'Pendulum' Stroke 'Sweet Spot' ?

Neil · Aug 18, 2013

ENGLISH! said:
I just thought Mike's words are worth repeating. Some have difficulty picturing a cue stroke other than the type that they are using (or teaching).

From what I've seen of CJ playing I don't think he is starting out set up in the prescribed set up position of a pendulum stroke.

I think Larry & Tony's questions are based in the context of a pendulum set up that would more than likely wind up 'pulling' the cue into the ball.

It's almost like asking CJ, 'when did you stop beating your wife?'

How can he answer that type of question without coming off in a poor light.

As both Mike & I have previously stated, our stroke & even 'grip', connection to the cue have evolved due to our use of TOI. My usually long & fluid stroke with a loose connection to the cue has become more compact with a firmer grip on the cue. That type of grip & stroke just seems more conducive to the type of hit one is trying to put on the ball for TOI.

Like CJ says 'The Game is the Teacher'.

There is more than one type of shot that needs to be played in the game & they are executed best with the type of connection to the cue & stroke that gets the best results for what is required or desired.

If one's focus is on the destination the natural dynamics will take you there if one does not put up road blocks & take too many bull headed detours. In other word if we can just keep our brains from clogging up the works our minds & bodies can usually get it done.

To paraphrase what Mike said, there is not only one correct stroke or type of stroke just as there is not one type or style of play & just as there is not one way to 'aim'. The key is to find a combination of those components that fit & work well together that each individual can execute for Their BEST outcome.

It is not one size fits all & just because a medium might fit 'most' people does not mean that everyone should wear a medium because the medium might not make you look YOUR BEST.

Best Wishes to ALL & May You Shoot Well with Whatever Method You Are Using,
Rick

You give that whole speel like you are disputing what others teach. Just who are you talking about? We all know who you are implying, but, then again, we all also know you are once again wrong. Please name just ONE instructor that teaches that his way is the only way to get the job done.

And, to just go a little farther, you state that if we just follow our own natural path, we will achieve "the destination". If that were true, then how do you explain that obvious fact that so few do get to the "destination"?

ENGLISH! · Aug 18, 2013

Neil said:
You give that whole speel like you are disputing what others teach. Just who are you talking about? We all know who you are implying, but, then again, we all also know you are once again wrong. Please name just ONE instructor that teaches that his way is the only way to get the job done.

And, to just go a little farther, you state that if we just follow our own natural path, we will achieve "the destination". If that were true, then how do you explain that obvious fact that so few do get to the "destination"?

:ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore:

Mikjary · Aug 18, 2013

Neil said:
You give that whole speel like you are disputing what others teach. Just who are you talking about? We all know who you are implying, but, then again, we all also know you are once again wrong. Please name just ONE instructor that teaches that his way is the only way to get the job done.

And, to just go a little farther, you state that if we just follow our own natural path, we will achieve "the destination". If that were true, then how do you explain that obvious fact that so few do get to the "destination"?

You're right, Neil. And Rick is always wrong. Will this help the discussion move along or are we stuck here trying to bait him until he either gives up or gets banned, again?

The bashing gang is getting old and I'd like to hear some responses from Fran, CJ, Randy, etc. Tired of the OCD pettiness.

Best,
Mike

Neil · Aug 18, 2013

Mikjary said:
You're right, Neil. And Rick is always wrong. Will this help the discussion move along or are we stuck here trying to bait him until he either gives up or gets banned, again?

The bashing gang is getting old and I'd like to hear some responses from Fran, CJ, Randy, etc. Tired of the OCD pettiness.

Best,
Mike

If you don't like me asking him a question about his statement, asking him to verify it, then why don't you get on him for making the statement to start with?

Look at the thread then. It's three months old. All the instructors you have named have posted, plus a number of other instructors. Just where do you expect it to move along too? The whole thread was started to knock what many instructors teach. That's what led to his banning to start with. And, you want more of it.....have at it.

Mikjary · Aug 18, 2013

Saving the internet ... one post at a time... :thumbup:

OK. Rick, you're crazy! Stop posting and stirring up the muck. We already have all the answers. There are no welcome inquiries. The status quo is all you need to know. Accept your fate like a man and this thread will die.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, I say!

Best,
Mike

ENGLISH! · Aug 18, 2013

Neil said:
If you don't like me asking him a question about his statement, asking him to verify it, then why don't you get on him for making the statement to start with?

Look at the thread then. It's three months old. All the instructors you have named have posted, plus a number of other instructors. Just where do you expect it to move along too? The whole thread was started to knock what many instructors teach. That's what led to his banning to start with. And, you want more of it.....have at it.

Neil,

I am getting rather tired of your distorted & untrue statements. I did not start this thread to knock what instructors teach. If that is your opinion, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you are mistaken as you often are & you should not be stating it as fact. You are wrong. You & others are not omniscient & can not read my mind or my intentions.

I started this thread to get a bio-mechanical explanation of an assertion by randyG that there is a 'sweet spot' of level straight line tip travel for several inches in a 'fixed elbow pendulum stroke'. I don't see it & it does not show up in Bob Jewitt's comparison to a piston stroke.

I even stated that if it were the case, it might even change my opinion of the 'fixed elbow pendulum stroke'.

The thread was going rather well until you got involved & I even asked for it to be closed when it went south.

I wound up getting banned after nobcity jumped in insulting me again & I responded in a somewhat 'threatening manner',

That was my mistake.

As usual, you, & your like, want to mis-categorize & distort matters for your purposes.

I simply 'love' the way you & a couple of others think that you can read my mind & my intentions. If this were in the real world I'd probably file law suits against you for slander & liable.

You often say that 'everyone' can see right through me. Well I would bet that almost everyone can see you for what you are as well.

I bumped this thread when I noticed that it had gone over 6,000 views. (It's now over 6,600 views.) To me that says that it is a subject of interest. You almost immediately tried to bury it with your stalking & trolling. WHY?

Apparently YOU have a motive.

My intention was & is to get truthful & useful information out so each individual can make their own determinations. I am not trying to suppress anything as it seems to appear that you might be trying to do.

If the pendulum stroke is as good as some make it out to be then it should be able to stand up to a few investigative questions.

I think the first go round of this thread brought out how vitally important the 'associated grip' is for the pendulum stroke to work to it's best efficiency. I'd say that that might have been good for those that may not have been aware of that & perhaps were using a 'bad' grip for the stroke.

This thread was a good opportunity for the pendulum proponents to give a good explanation of how it actually works. But to just make statements without any bio-mechanical support simply does not cut it for me.

I never have & do not blindly follow. My 9th. grade civics teacher taught me to always consider the source & any possible motives that they might have for what they are saying.

When you teach, do you forbid your students from asking questions. If so, I would never want anyone to take a lesson from you.

I've tried on several occasions to put aside our differences but you have refused them all.

My response to you here might be a mistake but I can not sit idly by while you make false assertions as to my intent.

I started this thread with sincere intentions of getting an explanation IF one existed. It was a good opportunity lost by the proponents of the pendulum stroke.

The opportunity is for now still present, but as I said to just make statements of what one wants to put out without any bio-mechanical support simply does not get it done with me.

And to correct another of your mis-assumptions, I am not looking for it to help me with MY stroke. I don't use an SPF pendulum stroke & I don't want to do so. But if it is the best that others can do, then it is the best stroke for them. I have said similar things rather often but you & others want to mis-categorize & distort my opinions & my intentions for your own purposes.

Keep doing what you're doing. I'm sure more & more people will realize just what you are doing.

Rick

PS I really do sincerely wish you well.

ENGLISH! · Aug 18, 2013

Mikjary said:
Saving the internet ... one post at a time... :thumbup:

OK. Rick, you're crazy! Stop posting and stirring up the muck. We already have all the answers. There are no welcome inquiries. The status quo is all you need to know. Accept your fate like a man and this thread will die.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, I say!

Best,
Mike

Mike,

The man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz actually turned out to be an old gentleman with a good heart when his true identity was revealed.:wink:

Best to Y'a,
Rick

bbb · Aug 18, 2013

why do so many threads seem to be a conflict of english and piston stroke vs pendulum stroke guys
cant we just help the poster who asks the question???
icbw

ENGLISH! · Aug 18, 2013

bbb said:
why do so many threads seem to be a conflict of english and piston stroke vs pendulum stroke guys
cant we just help the poster who asks the question???
icbw

Larry,

I'm not sure I understand your point. To what question are you referring or are you just speaking in general? Remember I asked my original question when I started this thread but it was in reference to an assertion that was made in reference to a 'fixed elbow pendulum stroke'.

I recently made a post pointing out that for some it is difficult to think outside of the confines of their particular stroke, whether it be the one that they are using or the one that they teach. That fact is what makes some answers to some questions actually incorrect as the two correspondents often times are not even talking about the same type stroke. Some make every thing they say in reference to an assumed stroke. That is not good for the sake of the best communication.

It would probably be best if it were made clear exactly what type of stroke is being discussed for every question that is asked.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Neil · Aug 18, 2013

Rick, you are so full of it your eyes must be brown. You never have had any intention of just having a question answered, and you know it. NUMEROUS people have explained it to you in detail, and you want to discard or twist everything said. The whole time, you not once have bothered to pickup a cue and try it for yourself. If you had, it would be extremely obvious to you that a pendulum stroke as taught does indeed keep the cue on a level plane for a significant period of time. Yet, you have not even done that to get the answer to your question. Instead, you want to try and nitpick every little statement made, and distort them to try and make your case. You have made this forum nothing more than a joke to anyone coming here actually want to learn how to play. Good job on screwing up what could have been something really great for players. Hope you and your ilk are proud of it.

Most of the instructors won't even post in this forum anymore because of the wide arrange of nonsense that you and CJ have put in here and the constant antagonistic attitude you portray to every instructor except Fran and CJ if you want to reach and call him that. Good job guys.

There's no point posting here anymore as long as Wilson is going to allow you to run rampant with your B.S. So, have at it.

Still waiting for your BU exam score. I don't believe it will even hit 100. Yet, you want to tell actual instructors they are wrong about the game. What a joke.

ENGLISH! · Aug 18, 2013

----------------------

Tony_in_MD · Aug 18, 2013

CJ

When you get done with the Earl project give this some video effort, I really want to see this explained with a video example.

Here is the match I was referring to it is a short clip and only shows about 5 minutes. I was there in person, for the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwE7r1GNaBU

The only time in this clip that I see you involving your triceps is on the break shot when you extend your cue tip out toward the middle of the table.

A pool stoke is not as complex as a golf swing, and it is very plain to see that there is no triceps' involvement in your stroke here. Please don't think that I don't know what to look for but if I am overlooking something in this video please point it out. If it is not there, direct me to a video of you playing that shows this.

Oh and Rich, I don't need to hear from you on this, only CJ, it is his method.

CJ Wiley said:
I doubt if this stands out visually unless you were looking specifically for this movement. Just like in the golf swing, you won't see the pros making any of the individual movements in the swing, it just looks like one continuous motion.

They are actually cocking their wrists, raising their arms, turning their shoulders and creating a weight shift with their hips (and legs/feet)....when put together it's an optical illusion.

The pool stroke is the same concept, just in a miniature version. It appears that the arm is simply "curling" in the pool stroke, but much more actually going on depending on the players style, however, the champion players know how to harness the most energy to direct through the cue. I'm limited in explaining this phenomenon, maybe, at some point I'll devote a 90 minute video to how the stroke really works, but that will be awhile now that I'm committed to this Earl Strickland Documentary and TV Show.

ENGLISH! · Aug 19, 2013

Tony_in_MD said:
CJ

When you get done with the Earl project give this some video effort, I really want to see this explained with a video example.

Here is the match I was referring to it is a short clip and only shows about 5 minutes. I was there in person, for the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwE7r1GNaBU

The only time in this clip that I see you involving your triceps is on the break shot when you extend your cue tip out toward the middle of the table.

A pool stoke is not as complex as a golf swing, and it is very plain to see that there is no triceps' involvement in your stroke here. Please don't think that I don't know what to look for but if I am overlooking something in this video please point it out. If it is not there, direct me to a video of you playing that shows this.

Oh and Rich, I don't need to hear from you on this, only CJ, it is his method.

Tony,

By 'Rich', do you mean me?

In either case, why do you only want CJ's comments on the method from no one else but CJ in an open discussion forum thread that I initiated.

As far as I know, CJ does not own the method. Everyone has triceps muscles. If CJ owns the method, then many of us owe him some royalty fees.

What exactly are you looking for that only CJ can provide?

Best Wishes,
Rick

Tony_in_MD · Aug 19, 2013

Of course I mean you sorry it was late when I typed.

This is CJ's method using Hank Haney as an example. This question was direct into a reply I got from CJ the first time.

I want to hear from CJ not you on this matter, I am interested in his reply, not yours.

If you cannot stay out of my questions, then next time I will just PM him myself.

Capisci.

.

ENGLISH! said:
Tony,

By 'Rich', do you mean me?

In either case, why do you only want CJ's comments on the method from no one else but CJ in an open discussion forum thread that I initiated.

As far as I know, CJ does not own the method. Everyone has triceps muscles. If CJ owns the method, then many of us owe him some royalty fees.

What exactly are you looking for that only CJ can provide?

Best Wishes,
Rick

ENGLISH! · Aug 19, 2013

Tony_in_MD said:
Of course I mean you sorry it was late when I typed.

This is CJ's method using Hank Haney as an example. This question was direct into a reply I got from CJ the first time.

I want to hear from CJ not you on this matter, I am interested in his reply, not yours.

If you cannot stay out of my questions, then next time I will just PM him myself.

Capisci.

.

Tony,

So now you really are 'telling' me to stay out of my own thread & doing so in a bit of a 'mob' manner.

Do I Capisci?

Rick

'Pendulum' Stroke 'Sweet Spot' ?

Neil

AzB Silver Member

ENGLISH!

Banned

Mikjary

AzB Silver Member

Neil

AzB Silver Member

Mikjary

AzB Silver Member

ENGLISH!

Banned

ENGLISH!

Banned

bbb

AzB Gold Member

ENGLISH!

Banned

Neil

AzB Silver Member

ENGLISH!

Banned

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?

ENGLISH!

Banned

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?

ENGLISH!

Banned