Myth or real - Stroke smoothness as a requisite for certain shots

[lfigueroa]

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.

OK, so let me ask you: what do you estimate to be the number of shots, at different speeds, on a 9’ pool table, from the tiniest nooge for a safety, to a 1pocket takeout a table’s width away? Then, just for fun, let’s add in shots at different speeds with different english. Others have mentioned jump shots and shots near a rail so let’s add them.

Which leads me to ask whether you believe the exact same stroke is best to achieve optimum outcomes for all of those shots?

Personally, my experience has been that different strokes help me produce the outcomes I want for different shots, given different speeds and spins. IOWs, my stroke for the nooge with english is going to be different than my stroke for a jacked up power draw.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

 

[Zerksies]

look at hopkins the nastiest looking stroke ever and he won a US open.

 

[nataddrho]

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.

Yeah I agree with all of this. Part of the problem is what the word "stroke" really means.

Does it mean the final instant of contact?
Does it mean the intended motion profile of the cue movement?
Does it include someone's personal fundamental setup and stance?
Is it the entire mental approach to the table, including endurance?

I've heard it as all of those things, and I originally used it as the first definition I listed.
It is somewhere in the middle of all that above.

What I am trying to express, and have so far been failing at with poor articulation, is that it is unnecessary to deliberately add additional axial and radial movement to your final stroke with the expectation that it will cause augmented manipulation of the cue ball, rather than initially aiming for the location on the cue ball that resulted from the additional movements at the time of contact.

Whew.

Take this and apply whatever definition of stroke you want and I'll be happy with that.

 

[nataddrho]

OK, so let me ask you: what do you estimate to be the number of shots, at different speeds, on a 9’ pool table, from the tiniest nooge for a safety, to a 1pocket takeout a table’s width away? Then, just for fun, let’s add in shots at different speeds with different english. Others have mentioned jump shots and shots near a rail so let’s add them.

Which leads me to ask whether you believe the exact same stroke is best to achieve optimum outcomes for all of those shots?

Personally, my experience has been that different strokes help me produce the outcomes I want for different shots, given different speeds and spins. IOWs, my stroke for the nooge with english is going to be different than my stroke for a jacked up power draw.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

We disconnected on the definition of stroke, read above and let me know if you agree with this.

 

[ShootingArts]

Not directed at anyone in particular but after competing at many things one of the funniest things I have found is that many people will argue that the rules of physics don't apply to a particular pursuit.

Most would agree that gravity, inertia, and inclined planes apply consistently. I had dozens of posts disagreeing that these things matter. A few years after I left that forum a friend notified me that a new thread had been started titled "Hu is Wrong!" The funny thing, they were now agreeing these things existed and affected motion and only disagreed about magnitude. Since these things and the propulsion were variable, well except gravity for the most part, we were now in agreement. There were two hundred and fifty posts in the Hu is wrong thread now agreeing with me while saying I was wrong so I didn't bother to post!

Physics are consistent and immutable for the most part. What I do find over and over is that people refuse to consider all factors. Basically they scream two plus two is four! True enough, but the equation you need has at least ten other variables! I wasted a week in a test lab to prove to my boss that while two plus two is four, two plus two plus a plus b plus c etc, ain't!

Concerning stroke not mattering, it matters a lot. It affects the movement of the cue stick significantly which is roughly three times the weight of the cue ball, why would we think it wouldn't affect the cue ball?

Hu

 

[nataddrho]

Long story short, I've seen players practicing their "max spin swoop stroke" and their "quick draw dive-bomb stroke" and I want them to know AND BELIEVE that they are just adding complications.

 

[ShootingArts]

Long story short, I've seen players practicing their "max spin swoop stroke" and their "quick draw dive-bomb stroke" and I want them to know AND BELIEVE that they are just adding complications.

The swipe stroke works maybe one time in a hundred or less. Fantastic spin, equal to a masse shot. Unfortunately most people have less control of a swipe shot than a masse shot. I was mislead in my youth and tried the swipe shot for over a year. One shot in hundreds, it was magic. So like someone arguing about shots in another thread, it isn't impossible. So close to impossible on demand that over fifty years later I would still like to give the man that taught me a swipe shot a poke in the chops!

I don't know what you are talking about a dive bomb stroke so I won't comment on it. Impossible and impossible for practical use are two different things. I wouldn't be surprised if venom could master a swipe shot. Then again, I am not sure if he counts as a human!

Hu

 

[Fore Rail]

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.

You are basically agreeing with and making my point even more valid.

You want to impress this individual who plays pool? From a 7ft 8 ball perspective - start with a plan, know how and hit your spots with the cue ball while working through the rack. This takes knowledge & the ability to execute said knowledge.

Do I (or anyone else for that matter) need to understand the exact math and science behind what is going on while doing the above? In my humble opinion is that is not a necessity. I need to know what spot(line) to hit, the approximate speed & if necessary the correct type of side spin.

This forum is so full or misinformation at times it's not even funny. For those that really want to learn I don't really know if this is the right place

I'll say it again - the rest is just internet message board talk from those who want to sound impressive. I call these the "pro shop talkers" who then proceed to go out on the course & want to change the game by the third hole.

Who this applies to & who it doesn't is of no real consequence. Having said imo you would be fooling yourself thinking it's not true.

 

[Fore Rail]

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.

You are a 555 Fargo with 447 Robustness.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Yeah I agree with all of this. Part of the problem is what the word "stroke" really means.

Does it mean the final instant of contact?
Does it mean the intended motion profile of the cue movement?
Does it include someone's personal fundamental setup and stance?
Is it the entire mental approach to the table, including endurance?

I've heard it as all of those things, and I originally used it as the first definition I listed.
It is somewhere in the middle of all that above.

What I am trying to express, and have so far been failing at with poor articulation, is that it is unnecessary to deliberately add additional axial and radial movement to your final stroke with the expectation that it will cause augmented manipulation of the cue ball, rather than initially aiming for the location on the cue ball that resulted from the additional movements at the time of contact.

Whew.

Take this and apply whatever definition of stroke you want and I'll be happy with that.

Stroke already has a dictionary definition. I'm this context it is most applicable to either the motion of the cue or the motion of the player.

I believe it is most widely accepted that when players talk about their stroke they are talking about their body mechanics.

 

[Fore Rail]

Over 10 years ago. I play a different cue sport now.

Does that really matter?

You would still start right back at 555 in your return from a carom billiards table.

 

[nataddrho]

Over 10 years ago. I play a different cue sport now.

 

[nataddrho]

You are basically agreeing with and making my point even more valid.

You want to impress this individual who plays pool? From a 7ft 8 ball perspective - start with a plan, know how and hit your spots with the cue ball while working through the rack. This takes knowledge & the ability to execute said knowledge.

Do I (or anyone else for that matter) need to understand the exact math and science behind what is going on while doing the above? In my humble opinion is that is not a necessity. I need to know what spot(line) to hit, the approximate speed & if necessary the correct type of side spin.

The OP's question was "Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed?"

Yes, I know the answer. The OP has already accepted it.

This forum is so full or misinformation at times it's not even funny. For those that really want to learn I don't really know if this is the right place

I'll say it again - the rest is just internet message board talk from those who want to sound impressive. I call these the "pro shop talkers" who then proceed to go out on the course & want to change the game by the third hole.

Who this applies to & who it doesn't is of no real consequence. Having said imo you would be fooling yourself thinking it's not true.

It applied to the OP, the one who asked the question. I am sorry if you don't like the question, answer, and/or the OP.

 

[Fore Rail]

The OP's question was "Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed?"

Yes, I know the answer. The OP has already accepted it. I am sorry, but it is too late.

The first line of the OP's initial post is all anyone would ever need to know.

"My understanding is that for the CB's reaction after hitting it with the cue, all that matters is what the cue is doing at the moment of contact, within a few milliseconds(?) of the impact."

When someone executes these types of shots enough times to see what can and can't be done the science behind the results do not really matter.

The most simple moto answer is the cue ball does what it is instructed to do by the player.

It applied to the OP, the one who asked the question. This is whether you like it or not.

In this reply you totally missed the point I was trying to make.

It has absolutely nothing to do with liking the question, answers or the OP.

 

[nataddrho]

what is the density of a pool ball? The volume of a sphere is given by 4/3 x pi x r^3. That means that a pool ball with a diameter of 2.25 inches is 5.96 cubic inches. Almost 6. This also means that a 168 gram ball has a density of almost exactly 1.00 ounces per cubic inch.

“Nobody cares because it won’t help you play better. Nobody thinks about ball density when they play, so this is wrong. I hate science, this forum is useless, etc.”

How you emotionally feel about facts has nothing to do with its validity. What is true is true, whether it is applied to anything or not.

“Why even discuss it then?”

Because people are curious and inquisitive. They have different minds and interests than you do.

 

[Fore Rail]

what is the density of a pool ball? The volume of a sphere is given by 4/3 x pi x r^3. That means that a pool ball with a diameter of 2.25 inches is 5.96 cubic inches. Almost 6. This also means that a 168 gram ball has a density of almost exactly 1.00 ounces per cubic inch.

“Nobody cares because it won’t help you play better. Nobody thinks about ball density when they play, so this is wrong. I hate science, this forum is useless, etc.”

How you emotionally feel about facts has nothing to do with its validity. What is true is true, whether it is applied to anything or not.

Please tell me where I said or anyone else said that scientific facts are wrong?

Knowing the density of a pool ball is absolutely not going to help me run out a wide open table when it is hill - hill & my tournament life is on the line. Therefore I could give a shit the exact density of a pool ball.

Does not in any way shape or form mean that is incorrect.

You sir epitomize exactly what I am talking about.

 

[nataddrho]

OK, so let me ask you: what do you estimate to be the number of shots, at different speeds, on a 9’ pool table, from the tiniest nooge for a safety, to a 1pocket takeout a table’s width away? Then, just for fun, let’s add in shots at different speeds with different english. Others have mentioned jump shots and shots near a rail so let’s add them.

Which leads me to ask whether you believe the exact same stroke is best to achieve optimum outcomes for all of those shots?

Personally, my experience has been that different strokes help me produce the outcomes I want for different shots, given different speeds and spins. IOWs, my stroke for the nooge with english is going to be different than my stroke for a jacked up power draw.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

Dr. Dave's definition is: stroke: the cue-stick and arm motion required to execute a shot.

I'll use this definition, and therefore I'll have to update my answer because I've only been considering the cue-stick.

If all different body stances, bridge hand positions, bridge lengths, elevations, grips (for example dart jump shot, pique, masse), and then different applied English and power are considered different "strokes" then the variations are infinite.

If we don't use the word stroke anymore, this is my PSR
1. I look at what I want to achieve. Usually it is always the path that I want the cue ball to travel. Secondary is the object ball (in pool or carom).
2. Then I stand there imagining the ball-fraction-tip-position combination needed. I call this my mental simulator. I stand almost perfectly still simulating over and over again the shot, depending on the complexity, up to around 5 or 6 seconds. If there is an audience watching me play then I can feel them watching my stillness and can get subconscious and rush sometimes, but it depends.
3. I now have my solution in my head.
4. I get into position for the shot, whatever that position is.
5. I set my cue tip on the cue ball exactly where I imagined it in my head.
6. I then hit the ball by moving the cue back and forth in a straight line.

So I don't really think about different body positions or mechanics or anything like that. What is important to me is that I match reality with imagination as best as I can, and I've found this to be a powerful feedback cycle. The consequence of this is that my cueing action is perfectly straight. I can execute all types of shots the same way. The only difference I would make is that if I really want to hammer on the top spin then I would take a bigger back stroke and accelerate more "slowly" (counterintuitive) but it is accurate that way.

Also I play by feel, I don't use diamond systems or anything, doing math while playing is a distraction for me. For others it is useful.

 

[straightline]

Dr. Dave's definition is: stroke: the cue-stick and arm motion required to execute a shot.

I'll use this definition, and therefore I'll have to update my answer because I've only been considering the cue-stick.

If all different body stances, bridge hand positions, bridge lengths, elevations, grips (for example dart jump shot, pique, masse), and then different applied English and power are considered different "strokes" then the variations are infinite.

If we don't use the word stroke anymore, this is my PSR
1. I look at what I want to achieve. Usually it is always the path that I want the cue ball to travel. Secondary is the object ball (in pool or carom).
2. Then I stand there imagining the ball-fraction-tip-position combination needed. I call this my mental simulator. I stand almost perfectly still simulating over and over again the shot, depending on the complexity, up to around 5 or 6 seconds. If there is an audience watching me play then I can feel them watching my stillness and can get subconscious and rush sometimes, but it depends.
3. I now have my solution in my head.
4. I get into position for the shot, whatever that position is.
5. I set my cue tip on the cue ball exactly where I imagined it in my head.
6. I then hit the ball by moving the cue back and forth in a straight line.

So I don't really think about different body positions or mechanics or anything like that. What is important to me is that I match reality with imagination as best as I can, and I've found this to be a powerful feedback cycle. The consequence of this is that my cueing action is perfectly straight. I can execute all types of shots the same way. The only difference I would make is that if I really want to hammer on the top spin then I would take a bigger back stroke and accelerate more "slowly" (counterintuitive) but it is accurate that way.

Also I play by feel, I don't use diamond systems or anything, doing math while playing is a distraction for me. For others it is useful.

There.
Now picture the World Elite version of you where results are jammed toward the absolute - just like the self fulfilling calculus.
Does your one size fits all solve all?
You of all people should be able to account for the dynamics of "proper" technique. Clearly not one size fits all.

 

[nataddrho]

There.
Now picture the World Elite version of you where results are jammed toward the absolute - just like the self fulfilling calculus.
Does your one size fits all solve all?
You of all people should be able to account for the dynamics of "proper" technique. Clearly not one size fits all.

Nobody should be practicing swoop strokes on purpose. It’s a red herring. That goes for everybody.

That’s all I am trying to say. I can’t condense it further.

 

[straightline]

Nobody should be practicing swoop strokes on purpose. It’s a red herring. That goes for everybody.

That’s all I am trying to say. I can’t condense it further.

Yeah I know - good technique.

I also know - is a highly personalized affair.

Fouette shots - how da fuk?

One pumping - beats the choke?

must be meeyuns and they all seem to work.