'low and level' stroke that the BCA teachers teach is downright WRONG.

If you want a certain number of RPMs on the cue ball with a given stick speed, there is no substitute for hitting a certain distance from the center of the cue ball. With elevation you may be hitting at a spot closer to the equator of the ball, but you many still be hitting just as far from the center as viewed from the angle of the cue stick. You should think of the center of the ball like the pit of a peach, as Byrne puts it.

 

[FranCrimi]

Well, if we're talking about mid-80s road players, those techniques are both intentional. They "swoop" down on unsuspecting marks, and "steer" the contents of the marks' wallet to the road player's pocket.

...oh wait, we're talking about something else...


-Sean

Ha! I'd say that about sums up the '80s. :grin:

 

[AtLarge]

... I think I'd gotten to gripping the butt with all four fingers some how and changing my grip straightened it out. ...

What grip did Jim recommend for you?

 

[ENGLISH!]

That's not true. With a pendulum stroke, the cue's motion is very level and straight at CB contact (assuming the forearm is perpendicular to the cue at ball address). The downward motion occurs well after the CB is gone. In fact, a primary advantage of a pendulum stroke is that the tip will hit the CB exactly where you are aiming (at address), as long as you don't drop your elbow during the swing into the ball.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the reply. Personally, I'd rather not trust in an assumption of an exact 90* perpendicular forearm while bending & leaning all over a pool table. Just me. But if you can guarantee hitting exactly where I'm aiming at address unless I drop my elbow, I might, I might, consider going to it. But I doubt it.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I'm just not a believer. Maybe, if I could see a National or World Champion that uses it exclusively I would give it more consideration.

To each his own. The 'pendulum' is just not for me.

Please, no war? I repeat, to each his own. It's just not for me.

Respectfully,

 

[HueblerHustler7]

Plain and simple the only thing that is truly good about a good stroke wether it looks good, or is even counted as having good fundamentals is if you can pocket the ball intended while still keeping control of whitey and placing him where you intended for your next shot.

You could have a beautiful stroke, great stance, and perfect eye site with a bridge that a tank couldn't budge and if the above doesn't apply while having all of these aspects on par, It wont mean anything.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Plain and simple the only thing that is truly good about a good stroke wether it looks good, or is even counted as having good fundamentals is if you can pocket the ball intended while still keeping control of whitey and placing him where you intended for your next shot.

You could have a beautiful stroke, great stance, and perfect eye site with a bridge that a tank couldn't budge and if the above doesn't apply while having all of these aspects on par, It wont mean anything.

Double Ditto ! !

 

[Pushout]

What grip did Jim recommend for you?

Basically, just the middle and ring fingers on the butt. I'd always kept my little finger off anyway but still had my forefinger touching. With both fingers off it seems to keep me from twisting the butt somehow. Cradling the butt with just the two fingers seems to keep my stroke straighter somehow. My forefinger is just off but not touching. I just started doing this again and it seems to make a great deal of difference.

 

[AtLarge]

Basically, just the middle and ring fingers on the butt. I'd always kept my little finger off anyway but still had my forefinger touching. With both fingers off it seems to keep me from twisting the butt somehow. Cradling the butt with just the two fingers seems to keep my stroke straighter somehow. My forefinger is just off but not touching. I just started doing this again and it seems to make a great deal of difference.

Thanks for the info.

 

[vincentwu817]

Good stroke is just the ability to aim and being able to control and deliver the speed of the cue while being extremely precise on the cue ball.

 

[dr_dave]

Dave,

Thanks for the reply. Personally, I'd rather not trust in an assumption of an exact 90* perpendicular forearm while bending & leaning all over a pool table. Just me. But if you can guarantee hitting exactly where I'm aiming at address unless I drop my elbow, I might, I might, consider going to it. But I doubt it.

Actually, the forearm doesn't need to be perpendicular to the cue to achieve the desired tip contact point. If you don't drop your elbow during the stroke into the cue ball, the tip will return to the exact spot on the cue ball where you were aiming, regardless of the angle of your forearm at address. That's the main advantage of a pendulum stroke into the ball.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I'm just not a believer.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to dropping the elbow, as summarized here:

elbow drop resource page​

Maybe, if I could see a National or World Champion that uses it exclusively I would give it more consideration.

Actually, most top players use a pendulum stroke into the cue ball. Now, many top players do drop their elbows during the follow through (after the CB is gone), but this has no direct effect on the shot, assuming the elbow isn't dropped during the stroke into the ball. This is sometimes called a "J" stroke (pendulum into the ball, with elbow drop and straight cue motion during the follow through). For more info on the "J" stroke, see:

pendulum vs. piston stroke resource page​

Here's an example of pendulum motion into the ball with significant elbow drop during the follow through:

Mike Massey power draw stroke​

Mike's elbow is relatively still during the stroke into the ball to ensure tip contact point accuracy, and the large elbow drop occurs well after the CB is gone.

For more info concerning the effects of follow through, see:

follow through resource page​

Regards,
Dave