Phillipino's and English(spin)

Patrick Johnson said:
Thanks.

That discussion kinda illustrates my point: the various "kinds" of strokes aren't well defined - they mean different things to different players. At least with the "punch" stroke there seems to be some agreement that it's shorter than other strokes, but other details, including its purpose, differ depending on who's talking.

I think the main difference of opinion about "different" strokes will always be their usefulness. Why have them? What do they do that can't be accomplished with a "regular" stroke? In general, is it best to have different strokes for different jobs, or one stroke that performs well for all purposes? I like the "one stroke" answer, if it's possible, and I think it is.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Hi Patrick,

These are just a few food for thought questions.

Why do you think that over the long course of time that the game has been played that different strokes for different types of shots, where different outcomes were desired, were developed by some of the best players?

On another topic, why do you think there is more than one stroke in tennis or different swings in golf & why is there a bunt in baseball. Also why are there different arm movements & positions of the hand in pitching & even different holds or connections to the baseball? Why do bowlers throw a curved ball & also a straight ball?

And even though it is played on ice why do they sometimes twist the rock in curling?

As I see it as, there is a range for the 'normal' & then there are needs that the normal is not well suited, hence a different method.

In baseball, there are some that simply can not bunt well. They can hurt their team when the situation calls for a bunt & they can not execute it well.

I know you will have arguments to counter what I've said here, but I'm not looking for an argument or a debate.

This is merely a food for thought post on my part.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes, one is the end result and the other is the means to that end result, and they matter in different ways. The end result is the only thing that matters to the shot, but the means to that end are what matter to the player who wants a stroke that can be relied upon.

Many discussions of stroke tend to conflate the two. For example, follow through is a "means to the end" that helps ensure repeatable stroke accuracy, but has no direct effect on the shot itself (since the CB is gone when follow through occurs). Yet many believe it does have a direct effect on the CB (increases spin, for instance).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Perhaps an accurate definition of a good stroke would be: An optimal delivery of the cue that provides a successful result in a given situation.

edit --- P.S. Just to clarify -- I meant cue stick, not cue ball.
 
Last edited:
FranCrimi said:
Perhaps an accurate definition of a good stroke would be: An optimal delivery of the cue that provides a successful result in a given situation.
Click to expand...
That's certainly concise and accurate, but I think there's a lot of additional meaning embedded in the words "optimal delivery". It could be understood to mean optimal for every shot (means) or just for this shot (end). I don't favor techniques that are for a particular kind of shot (with some obvious exceptions like reduced follow through in close quarters).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Such as?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Sorry Patrick, I can't help you.

Teaching feel is above my pay grade. That may be a job for which only God is qualified.

I was just trying to offer some food for thought.

Some minds prefer to go on diets & are not willing to partake of certain foods or their religion prohibits such consumption.

And like I said ...I'm NOT looking for an argument or a debate.

I just wanted to offer the 'food' for those that might be a bit hungry & willing to consider trying a different 'diet' other than starving themselves.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
...I'm NOT looking for an argument or a debate.

I just wanted to offer the 'food' for those that might be a bit hungry & willing to consider trying a different 'diet' other than starving themselves.
Click to expand...
You're "not looking for a debate", but you use language like "starving themselves" to characterize views other than yours. This smells to me like another of your passive-aggressive stealth criticisms that you think you can post without taking responsibility.

Just food for thought.

pj
chgo
 
In answer to the OP's question, I believe (after watching 100s and 100s of hours of Efren on video) that he uses primarily BHE. He uses an exceptionally long bridge, and BHE is just easier/more natural. There are some cases where he will use a combination of BHE and FHE, usually when he's trying to get more out of the CB no a reasonably straight shot. He's also a master of slow spin shots, making the CB actally curve just using low outside/inside to get around an interfering ball edge. Most folks would jack up and masse, he sees the potential of just slowly twisting the ball around the edge. Lots of top players can and do use it, but nobody does it as well as Efren.

He also uses a LOT less spin than most folks accuse him of. He prefers natural angles when they are open and will draw or follow to get there instead of automatically spinning it two rails and out. Why go two rails the long way when the shortest distance to center table is off one or no rails?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's certainly concise and accurate, but I think there's a lot of additional meaning embedded in the words "optimal delivery". It could be understood to mean optimal for every shot (means) or just for this shot (end). I don't favor techniques that are for a particular kind of shot (with some obvious exceptions like reduced follow through in close quarters).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Good point and that's why I included the phrase: in a given situation. I do mean on an individual basis.

As I'm sure you agree, a stroke is a single motion from back to front. Having a good stroke is often used mistakenly as a state of being, such as with phrases like, "He has a good stroke," or "She strokes the ball well."

They're just colloquialisms and do not represent an accurate definition of the word stroke, which you even stated yourself as: Stroke: A forward motion of the forearm that moves the cue toward the cue ball.

As a subset of stroke, one can certainly argue the idea of repeatability if they wish, however, in keeping with consistency of the definition of the word 'stroke', 'repeatable' has no place in any formal definition of a good stroke.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
You're "not looking for a debate", but you use language like "starving themselves" to characterize views other than yours. This smells to me like another of your passive-aggressive stealth criticisms that you think you can post without taking responsibility.

Just food for thought.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick,

Not my intention. I was just trying to make a differentiation of not eating certain foods, diet vs. not eating at all, starving themselves, 'diet'.

The english language, especially in text only is not always well suited to convey one's meaning(s) & at times it needs more words to qualify but then those very words can at times cause miscommunication.

There is much difference in the individuals of the human species. We eat differently, We think differently, & We speak differently. Sometimes, since none of us are perfect, errors in speech or composition of speech are made.

Miscommunication or lack of communication is probably the largest problem in the world & should be of concern & consideration.

How do you consider your short questions? Would you consider them at times to be antagonistic?

There are subjective viewpoints & then there are objective viewpoints. More often than not those that are involved are speaking from subjective viewpoints.

It's for those 'neutral' parties looking on to make their own 'objective' determinations.

My apologies if you received something from my communication that was not intended.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Hey "StrokeFolks", thanks for hikacking me. If i wanted a dissertation on stroke mechanics i would have asked for such. Can you people read? For those who actually read my post and answered accordingly, thank you.
 
garczar said:
Hey "StrokeFolks", thanks for hikacking me. If i wanted a dissertation on stroke mechanics i would have asked for such. Can you people read? For those who actually read my post and answered accordingly, thank you.
Click to expand...
This isn't "your" thread. We'll talk about what interests us. If everybody isn't galvanized by the topic you wanted to discuss, come up with something more interesting next time.

Oh, and by the way, bite me.

pj
chgo
 
Did you read my initial post? I asked a simple question dealing with BHE& parallel english. Had i wanted to ask a sroke question i would have. So to answer your bite me, go **** yourself asshole.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Is repeatability a desirable trait for a stroke?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Repeatability is not necessary for one stroke. After all, it's just one stroke.

Repeatability can be a byproduct of the definition of a good stroke --- which is optimal delivery with successful results. Often, the optimal delivery will be similar to other optimal deliveries in similar situations.

I do understand your point about repeatability, but I think the term can also be limiting. The less weapons in a player's arsenal, the more they are apt to repeat the same delivery. That's not always a good thing.

I think a more appropriate word is 'consistency.' The ability to evaluate a situation and act accordingly is key. That also means drawing from a body of knowledge that includes variations.
 
FranCrimi said:
Repeatability is not necessary for one stroke. After all, it's just one stroke.

Repeatability can be a byproduct of the definition of a good stroke --- which is optimal delivery with successful results. Often, the optimal delivery will be similar to other optimal deliveries in similar situations.
Click to expand...
OK, although I'd add "optimal delivery on demand".

I do understand your point about repeatability, but I think the term can also be limiting. The less weapons in a player's arsenal, the more they are apt to repeat the same delivery. That's not always a good thing.

I think a more appropriate word is 'consistency.' The ability to evaluate a situation and act accordingly is key. That also means drawing from a body of knowledge that includes variations.
Click to expand...
"Consistency" works for me.

Thanks for your thoughts,

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Thanks, Smooth, but I really don't know what they mean.

My problem is probably that I don't really believe in "different strokes", but only in different places/speeds to hit the CB (with the same stroke). The exception might be "punch stroke", which I'm guessing is a stroke without much follow through...?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So I go away fishing and come back to a thread hijack. You should be ashamed of yourselves, what in the name of Backhand English were you all thinking?

Consistent is a fine description.

I agree its one stroke, the Mother Stroke. If we change the term stroke to speed and delivery it would be an accurate explanation. The Mother Stroke is the main stroke, driving 35 mph on a smooth road without a flaw, just cruising, riding off into the sunset. All other strokes are a byproduct of the main stroke, all the variations, and the strokes within the stroke. If we could play in one speed or mid stroke, always natural into the angles, every shot two ft. away, who could beat us?

The punch stroke can be delivered with a long follow through, I use it more often when playing 3 cushion on a slower table, it was taught to me as a Delay Stroke, used to avoid a kiss or to hold up the cue ball.
I think follow through is extremely important, it's a major piece in your feel.

Follow through is more important in the beginning of the stroke rather the end. I have been told I have a very smooth stroke, if you called it a very smooth cue speed it would be ok, it would make sense.

Consistent speed and delivery is a dream come true for players, we may never miss unless we aligned improperly. The fun is controlling the cue ball to do all it is capable of with speed and delivery, or as we know it (Stroke Technique)

There are different techniques, knowing them all is wonderful, if you can keep it simple that’s even better.
If you can play within your speed you can raise your game to a much higher level. The constant changing of speeds and delivery make it difficult to be consistent.
Speed and delivery technique is what most of us have learned to call strokes.
It would be fair to call the stroke, The Patrick Johnson Speed Delivery.

Have a great day.
Sincerely: SS
 
Mikjary said:
I think the ideas of hitting inside the cue ball and hitting to the inside of the cue ball, as well as hitting inside spin on the cue ball, cause some confusion when looked at as the same thing. And I probably added to it with that last sentence. :D

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...


I am almost confused, lucky for me I understand you.

Have a good one....SS
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi Patrick,

These are just a few food for thought questions.

Why do you think that over the long course of time that the game has been played that different strokes for different types of shots, where different outcomes were desired, were developed by some of the best players?

.................
Rick
Click to expand...

Here's my take on why that is. Most of the better players in the past had no formal instruction. They learned just by playing, and by a few "tips" passed on from other players. When one only learns through playing, they tend to key in on certain things that worked for them.

For example, they one day had a soft shot with a good amount of spin required. What is now known as a finesse shot. They just happened to use a light grip on it with just their fingers on the cue, and found that they were successful. So, the next time a shot like that came up, they tried it again, and were successful again.

So, to them, that shot required a different grip and different way of shooting it. A different stroke. And, they passed that on to someone along the way.

What they didn't realize, is how the balls actually "work" with everything. They didn't realize that they could have made the shot with the same results using a standard way of shooting, and only varying the force behind the shot.

Today, much more is known about ball reaction and all the rest that goes into a good stroke. One of the things that we have learned, is that there is a way to play without having all the gadgets and bells and whistles that some think are dark, hidden secrets that only a few know about. While a lot of that "stuff" may work, it really isn't necessary and only adds to what can go wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top