Addressing The Cue Ball Low For Most Strokes

I have to compliment all the posters in this thread. Great posts with a lot of quality thought going into each post. Whichever side of the discussion you lean toward, it's been quite a thoughtful debate.

IMO, Dr. Dave' s recent experiment with the swipe stroke was very well done. He covered all the bases and more. The results were in line with anything I did to verify his findings. It's a solid baseline for any further testing which, I would agree, could be expanded. As I said before, get a Larry Nevel to cue up a few shots and see what happens. It may not be any different, but there'd be no doubt. :cool:

IMO, while thinking along the lines of a minimalist in one's approach to their pool game, where simplicity rules and all movements other than the basic stroke are avoided, I believe another type of flaw can be created. This flaw would be seen not so much by beginning or intermediate players, but by advanced and other top level players.

The idea of not doing anything creative to a player's stroke and following strict reductionist thinking that less moving parts is better, may have merit, but mainly for lower level players. After developing a straight, competent stroke, the better player can develop individual talents with a slightly non traditional method that feels comfortable to them. Many pros do things differently and we justify it by saying it's because they are pros and they can get away with it.

I say, they do things unorthodox or non traditionally because they feel that a certain technique will heighten their game. As an elite cueist, they have the ability to explore advanced techniques we haven't experimented with, yet.

Instead of marginalizing them or their work, perhaps a more complete understanding of their thoughts and techniques would move our discussions in a more positive direction. This would allow many of us to acquire new, useful information. Less moving parts is great for machinery, but not always for the creative mind.

Best,
Mike
 
Mike, English et al,

Take a shot using maximum English on the equator of the CB without miscuing using a parallel offset from the line from the center of the CB to an intended target OB or a point on the rail. Your bridge will also be offset to accomplish this. Put the dot on the CB in the center of your approach and remember where you hit it or look for a chalk mark if you can. Observe the resulting path of the CB after contacting the OB or rail.

Now put your bridge on the original line and about 12 inches from the center of the CB and aim the tip of the cue at the base of the CB where it contacts the cloth. This will help in starting at the center of the CB and not a bit/touch to the side of center. As your stroke approaches the CB, move your grip hand to the side opposite the aforementioned spot on the CB about 3 degrees away from the original line. Don’t move your bridge (pivot). Observe if there is a different CB path than the above example with the parallel offset.

You have contacted the CB at the same spot but from a different angle of attack and the force vectors will be different. The tip leather will also be contacted in a different spot. The tip will be contacted further back toward the shaft with the “swiping” impact than with the parallel stroke impact. The tip will be angled away from the dot with the swipe and straight through with the parallel stroke - the force vectors will be different.

Is there a noticeable difference in the path that the CB takes after impact, that difference can be used when necessary to get shape on the next shot.

If not, then never mind.

P.S.
Starting at the exact bottom of the CB center is easier than estimating an exact parallel offset away from the center of the CB…..at least for those that find this useful.

Be well
 
Last edited:
Only the pros should answer this question.

Grade B player advise :thumbup:
I see some good players that use the low stroke style, I tried it and it seemed to help my game the first time I practiced using it.
I never could reproduce the stroke again and the more I practiced it, it seemed to hurt my game so I switched back.
 
peppersauce said:
I doubt only 10% of the readers can understand what PJ is saying. Sounds like you either don't or you just want to argue. PJ's premise is sound and not hard to grasp. I, for one, agree.



While I agree with you in many respects, how many participating in this thread could be considered an "elite cueist"? My guess is none.

I've trained in different martial arts since I was about 6 and some of the ways I execute certain techniques are not "correct". Meaning if I were teaching a beginner to perform one of said techniques, or correcting an intermediate student, I would not teach them to perform the technique the same way I do. A solid foundation must first be laid and the student must master the beginning and intermediate techniques in order to take their skills to the highest levels later on. MASTER them. Not learn them. You don't get into tweaking the techniques to suit yourself until you are much more advanced. Of course there are exceptions because there are always going to be exceptional students, but I'll get to that.

Applying this to pool...pool is a free for all. There is no structure. People mostly just do what "feels right" and pick up things along the way. Maybe they will take a lesson here or there but most people don't actually train to get better. Telling a beginner or even an intermediate player to just do what feels right and bombarding their mind with all these "techniques" that may or may not actually work and calling it "being creative" or "having a creative mind" is a ludicrous proposition to me.

I'm not a beginner. I'm an intermediate level player and I've done pretty well for myself just doing what I do. I never had a coach or teacher and no player ever took me under their wing. Until fairly recently, no great players ever taught me anything. I'm now to the point that my weak foundation is preventing me from building my game any higher. I never learned the basics from the start, let alone mastered them. So in my view, focusing on basics isn't a "minimalist" approach, nor is it beneath anyone or any level player.

Getting back to the exception, I would never tell a beginner that I saw greatness in to change the way they did things unless they were doing something that just wasn't working for them. For example, Allen Hopkins ran 15 balls the first time he touched a cue. You think I would've told him he was doing it wrong if I were there? Guys like Hopkins and Bustamante are the exception, not the rule. And their techniques, IMO, should not be emulated by people learning the game. People will see a great player swipe at the ball and get crazy action and think, "Man I gotta learn how to do that!" Meanwhile they're never a threat to run out. Tell me how this is helping them get better, or laying a good foundation for them to build on.

Just my opinion, of course. I enjoy reading everyone else's views on the subject. Good thread and good responses. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

My idea of not using a minimalist approach was directed at advanced players, not the beginners or intermediate players. You don't need to be a top player, but probably a competent A player to start developing a cuing style that allows you to look beyond the simpler points in the game.

This doesn't mean you go to a swoop stroke like Busty, but you're able to experiment with advanced methods of getting the job done. Each individual has certain capabilities and strengths to develop through either emulation or experimentation. Without exploring these boundaries a player may limit their self to slow progress and/or no progress and plateaus.

I've been a martial arts instructor for 20 years and have a pretty good handle on what it takes for different individuals to ramp up their abilities. Some respond to following the basics longer than others. Eventually, they move past this simplicity and at an advanced level are receptive to honing their personal strengths with new ideas and variations on their techniques.

Most students aren't able to do very much until they reach the black belt level. They're like A players and able to absorb almost anything you give them for training. They don't need basics anymore. They do better with building on the basics and learning to do things at the next level.

Best,
Mike
 
Hi,

can someone post the thread about the swooping test, can´t seem to find it?!

Have a great evening you all:smile:

Chrippa
 
Mikjary said:
My idea of not using a minimalist approach was directed at advanced players, not the beginners or intermediate players. You don't need to be a top player, but probably a competent A player to start developing a cuing style that allows you to look beyond the simpler points in the game.

This doesn't mean you go to a swoop stroke like Busty, but you're able to experiment with advanced methods of getting the job done. Each individual has certain capabilities and strengths to develop through either emulation or experimentation. Without exploring these boundaries a player may limit their self to slow progress and/or no progress and plateaus.

I've been a martial arts instructor for 20 years and have a pretty good handle on what it takes for different individuals to ramp up their abilities. Some respond to following the basics longer than others. Eventually, they move past this simplicity and at an advanced level are receptive to honing their personal strengths with new ideas and variations on their techniques.

Most students aren't able to do very much until they reach the black belt level. They're like A players and able to absorb almost anything you give them for training. They don't need basics anymore. They do better with building on the basics and learning to do things at the next level.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

I know a fair amount about both, and pool is not like martial arts. I don't think your comparison has any merit to it.

Just because one has reached an "A" level, does not necessarily equate to having good fundamentals. "A" level might be as high as they can possibly achieve with the fundamentals they now use, which may be flawed.

Experimenting is not the best use of ones time, but going back to the fundamentals is. The fundamentals are the foundation. Without a solid foundation, you can only build so high before everything collapses on you. You are limited without it.

Ask any top pool instructor what the better players benefit the most from, and they will tell you that it is going back to the basics, the fundamentals.
 
Long post amended to the following.

I would suggest that anyone interested in a swoop or swipe stroke get in touch with SmoothStroke for lessons.

Best 2 All,
Rick
 
Neil said:
I know a fair amount about both, and pool is not like martial arts. I don't think your comparison has any merit to it.
Click to expand...

Nice try. You have no idea of my experience and are basically whistling out of your &^%. Pool is like anything I say it is to me. I'm a World Champ of my basement, too.

Should I list my tournament wins in martial arts? Ever fight in no holds barred tournament with a cup and a mouthpiece as your only safety equipment at a black belt level? Not UFC rules, no rules. Know a fair amount about that? View attachment 380984

Just because one has reached an "A" level, does not necessarily equate to having good fundamentals. "A" level might be as high as they can possibly achieve with the fundamentals they now use, which may be flawed.
Click to expand...

If you don't have good fundamentals, how is someone an A player? Or are you talking about somebody who can run a rack once in a while?

Experimenting is not the best use of ones time, but going back to the fundamentals is. The fundamentals are the foundation. Without a solid foundation, you can only build so high before everything collapses on you. You are limited without it.
Click to expand...

Experimenting is how we learn to play pool or anything else we do in life. Get over the idea you lose your fundamentals if you become an advanced player. If you do, you're not an advanced player.

Ask any top pool instructor what the better players benefit the most from, and they will tell you that it is going back to the basics, the fundamentals.
Click to expand...

Any top player can practice and smooth out the wrinkles in short order. Some may work on drills, but they're not going to worry about basic details unless they're slumping. Paralysis by analysis for a top player is a reality. Instead of asking a "top instructor", I'd ask a top player like CJ WILEY what they think.

Best,
Mike
 
Patrick Johnson said:
To be clear, this doesn't mean it's inherently easier to judge a swipe stroke, just that a player might have more experience with it. I'd argue it's inherently easier to be accurate with a straight stroke.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick,

If you don't mind me asking, what skill level do you claim to be? Just because you can't wrap your head around a certain technique, it doesn't mean that that it's inferior to whatever is on Dr. Dave's site.

Now don't get me wrong, Dr. Dave has some good info out there. But even he doesn't know why certain things work and why others don't. And if he truly doesn't know about a particular thing he'll downplay it and poke fun at it. (i.e. CTE and his DAM Method) He can set up all the slow motion videos until he's blue in the face. But if he plays Earl Strickland in a match, WTF do you think is going to happen.

The truth of the matter is this: THERE IS NOT A PROPER WAY TO PLAY POOL. You have to find out what works for you. But there are techniques out there that make the game easier. BUT you have to hit the cueball exactly where you intend to....if not the technique is not going to work for you.

I've played baseball at a high level. And the one thing that separated 2 players with the same height and build is hand eye coordination. And I truly believe that is what separates the amateur from the pros in this sport as well.

Some people on this forum just don't have a clue. I sit back and I'm truly amazed at how many top players don't post on here anymore because of a select few of dumbasses that think they know it all.
 
We had SVB visiting Stockholm recently and watching his "swoop" live is a nice treat, he keeps it very simple and very close to center alignment all the time - effortless imo.

Regards

Christian
 
Mikjary said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I know a fair amount about both, and pool is not like martial arts. I don't think your comparison has any merit to it.
Nice try. You have no idea of my experience and are basically whistling out of your &^%. Pool is like anything I say it is to me. I'm a World Champ of my basement, too.

Should I list my tournament wins in martial arts? Ever fight in no holds barred tournament with a cup and a mouthpiece as your only safety equipment at a black belt level? Not UFC rules, no rules. Know a fair amount about that? Name: hit.gif
Views: 19
Size: 936 Bytes

Quote:
Just because one has reached an "A" level, does not necessarily equate to having good fundamentals. "A" level might be as high as they can possibly achieve with the fundamentals they now use, which may be flawed.
If you don't have good fundamentals, how is someone an A player? Or are you talking about somebody who can run a rack once in a while?

Quote:
Experimenting is not the best use of ones time, but going back to the fundamentals is. The fundamentals are the foundation. Without a solid foundation, you can only build so high before everything collapses on you. You are limited without it.
Experimenting is how we learn to play pool or anything else we do in life. Get over the idea you lose your fundamentals if you become an advanced player. If you do, you're not an advanced player.

Quote:
Ask any top pool instructor what the better players benefit the most from, and they will tell you that it is going back to the basics, the fundamentals.
Any top player can practice and smooth out the wrinkles in short order. Some may work on drills, but they're not going to worry about basic details unless they're slumping. Paralysis by analysis for a top player is a reality. Instead of asking a "top instructor", I'd ask a top player like CJ WILEY what they think.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:
 
Last edited:
J Soto said:
Patrick,

If you don't mind me asking, what skill level do you claim to be? Just because you can't wrap your head around a certain technique, it doesn't mean that that it's inferior to whatever is on Dr. Dave's site.

Now don't get me wrong, Dr. Dave has some good info out there. But even he doesn't know why certain things work and why others don't. And if he truly doesn't know about a particular thing he'll downplay it and poke fun at it. (i.e. CTE and his DAM Method) He can set up all the slow motion videos until he's blue in the face. But if he plays Earl Strickland in a match, WTF do you think is going to happen.

The truth of the matter is this: THERE IS NOT A PROPER WAY TO PLAY POOL. You have to find out what works for you. But there are techniques out there that make the game easier. BUT you have to hit the cueball exactly where you intend to....if not the technique is not going to work for you.

I've played baseball at a high level. And the one thing that separated 2 players with the same height and build is hand eye coordination. And I truly believe that is what separates the amateur from the pros in this sport as well.

Some people on this forum just don't have a clue. I sit back and I'm truly amazed at how many top players don't post on here anymore because of a select few of dumbasses that think they know it all.
Click to expand...

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:
 
Neil said:
I know a fair amount about both, and pool is not like martial arts. I don't think your comparison has any merit to it.

Just because one has reached an "A" level, does not necessarily equate to having good fundamentals. "A" level might be as high as they can possibly achieve with the fundamentals they now use, which may be flawed.

Experimenting is not the best use of ones time, but going back to the fundamentals is. The fundamentals are the foundation. Without a solid foundation, you can only build so high before everything collapses on you. You are limited without it.

Ask any top pool instructor what the better players benefit the most from, and they will tell you that it is going back to the basics, the fundamentals.
Click to expand...

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
LAMas said:
Mike, English et al,

Take a shot using maximum English on the equator of the CB without miscuing using a parallel offset from the line from the center of the CB to an intended target OB or a point on the rail. Your bridge will also be offset to accomplish this. Put the dot on the CB in the center of your approach and remember where you hit it or look for a chalk mark if you can. Observe the resulting path of the CB after contacting the OB or rail.

Now put your bridge on the original line and about 12 inches from the center of the CB and aim the tip of the cue at the base of the CB where it contacts the cloth. This will help in starting at the center of the CB and not a bit/touch to the side of center. As your stroke approaches the CB, move your grip hand to the side opposite the aforementioned spot on the CB about 3 degrees away from the original line. Don’t move your bridge (pivot). Observe if there is a different CB path than the above example with the parallel offset.

You have contacted the CB at the same spot but from a different angle of attack and the force vectors will be different. The tip leather will also be contacted in a different spot. The tip will be contacted further back toward the shaft with the “swiping” impact than with the parallel stroke impact. The tip will be angled away from the dot with the swipe and straight through with the parallel stroke - the force vectors will be different.

Is there a noticeable difference in the path that the CB takes after impact, that difference can be used when necessary to get shape on the next shot.

If not, then never mind.

P.S.
Starting at the exact bottom of the CB center is easier than estimating an exact parallel offset away from the center of the CB…..at least for those that find this useful.

Be well
Click to expand...

LAMas,

The difference was what I expected. The parallel offset sent the cue ball deflecting quite a bit to the side. I used a pivot and hit close to where I was aiming, compensating for the deflection. The hit was much more solid as i was able to stroke through the cue ball closer to the center of the tip.

I've been using a pivot back to center cue ball with the CP2CP system you suggested. I've been usin g a hip pivot and it creates a slight overcut. Good stuff!:thumbup:

Best,
Mike
 
LAMas said:
Mike, English et al,

Take a shot using maximum English on the equator of the CB without miscuing using a parallel offset from the line from the center of the CB to an intended target OB or a point on the rail. Your bridge will also be offset to accomplish this. Put the dot on the CB in the center of your approach and remember where you hit it or look for a chalk mark if you can. Observe the resulting path of the CB after contacting the OB or rail.

Now put your bridge on the original line and about 12 inches from the center of the CB and aim the tip of the cue at the base of the CB where it contacts the cloth. This will help in starting at the center of the CB and not a bit/touch to the side of center. As your stroke approaches the CB, move your grip hand to the side opposite the aforementioned spot on the CB about 3 degrees away from the original line. Don’t move your bridge (pivot). Observe if there is a different CB path than the above example with the parallel offset.

You have contacted the CB at the same spot but from a different angle of attack and the force vectors will be different. The tip leather will also be contacted in a different spot. The tip will be contacted further back toward the shaft with the “swiping” impact than with the parallel stroke impact. The tip will be angled away from the dot with the swipe and straight through with the parallel stroke - the force vectors will be different.

Is there a noticeable difference in the path that the CB takes after impact, that difference can be used when necessary to get shape on the next shot.

If not, then never mind.

P.S.
Starting at the exact bottom of the CB center is easier than estimating an exact parallel offset away from the center of the CB…..at least for those that find this useful.

Be well
Click to expand...

Hi E,

I've never been one to use what most would call BHE along with the pivot point of the cue. I guess I just never trusted it to be correct or I was too often not hitting hard enough to keep any swerve out of the picture. To me, it's kind of a catch 22 situation. If you hit hard enough to keep the swerve out, then how much throw do you get on the OB? I guess I'm also saying this because I almost never hit at 3 or 9:00. I almost always use 'diagonal' combinations.

I've started using the pivot back from TOI & it seems to work quite well but I'm just not that comfortable with it & would rather just use my normal method.

I guess I've had more faith in adjusting my line for 'parallel' english.

Sorry for the seemingly pointless rant but I just did not want you to think that I ignored your post.

Best 2 Ya & Stay Well,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi E,

I've never been one to use what most would call BHE along with the pivot point of the cue. I guess I just never trusted it to be correct or I was too often not hitting hard enough to keep any swerve out of the picture. To me, it's kind of a catch 22 situation. If you hit hard enough to keep the swerve out, then how much throw do you get on the OB? I guess I'm also saying this because I almost never hit at 3 or 9:00. I almost always use 'diagonal' combinations.

I've started using the pivot back from TOI & it seems to work quite well but I'm just not that comfortable with it & would rather just use my normal method.

I guess I've had more faith in adjusting my line for 'parallel' english.

Sorry for the seemingly pointless rant but I just did not want you to think that I ignored your post.

Best 2 Ya & Stay Well,
Rick
Click to expand...

Rick,

I use a hip swivel like in the 90/90 system. I don't like the idea of moving my arm to pivot, or even parallel to the shot line. I turn my upper body in a unit. The cue stays in place maintaining the correct head position.

It's easy to get off line doing this. Your head and eyes have to be in the correct position ala Perfect Aim. You have to allow both eyes to get into the shot picture, even if you don't realize you're doing it. That's why players can't get stick aiming to work or pivoting in 90/90.

If you're dominant eye is in the picture too much or not enough, you will lose you're alignment on the pivot. Here's a video of Ron Vitello using a hip pivot/swivel. Notice how his upper body stays connected to the shot line as he turns into the shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_dJHZiN01A

Best,
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top