Is a longer bridge useful?

[JoeW]

One of the things I observed after watching many (not all) pros is that they have a long bridge length. By long I mean the distance between two diamonds or anywhere from 12 – 15 inches (more or less). It seemed to me that there must be some reason for so many people to have this long distance between the bridge and the cue ball. They often did not use the distance for follow through. Their follow through was no longer than 6 – 10 inches. So why have such a long bridge that would seem to lead to instability? The best way to find out was to try it myself and see what happens.

I tend to shoot with my chin an inch or two above the cue stick and what I found was that the cue stick becomes much more like a rifle and my sight picture was relatively better. That is, I saw the small (1/16 – 1/32”) target better. The shaft of the cue stick becomes more important and is used more like a rifle sight.

Next, I noticed that I placed more attention to a straighter pendulum swing. With a longer fulcrum it seemed more important to concentrate on striking the cue ball exactly as planned with the best swing possible. It seems that the right hand takes on more importance with this type of shooting and my overall shot making improved.

My tendency to aim while standing and determining position outcome before getting down on the shot became more important. Once I am down on the shot it is all about hitting the target.

Finally, I noticed that with the longer bridge I do not seem to hit the cue ball as hard. Softer shots take on more importance with the longer bridge. The outcome was what appears to be an improved shot making ability.

So it would appear that a longer bridge has many uses and I can see why so many pros use it. Obviously, a longer bridge is not required as Allen Hopkins and a few others have shown. However, far too many pros use one and I wonder what other non-pros have experienced when they have tried this modification.

I do think that one has to give the initially uncomfortable long bridge a serious try before coming to a conclusion about its usefulness. Too many pros use it to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[sfleinen]

One of the things I observed after watching many (not all) pros is that they have a long bridge length. By long I mean the distance between two diamonds or anywhere from 12 – 15 inches (more or less). It seemed to me that there must be some reason for so many people to have this long distance between the bridge and the cue ball. They often did not use the distance for follow through. Their follow through was no longer than 6 – 10 inches. So why have such a long bridge that would seem to lead to instability? The best way to find out was to try it myself and see what happens.

I tend to shoot with my chin an inch or two above the cue stick and what I found was that the cue stick becomes much more like a rifle and my sight picture was relatively better. That is, I saw the small (1/16 – 1/32”) target better. The shaft of the cue stick becomes more important and is used more like a rifle sight.

Next, I noticed that I placed more attention to a straighter pendulum swing. With a longer fulcrum it seemed more important to concentrate on striking the cue ball exactly as planned with the best swing possible. It seems that the right hand takes on more importance with this type of shooting and my overall shot making improved.

My tendency to aim while standing and determining position outcome before getting down on the shot became more important. Once I am down on the shot it is all about hitting the target.

Finally, I noticed that with the longer bridge I do not seem to hit the cue ball as hard. Softer shots take on more importance with the longer bridge. The outcome was what appears to be an improved shot making ability.

So it would appear that a longer bridge has many uses and I can see why so many pros use it. Obviously, a longer bridge is not required as Allen Hopkins and a few others have shown. However, far too many pros use one and I wonder what other non-pros have experienced when they have tried this modification.

I do think that one has to give the initially uncomfortable long bridge a serious try before coming to a conclusion about its usefulness. Too many pros use it to dismiss it out of hand.

Joe:

You might be interested in an article by Bob Jewett on this very subject of long bridge lengths:

"Stroke Fiddling," page 7 of this PDF (the "real" PDF page 7; don't look at the page numbers printed at the bottom of each page, because those are the page numbers as they appear in the magazine issue in which these articles appear, and you'll find page 26 is a recurring theme in that regard)
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/cols2011r.pdf

Briefly, it has to do with finding the "sweet spot" for which the deflection of the shaft and resulting squirt/swerve of the cue ball cancels-out any error in aiming.

Good stuff!
-Sean

 

[West Point 1987]

This is an interesting question. It seems that most top players in the 80s/90s used a shorter bridge than those today. Could LD shafts have something to do with it? I don't buy the whole easier to sight down the cue or Filipino influence stuff...if a short bridge worked for Buddy Hall, Kim Davenport, Jim Rempe, et al, then why would current pros (who use longer bridges now, including even Earl, who's bridge was shorter back in the day, but now is REALLY long) move to it now? Maybe the sweet spot for deflection versus spin, etc. is better for LD shafts at a longer bridge point? Just asking...

 

[Bob Jewett]

Joe:

You might be interested in an article by Bob Jewett on this very subject of long bridge lengths:

"Stroke Fiddling," page 7 of this PDF (the "real" PDF page 7; don't look at the page numbers printed at the bottom of each page, because those are the page numbers as they appear in the magazine issue in which these articles appear, and you'll find page 26 is a recurring theme in that regard)
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/cols2011r.pdf

Briefly, it has to do with finding the "sweet spot" for which the deflection of the shaft and resulting squirt/swerve of the cue ball cancels-out any error in aiming.

Good stuff!
-Sean

It's important to note that the sweet spot depends on the speed of the stroke (among lots of other things that are significant but people usually ignore) and that the harder you shoot the shorter is the bridge you should use to get to the sweet spot.

 

[sfleinen]

It's important to note that the sweet spot depends on the speed of the stroke (among lots of other things that are significant but people usually ignore) and that the harder you shoot the shorter is the bridge you should use to get to the sweet spot.

Thanks for that clarification, Bob! Yes, the harder you shoot, the closer to the tip that sweet spot is, when you think about it.

-Sean

 

[JoeW]

Thanks guys

I remember reading about the sweet spot. I will have to go back and review. I know the longer bridge has required me to shoot softer for better control and this seems to be a good thing.

There seems to be more of a shift in emphasis to the back hand with a longer bridge. I think this is a good thing.


As to why one should shift to a longer bridge, I really don't know, hence my query as to what others have found. I know I keep trying to learn things that will improve my game and often use what I see others do as a reason to investigate ideas that are new to me.

One of the things I have learned over time is that we do not all pay attention to the same thing when we are learning. Some times in our need to learn one thing we ignore the things that go with it and then miss the whole concept setteling for some small aspect of the idea.

 

[(((Satori)))]

The longer bridge is purely a speed control thing IMO. The longer bridge allows you to get the stick up to speed with less effort allowing for a smoother stroke.

I'm curious about something else you posted though Joe. What do you look at when aiming with your shaft? I ask because obviously the shaft (aim) line and the line of sight don't match up on cut shots or shots with english when you focus on the contact point. Shane's system however puts your sight line and aim line on the same plane apparently. Possibly an advantage? I don't understand so much about what he does though, perhaps you do something similar and can elaborate on how you aim when using english, etc.

 

[JoeW]

I create a contact point on the OB from the back of the OB to the part of the pocket I need to hit.

I have trained myself to know where the front dead center of the cue ball is located.. This is the place on the cue ball between the cue ball and the OB.

I “aim” at a spot on the cue ball relative to front dead center at the contact point on the OB. A longer bridge seems to help me visualize where the cue stick will “go through” the CB.

I have found that with a longer bridge The shaft helps me to make a better determination of the line of aim. With a longer bridge I am also better able to visualize the roll of the cue ball along the designated path.

It takes many more words to express what has become a natural aiming method for me.

I think this is often referred to as “back of the ball aiming.”


I use simultaneous front and backhand English as advocated by Joe Tucker in his videos when English is needed. This of course places the cue stick at an off angle to the line of expected travel and it is something I have learned to use for aiming. The longer bridge seems to be especially useful for estimating these lines of aim and lines of travel.

 

[scottjen26]

My bridge has always been naturally longer, 11 – 13 inches. If I try and use a 6 – 8 inch bridge on normal shots it just feels weird. I think especially when using a closed bridge and being somewhat low over the cue, you need a longer bridge to see enough of the shaft poking out for feedback on aim etc. You have the extra benefit of using the full length to accelerate the cue gently as needed, not that you can’t accomplish the same thing with a shorter bridge, just easier for me with a longer one.

The con is perhaps a decrease in accuracy, especially for amateurs, especially if the cue is pulled back to the bridge and the full length of the backswing is utilized. I myself have copied what I’ve seen many of the pros doing, that is using the longer bridge but only pulling back the cue 3 – 6 inches and then accelerating forward on most normal shots. Appleton is the key player that comes to mind, also Alex, Carlos Biado, etc. For me, just provides a nice extension of the aim line to verify everything and that shorter “punch” stroke is very useful on a majority of shots. When I need to put a little zip on the ball, my backswing just naturally comes back a little more to aid in smoothly acquiring the speed needed. I know that’s not traditionally taught, but it’s actually helped my game and many pros do it so oh well…

I’m not sure why that transition happened, as mentioned back in the day a lot of pros used a shorter bridge, something you hardly see anymore. Maybe it’s like tennis, where back in the 80’s having an extreme western grip was an oddity, and these days virtually every pro male and female has at least a strong semi-western or full western grip. I guess techniques change, and as they change and people grow up and emulate those around them the changes continue to propagate.

Scott

 

[West Point 1987]

My bridge has always been naturally longer, 11 – 13 inches. If I try and use a 6 – 8 inch bridge on normal shots it just feels weird. I think especially when using a closed bridge and being somewhat low over the cue, you need a longer bridge to see enough of the shaft poking out for feedback on aim etc. You have the extra benefit of using the full length to accelerate the cue gently as needed, not that you can’t accomplish the same thing with a shorter bridge, just easier for me with a longer one.

The con is perhaps a decrease in accuracy, especially for amateurs, especially if the cue is pulled back to the bridge and the full length of the backswing is utilized. I myself have copied what I’ve seen many of the pros doing, that is using the longer bridge but only pulling back the cue 3 – 6 inches and then accelerating forward on most normal shots. Appleton is the key player that comes to mind, also Alex, Carlos Biado, etc. For me, just provides a nice extension of the aim line to verify everything and that shorter “punch” stroke is very useful on a majority of shots. When I need to put a little zip on the ball, my backswing just naturally comes back a little more to aid in smoothly acquiring the speed needed. I know that’s not traditionally taught, but it’s actually helped my game and many pros do it so oh well…

I’m not sure why that transition happened, as mentioned back in the day a lot of pros used a shorter bridge, something you hardly see anymore. Maybe it’s like tennis, where back in the 80’s having an extreme western grip was an oddity, and these days virtually every pro male and female has at least a strong semi-western or full western grip. I guess techniques change, and as they change and people grow up and emulate those around them the changes continue to propagate.

Scott

Nice post. I started out with a shorter bridge, 6-8 inches, and had a lot of success with it. Then, I started lengthening my bridge, to well over 12 inches, and liked it, especially as I shoot mostly with a closed bridge. I mainly did that emulating Filipino players I admired. When I went through a redesign of my mechanics (grip, stance, bridge length) after a long layoff, and when I adopted TOI, I went back to a shorter bridge (about 8-9 inches) with GREAT success. It all happens at the CB, and there's no problem with acceleration with a shorter bridge--plus it's a lot easier to hit the CB precisely and consistently where you want with a shorter bridge. To each his own. I agree, every shaft has an optimum bridge/pivot point that minimizes deflection, which plays a part, too. I also prefer to hold the cue closer to the balance point than at the butt-end, which a long bridge forces you to do. This has really helped my touch, especially on finesse shots.

 

[FranCrimi]

One of the things I observed after watching many (not all) pros is that they have a long bridge length. By long I mean the distance between two diamonds or anywhere from 12 – 15 inches (more or less). It seemed to me that there must be some reason for so many people to have this long distance between the bridge and the cue ball. They often did not use the distance for follow through. Their follow through was no longer than 6 – 10 inches. So why have such a long bridge that would seem to lead to instability? The best way to find out was to try it myself and see what happens.

I tend to shoot with my chin an inch or two above the cue stick and what I found was that the cue stick becomes much more like a rifle and my sight picture was relatively better. That is, I saw the small (1/16 – 1/32”) target better. The shaft of the cue stick becomes more important and is used more like a rifle sight.

Next, I noticed that I placed more attention to a straighter pendulum swing. With a longer fulcrum it seemed more important to concentrate on striking the cue ball exactly as planned with the best swing possible. It seems that the right hand takes on more importance with this type of shooting and my overall shot making improved.

My tendency to aim while standing and determining position outcome before getting down on the shot became more important. Once I am down on the shot it is all about hitting the target.

Finally, I noticed that with the longer bridge I do not seem to hit the cue ball as hard. Softer shots take on more importance with the longer bridge. The outcome was what appears to be an improved shot making ability.

So it would appear that a longer bridge has many uses and I can see why so many pros use it. Obviously, a longer bridge is not required as Allen Hopkins and a few others have shown. However, far too many pros use one and I wonder what other non-pros have experienced when they have tried this modification.

I do think that one has to give the initially uncomfortable long bridge a serious try before coming to a conclusion about its usefulness. Too many pros use it to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm normally around 12 inches and it can go slightly longer or much shorter, depending on what I want to accomplish with the shot as well as how high I need to stand.

But 15 inches sounds like an awfully long bridge length. I can't think of any players who have a bridge length that long.

I noticed that players who stood taller years ago had significantly shorter bridge lengths. It could have been due to visual issues or even an abbreviated arm swing due to the tall stance. Or it might have been something as simple as the fact that they were playing more 14.1 back in those days where they were shooting more short shots than long shots.

 

[randyg]

Hi Joe

Noticed the same thing for years. Also take a good look at the stroke length, most of those long bridges only bring the cue back about 6-7 inches.

Hope you are in good health
randyg

One of the things I observed after watching many (not all) pros is that they have a long bridge length. By long I mean the distance between two diamonds or anywhere from 12 – 15 inches (more or less). It seemed to me that there must be some reason for so many people to have this long distance between the bridge and the cue ball. They often did not use the distance for follow through. Their follow through was no longer than 6 – 10 inches. So why have such a long bridge that would seem to lead to instability? The best way to find out was to try it myself and see what happens.

I tend to shoot with my chin an inch or two above the cue stick and what I found was that the cue stick becomes much more like a rifle and my sight picture was relatively better. That is, I saw the small (1/16 – 1/32”) target better. The shaft of the cue stick becomes more important and is used more like a rifle sight.

Next, I noticed that I placed more attention to a straighter pendulum swing. With a longer fulcrum it seemed more important to concentrate on striking the cue ball exactly as planned with the best swing possible. It seems that the right hand takes on more importance with this type of shooting and my overall shot making improved.

My tendency to aim while standing and determining position outcome before getting down on the shot became more important. Once I am down on the shot it is all about hitting the target.

Finally, I noticed that with the longer bridge I do not seem to hit the cue ball as hard. Softer shots take on more importance with the longer bridge. The outcome was what appears to be an improved shot making ability.

So it would appear that a longer bridge has many uses and I can see why so many pros use it. Obviously, a longer bridge is not required as Allen Hopkins and a few others have shown. However, far too many pros use one and I wonder what other non-pros have experienced when they have tried this modification.

I do think that one has to give the initially uncomfortable long bridge a serious try before coming to a conclusion about its usefulness. Too many pros use it to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[JoeW]

Hi Joe

Noticed the same thing for years. Also take a good look at the stroke length, most of those long bridges only bring the cue back about 6-7 inches.

Hope you are in good health
randyg

Hi Randy,
Everything is just fine here. Yeah I noticed the 6-7" stroke length, just like you teach, and that hasn't changed. I think that your finish position is the nuts and that too has a good effect on my game.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I create a contact point on the OB from the back of the OB to the part of the pocket I need to hit.

I have trained myself to know where the front dead center of the cue ball is located.. This is the place on the cue ball between the cue ball and the OB.

I “aim” at a spot on the cue ball relative to front dead center at the contact point on the OB. A longer bridge seems to help me visualize where the cue stick will “go through” the CB.

I have found that with a longer bridge The shaft helps me to make a better determination of the line of aim. With a longer bridge I am also better able to visualize the roll of the cue ball along the designated path.

It takes many more words to express what has become a natural aiming method for me.

I think this is often referred to as “back of the ball aiming.”


I use simultaneous front and backhand English as advocated by Joe Tucker in his videos when English is needed. This of course places the cue stick at an off angle to the line of expected travel and it is something I have learned to use for aiming. The longer bridge seems to be especially useful for estimating these lines of aim and lines of travel.

Thanks,

This is not the aiming I am curious about though. I'd like to pick Shane's brain someday.

Here is why.

In aiming for pool there are three individual lines that don't always match up.

1) aim line- the line the cue is on
2) sight line- the line your center of vision is focused on
3) shot line- the actual line the cueball travels.

On a straight in shot with a centerball hit, all three lines are lined up on the same vertical plane.

Let's look at a cut shot with a centerball hit though. The aim line runs from center cueball to center ghostball, the shot line runs parallel to the aim line from cueball contact point to objectball contact point, & the sight line runs diagonally for the stick to the ob contact point if you focus on the ob contact point while shooting. In other words the sight line deviates from the aim line and the thinner the cut or the closer the cueball is to the object ball both create a greater deviation between the two lines.

When you add in english it results in deflection and curve and the three lines become even more separated.

What's my point?
Now to use your analogy (I think that's the right word) of a rifle. On a rifle the scope and the barrel of the gun always remain in line with each other. If the shot line deviates, because of wind for example, the shooter will aim and look at a point that he has determined to be the correct distance away.

Shane does something similar. From what I understand his aim line and sight line always stay together. So for example on a thin cut with outside english, he will not even be looking at the ob.

Keeping your aim line and sight line on the same plane would definitely make for a consistantly straighter stroke but how does he accurately determine the focal point of his vision? I know he uses the outside edge of the ob a lot but as I said there are times when no part of the ball rests on the aim line. Again how does he a curately figure the needed adjustments if he does all of this consciously? And my other question would be what does he focus on when he determines the line? Does he follow the line to the first objective target, in other words a point on the rail?

I'm curious what he does?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Thanks guys

I remember reading about the sweet spot. I will have to go back and review. I know the longer bridge has required me to shoot softer for better control and this seems to be a good thing.

There seems to be more of a shift in emphasis to the back hand with a longer bridge. I think this is a good thing.


As to why one should shift to a longer bridge, I really don't know, hence my query as to what others have found. I know I keep trying to learn things that will improve my game and often use what I see others do as a reason to investigate ideas that are new to me.

One of the things I have learned over time is that we do not all pay attention to the same thing when we are learning. Some times in our need to learn one thing we ignore the things that go with it and then miss the whole concept setteling for some small aspect of the idea.

Joe,

You are a thoughtful & insightful man.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[CJ Wiley]

pool is more like shooting a pistol

Thanks,

This is not the aiming I am curious about though. I'd like to pick Shane's brain someday.

Here is why.

In aiming for pool there are three individual lines that don't always match up.

1) aim line- the line the cue is on
2) sight line- the line your center of vision is focused on
3) shot line- the actual line the cueball travels.

On a straight in shot with a centerball hit, all three lines are lined up on the same vertical plane.

Let's look at a cut shot with a centerball hit though. The aim line runs from center cueball to center ghostball, the shot line runs parallel to the aim line from cueball contact point to objectball contact point, & the sight line runs diagonally for the stick to the ob contact point if you focus on the ob contact point while shooting. In other words the sight line deviates from the aim line and the thinner the cut or the closer the cueball is to the object ball both create a greater deviation between the two lines.

When you add in english it results in deflection and curve and the three lines become even more separated.

What's my point?
Now to use your analogy (I think that's the right word) of a rifle. On a rifle the scope and the barrel of the gun always remain in line with each other. If the shot line deviates, because of wind for example, the shooter will aim and look at a point that he has determined to be the correct distance away.

Shane does something similar. From what I understand his aim line and sight line always stay together. So for example on a thin cut with outside english, he will not even be looking at the ob.

Keeping your aim line and sight line on the same plane would definitely make for a consistantly straighter stroke but how does he accurately determine the focal point of his vision? I know he uses the outside edge of the ob a lot but as I said there are times when no part of the ball rests on the aim line. Again how does he a curately figure the needed adjustments if he does all of this consciously? And my other question would be what does he focus on when he determines the line? Does he follow the line to the first objective target, in other words a point on the rail?

I'm curious what he does?

You use a rifle (as a comparison), however, pool is more like shooting a pistol. With a pistol you look where you want to aim, then put the pistol on that vertical line and bring it straight down and stop it on the horizontal "target line".....with the pool shot the table stops you on the horizontal line, so you just have to match your cue to the vertical, visual line.

 

[JoeW]

Obviously I do not know what Shane does. I know that I am evaluating both lines relative to the contact point and adjust as needed.

When no English is required I have used a spot on the rail as an aim point. It seems to work quite well for some shots when the relative lines are evaluated and the rail is less than 50% the distance to the shot.

Another method I re-invented was an intermediate aim point. On long shots I pick an aim line. Then I find an intermediate point between the cue ball and the contact point. This spot on the cloth should be on the aim line. When I am down on the shot I can determine if the three points line up. If they do not then I have to readjust. I do not know why the intermediate target works for me. I know that it does improve my accuracy. Later I learned that golfers do something similar over much longer distances that is why I say I re-invented the intermediate target.

I suppose referring to the cue stick as similar to a rifle is fraught with problems, It would probably be better to say that the cue stick is a better pointing device with a longer bridge. It certainly helps me make a much better determination of the aim line. Last night I doubled my longest run from 22 balls to 43 balls in a 14.1 format. So it appears I will be staying with the longer bridge as I was quite impressed with my longer run. And wouldn't you know I blew the run with a dumb two foot side shot.

I should note that I have been using the longer bridge for about two weeks now. It takes getting used to and I am not completely comfortable with it. Time will tell. And in all fairness, I have been using CJ's TOI. It too has been very useful for improving my shot making.

 

[West Point 1987]

You use a rifle (as a comparison), however, pool is more like shooting a pistol. With a pistol you look where you want to aim, then put the pistol on that vertical line and bring it straight down and stop it on the horizontal "target line".....with the pool shot the table stops you on the horizontal line, so you just have to match your cue to the vertical, visual line.

I've shot competitive precision rifle and combat pistol for most of my life, since early childhood. CJ's right about pistol shooting, especially combat shooting; most shooters pay little attention to the sights...you point at the target much like pointing your finger; you can be very accurate, or at least accurate enough. Take a laser pointer and just look at a target in the room, point and lase. Most of the time you'll hit the target straight off, with no sights. It's what most shooters call "snap shooting" or "instinct shooting". Trust me, in combat situations you don't have time to line up sights, you rely on muscle memory and a good position/technique.

In both rifle and pistol shooting, you rely on a good position that is centered on the "natural point of aim". Your position is balanced and stable, not fighting against itself to stay in line. With a good position, you point at the target, close your eyes, lower your weapon and relax....then with eyes still closed, assume the position again and open your eyes. Where the weapon is aimed is your natural point of aim. Shift your feet until you're back on target. In this position, you're not fighting against muscle tensions, pushing or pulling to get back in position.

Same thing in pool. This is why foot placement is so important. If you're having to twist/push/pull against yourself to get on line, then you're likely to have consistency problems. IMHO, shooting pool is much more like combat shooting and less like precision sniping...especially since pool cues don't come equipped with Leopold scopes!

 

[JoeW]

I have a friend who plays pool as WestPoint describes. He is aggravating as all get out. He strokes twice and fires. We play 15 ball rotation with one point per ball and a game is 50 points. He will run a table in three - five minutes. Weaving the cue ball between balls, moving interfering balls and getting position on the next shot in what seems to be impossible ways. Truly amazing to watch sometimes. I'll be darned if I can figure out how he does it. Yeah, he has a couple of purple hearts from his time in Vietnam. Guess I would call him a combat pool player.He sure does devastate the pool table!

Seems the only way I can beat him is with a few lock up safes. Then he gets aggravated.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I would add a long bridge helps if one has a bit of piston action in the stroke and a long, flowing follow through, too. The less advanced player gets the tradeoff with a shorter bridge of a more compact stroke with less moving parts for what they lose in the sweet spot and sighting IMO.