Ronnie and Stephen conversation that's worth a listen.
Myth or real - Stroke smoothness as a requisite for certain shots
- Thread starter Oikawa
- Start date
Lou, the first three sentences are mine, the rest his. The qualifier, "if you produce the same impulse" makes his statement true. if you produce the same impulse is the catch. What he has said is if two impulses are exactly the same they will give the same result. True enough, but the different strokes aren't going to give the same impulse the vast majority of the time.
One definition of "impulse" from physics: a force acting briefly on a body and producing a finite change of momentum:
If I give exactly the same impulse to a cue ball with a feather or a freight train I will get the same result! His statement as written can be defended as true. On the other hand, try to deliver the same impulse with a half inch stroke and an eighteen inch stroke! He is playing word games.
Hu
Oikawa
Well-known member
It would be word games if it wasn't the original question and the reason I made this thread in the first place. Many people believe that it's not only harder but flat out impossible to perform certain shots without a smooth/well-timed stroke. E.g. two balls on opposite spots, drawing with side into corner pocket such that the CB never touches the end rail. Very delicate shot, not possible on certain cloth/tables/rails, typically requires cheating the pocket so pocket size helps. Easier with a good stroke 100%, but many people, including some good players, insist on the smoothness of the stroke being the "magic ingredient" that somehow turns it from impossible to possible. Literally, not just increasing the percent of success.
The fact that the thread is 80% about the benefits of good timing in general (ignoring the premise of the thread) is very expected. And I appreciate the discussion either way. It's a closely related topic, although one that almost everyone agree with. Highly doubt anyone in this thread questions that good timing helps in consistency. But natarddrho's answer was definitely not word games, he simply answered the original question precisely.
Last edited:
I would agree with you without that one phrase, about needing the same impulse. I could jump to the moon with the same impulse as a lunar rocket. Most of us have seen crazy things in a pool hall or on a bar table. Not repeatable without perhaps the ability of Venom, but as a one time instance, not absolutely impossible. I have seen cue balls land on top of lights, small lights. I saw a beautiful break, except for the minor detail that the shooter jumped the ball over the rack of balls he was shooting at, over the table, over the near end of the next table, and into the balls sitting there ready to be broken in another minute.
I can make many impossible things possible if I add the caveat "with the same impulse". If you want to add that, many one in millions things become possible. There were two bullets found on a battlefield. One had struck the side of the other one, jammed inside of it, and they stayed together to be found. The odds were one in tens of millions or more. Not impossible but as I said earlier, the kind of thing impossible to duplicate on demand.
You are trying to win arguments that something isn't impossible when there is some possibility of something happening from the beginning of time to the end of time, damned near anything is possible. If somebody makes a large bet on you making a pool shot and gives you a year to do it, you fail and I would say the shot is impossible for you.
Speaking of which, being a poor boy I'll cap the bet at ten thousand dollars that I can make a pool shot that you can't make in the next month. We both have to post. Want in? I will demonstrate the shot in one try and give you an unlimited number of tries in that month. Nothing to it!
Hu
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Ronnie Allen could execute a one handed spot shot where the cueball doesn't hit a rail. Not head spot to foot spot but out of the kitchen with spotted object ball. An accomplishment that showed a significant profit when executed with the one attempt wagers filling all the pockets of the table.
I saw Mike Masse do that on an 8 footer. I occurs to me the shot works better and is probably easier to shoot one handed jacked up. It's kind of an entertainment hustle.
If I remember correctly Ronnie used enough inside that the cueball curved and gave more of a full hit on the object ball. That kind of accuracy in the strike to whitey one handed was impressive.
I don't recall any masse properties but they must've been there. What I think is there's enough backspin built in that the ball will get there like a stop shot except slower and softer. It makes the hit and dies in the area as if you shot it from a foot away with a normal stroke.
Think of it this way.
Are “table knowledge” and “rigid body physics” mutually exclusive?
Yes.
Can you discuss them separately? Yes.
Is there anything special about a cue ball compared to any other inanimate object that will defy the laws of motion. No.
Why would anybody care to discuss one without the other in the context of pool?
Answer: Because they are independent, and because we can.
A player uses table knowledge to affect the cue ball. But the affect on the cue ball can always be reproduced exactly with a robot provided you input the same parameters. The human being does not change the laws of physics.
Nobody needs credentials to understand causality.
Question: Who cares / why are you wasting my time?
Answer: as a player you should be focusing on improving your table knowledge and stroke accuracy. Do not waste your time creating different strokes that you believe cause the cue ball to do special things. It is unnecessary. Just focus on accuracy with the stroke you already have.
Question: You either know how to play or you don’t, right?
Answer: No. Learning Anything in life is never an indivisible operation. Anything can always be broken into smaller pieces and studied independently. That goes for absolutely anything.
Are “table knowledge” and “rigid body physics” mutually exclusive?
Yes.
Can you discuss them separately? Yes.
Is there anything special about a cue ball compared to any other inanimate object that will defy the laws of motion. No.
Why would anybody care to discuss one without the other in the context of pool?
Answer: Because they are independent, and because we can.
A player uses table knowledge to affect the cue ball. But the affect on the cue ball can always be reproduced exactly with a robot provided you input the same parameters. The human being does not change the laws of physics.
Nobody needs credentials to understand causality.
Question: Who cares / why are you wasting my time?
Answer: as a player you should be focusing on improving your table knowledge and stroke accuracy. Do not waste your time creating different strokes that you believe cause the cue ball to do special things. It is unnecessary. Just focus on accuracy with the stroke you already have.
Question: You either know how to play or you don’t, right?
Answer: No. Learning Anything in life is never an indivisible operation. Anything can always be broken into smaller pieces and studied independently. That goes for absolutely anything.
Last edited:
Well the older wool blend clothes made shots available that the nylon centric clothes make much more difficult. Just as in baseball there's curve balls then there's the sliders.
You were very forthcoming with you academic credentials — very impressive.
But what about your pool playing credentials? What is your level of play? I don’t believe it’s as simple as, “You either know how to play or you don’t.”
Lou Figueroa
There's a difference between a jump shot and a hopper. 
Mike Massey demonstreated the imperceptible hoping of cueball and object ball. His Shrinkaflex well knowledge of that property in the material the balls are made of. "The harder you hit them the more they shrink." Was his explanation for balls fitting through gaps that he demonstrated to be too tight to pass through.
I had the pleasure of employing the shot in competition. Not the proverbial, "nun take her clothes off", but did geta a look of approval from my opponent's significant other. 
Mike Massey demonstreated the imperceptible hoping of cueball and object ball. His Shrinkaflex well knowledge of that property in the material the balls are made of. "The harder you hit them the more they shrink." Was his explanation for balls fitting through gaps that he demonstrated to be too tight to pass through.
I had the pleasure of employing the shot in competition. Not the proverbial, "nun take her clothes off", but did geta a look of approval from my opponent's significant other.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Your premise of not needing different strokes is flawed. The physics doesn't change, but there are several reasons to develop different strokes.
The easiest is a jump shot. Nobody uses the exact strike for a jump shot as they do for a normal shot.
Then there's are other factors that absolutely require differences in a stroke to some degree. When the cueball is on the rail or very close to another ball necessitates differences in mechanics. Reach shots and mechanical bridge shots are also different.
None of these entail any sort of magic, and the goal is always to deliver an accurate and relatable cuestick vector, but because players are human one can't simply simplify them to the same abilities of a robot.
I'm sorry, I'm going to try to be nice, but no, you don't either know how to play or not. Sure you do either know how to play or not, but it's not finite. No one knows how to play before they learn. Like with anything, you have to learn how to do it.
And like with anything, the best way to learn is to go to experts who have a demonstrated knowledge of how to do something. That's not saying that everyone who demonstrates an ability to do something is the best to teach others how to do it, but if you can't show a high level of doing something, you probably shouldn't be speaking to it.
What is this crap about pool players either know or they don't? DUH!!! It sounds like excuses for people who either can't or don't understand how they do. lol. It's a forum, hopefully those that can and/or know how will discuss with each and with those that can't so that those who can't can learn how.
I think we agree, but my wording was confusing... read instead:
Myth: You either know how to play or you don’t.
Reality: Learning Anything in life is never an indivisible operation. Anything can always be broken into smaller pieces and studied independently. That goes for absolutely anything.
I made a mistake, I screwed up how I worded that. I was trying to voice third person, and tried to answer it in the first. I think the opposite of “You either know how to play or you don’t.”
My high runs are 71 balls in 14.1, 10 in 3c, 21 in 1c, and 4 points in Taiwanese carom. I switched games so I don't know what my Fargo is. Not exceptional, just standard enthusiast level similar to most of us here. So I am only 71% qualified.