Simplifying the stroke ?

JoeyInCali

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Would this simplify it?
A=Start Position of the grip/hold
B=Backswing End position
C=Finish Position ( grip hand comes to a complete stop when forearm meets bicep ).
Speed from B to C varies on cueball speed need.
Speed from A to B is the SAME in almost 100% of the time.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Would this simplify it?
A=Start Position of the grip/hold
B=Backswing End position
C=Finish Position ( grip hand comes to a complete stop when forearm meets bicep ).
Speed from B to C varies on cueball speed need.
Speed from A to B is the SAME in almost 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

I prefer for my last backstroke to be much slower than any warmup strokes.
 
I've seen a few players who do this but not many playing at the pro level.

I call it the Bow stroke since, just like an archer, the player pulls the cue back at the same speed every time and it is only the distance of the draw back that influences the level of tension which dictates the level of force in the follow through.

I think this strategy limits the natural biomechanical effect that many players achieve when the backswing is in harmony with the forward stroke and that's why it is rarely observed at the pro level.

I suppose you could achieve a high level of execution using this strategy but it would be somewhat contrary to the natural programming. When we walk, we don't move our legs forward at a constant speed only to step through the pace at our desired speed. There is a natural flow that compliments both movements which creates a level of synergy in the movement.

I think the constant speed draw back, regardless of the forward speed required, limits this level of harmony.
 
Last edited:
Buddy Hall does this (same slow backswing every time)...he plays pretty fair! Allison Fisher does this, as well...she's kinda good! I could name a lot more...

It's not like a bow, as there is no tension in the backswing. The ideal is no tension in the forward accelerated stroke either...same cradle pressure throughout the stroke process. INO, let the cue do the work.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

rrick33 said:
I think the constant speed draw back, regardless of the forward speed required, limits this level of harmony.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
Buddy Hall does this (same slow backswing every time)...he plays pretty fair! Allison Fisher does this, as well...she's kinda good! I could name a lot more...

It's not like a bow, as there is no tension in the backswing. The ideal is no tension in the forward accelerated stroke either...same cradle pressure throughout the stroke process. INO, let the cue do the work.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Agreed Scott.
One can freeze on the cue ball, slow back swing then forward ( at any speed ) including the break shot . Busta shows that. He doesn't take that last stroke as fast as the forward stroke.
Besides, how many stroke speeds do we really need in playing pool?
I bet 5 stroke speeds would cover 90% of the shots.
 
Anyone can program their timing to achieve a high level of execution. I don't think this is in dispute but I have to wonder what would be the benefit in establishing a constant back swing regardless of the forward stroke speed?

We already know the vast majority of pros do not use this approach.
 
You might think this, but "we" do not know this. IMO there are large numbers of pros who take the cue back slowly, to the same "starter" position. I never said on EVERY shot...just most of them. I gave you two prominent examples. Joey mentioned Django. No sense arguing about it...we can agree to disagree.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

rrick33 said:
Anyone can program their timing to achieve a high level of execution. I don't think this is in dispute but I have to wonder what would be the benefit in establishing a constant back swing regardless of the forward stroke speed?

We already know the vast majority of pros do not use this approach.
Click to expand...
 
For me a slow back stroke is in the top 5 things in fundamentals that greatly improves my game. I think it allows me to feeeel the forward stroke and the ball much better, really getting through the ball. A little pause doesn't hurt either. Oops - Hijack
 
I don't believe having a consistent back swing length that's comfortable for your body type is necessary for playing at a high level.

What I do believe is that if your back swing length is not consistent, and you're not a champion, then it's something worth trying. You'll either get better or stay the same. It's not something that will make you worse.

As for the speed of the backswing, all that matters is that it's not too fast or jerky. The actual speed and pause length is simply a personal preference.
 
I think there's been some confusion....there's a difference between a slow back swing and a constant back swing. I think it's quite apparent that the vast majority of pro players do not use a constant back swing while many do use a slow but rhythmic back swing.

Given what we know about the biomechanical aspects of the stroke movement; what would be the advantage in going against the grain and programming the body to use a constant back swing where the speed is not rhythmic relative to the forward swing?
 
BeiberLvr said:
I don't believe having a consistent back swing length that's comfortable for your body type is necessary for playing at a high level.

What I do believe is that if your back swing length is not consistent, and you're not a champion, then it's something worth trying. You'll either get better or stay the same. It's not something that will make you worse.

As for the speed of the backswing, all that matters is that it's not too fast or jerky. The actual speed and pause length is simply a personal preference.
Click to expand...

What about 3 different length back swings depending on the power needed ? Short, medium, long, length back swings. Consistent to those 3 lengths, but changing as needed for power ?
 
ronscuba said:
What about 3 different length back swings depending on the power needed ? Short, medium, long, length back swings. Consistent to those 3 lengths, but changing as needed for power ?
Click to expand...

Makes sense, but once again, not necessary. Simply a personal preference.
 
rrick33 said:
I think there's been some confusion....there's a difference between a slow back swing and a constant back swing. I think it's quite apparent that the vast majority of pro players do not use a constant back swing while many do use a slow but rhythmic back swing.

Given what we know about the biomechanical aspects of the stroke movement; what would be the advantage in going against the grain and programming the body to use a constant back swing where the speed is not rhythmic relative to the forward swing?
Click to expand...

What's the disadvantage?

What's the advantage in not having a constant backswing?

I'll give you a hint. The answer for both questions is, none.

Personally, I do use a constant backswing. The exception being when the speed required is polarized.
 
In much the same way we have a rhythm as we walk, so too there is a natural rhythm to the stroke. One movement compliments the other. I suspect that removing the natural rhythmic action of the back swing could impact or influence the flow of the forward swing.

If there is a positive influence to the constant back swing, I'd like to know what it might be....otherwise, it seems to me that to adopt this constant back swing would be contrary to the natural rhythm and require additional (perhaps unnecessary) programming to adapt this non-traditional approach.

I'm not suggesting it is ineffective but unless you can provide good reason to substitute a natural flowing process for something unnatural....I would tend to lean toward what appears to be a more efficient , natural approach.

I'm not questioning anyone's approach, I'm simply looking for a little knowledge on this matter.

Is there an advantage?????
If indeed there is no advantage, then why adopt this strategy over a more natural rhythmic strategy?

I suppose that only those players who currently use a constant back swing would be able to address this question which probably narrows the field considerably.
 
Last edited:
rrick33 said:
In much the same way we have a rhythm as we walk, so too there is a natural rhythm to the stroke. One movement compliments the other. I suspect that removing the natural rhythmic action of the back swing could impact or influence the flow of the forward swing.

If there is a positive influence to the constant back swing, I'd like to know what it might be....otherwise, it seems to me that to adopt this constant back swing would be contrary to the natural rhythm and require additional (perhaps unnecessary) programming to adapt this non-traditional approach.

I'm not suggesting it is ineffective but unless you can provide good reason to substitute a natural flowing process for something unnatural....I would tend to lean toward what appears to be a more efficient , natural approach.

I'm not questioning anyone's approach, I'm simply looking for a little knowledge on this matter.

Is there an advantage?????
If indeed there is no advantage, then why adopt this strategy over a more natural rhythmic strategy?

I suppose that only those players who currently use a constant back swing would be able to address this question which probably narrows the field considerably.
Click to expand...
Do golfers wind as fast as they drive forward on the tee'd ball?
 
The correlations between a golf swing and a pool stroke are precarious at best. Otherwise we'd have a slew of professional pool players moving into the ranks of professional golf by virtue of their ability to create a strong repeatable swing.

Plus, the money's much better.


I'm not questioning the constant back swing, I'm just looking for the true reason a player might adopt this approach.
 
rrick33 said:
The correlations between a golf swing and a pool stroke are precarious at best. Otherwise we'd have a slew of professional pool players moving into the ranks of professional golf by virtue of their ability to create a strong repeatable swing.

Plus, the money's much better.


I'm not questioning the constant back swing, I'm just looking for the true reason a player might adopt this approach.
Click to expand...

Quieter eyes by giving you more time looking at the OB when
taking a slow final backswing?
Less timing is involved bc the only thing you're varying is the payoff
final forward stroke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top