Definition of a "Good Stroke" ?

This motion is also how golfers generate such tremendous club head speed.

One Pocket John said:
This is pretty cool. Works for me. :smile:

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

Feel is something that can't be taught. Instructors can offer you the best advise on how to feel the cue ball / shot with your grip hand. The rest is up to the student thru many hours of practice and paying attention to what they are feeling in their grip hand.

The grip you have on the cue must offer the best feel of the cue and the weight of the cue ball.

If you pay real close attention to the pros when they play you may notice that they are pushing the cue thru the cue ball and not poking at it.

Have fun

John
Click to expand...

That's right "pushing" cue creates a "lever effect" going through the cue ball for the champion players. This is how such tremendous reaction is generated from seemly little effort. Using a stick for a lever will lift large boulders and also produce massive energy going through a very small "boulder" (cue ball). :thumbup:

The "trick" is for the forearm/wrist to act like your hammering a nail OR casting a rod and reel. This technique is also how golfers generate such tremendous club head speed. It's all about LEVERage.
 
to me( I am not an instructor) a good stroke has 2 parts
the first part is usualy what everyone takes lessons for
to develop a straight dependable swing that enables you to hit the cue ball exactly where you intend everytime and doesnt collapse under pressure

the second part is what can you make the cueball do
can you generate enough spin to move the cue ball all around the table ???
you know like how many diamonds of draw can you generate when the cue ball and object ball are 6-7 diamonds apart
can you make the cueball turbocharge forward with follow

i know these are extremes that dont come up often but if thats 100% of your "stroke power" then in most situations your are at 30-40% which should increase ypur accuracy and you are not at your limits

most pros imho have that reserve of what they can make the ball do
and dont have to crush the ball to get 3 rail shape

after being mechanically sound thats what a "good" stroke means to me
 
Scott Lee said:
Satori...It's a principal commonly taught by SPF instructors. It's about how to teach yourself (and others) how to use "feel" to build a stroke using timing and the weight of the cue.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Interesting. Not sure if the constant stroke length method/theory is for me.

The varying stroke length style is working well in partial because it seems to be more repeatable and require less maintenance. But this may be because I believe in it.
 
ronscuba said:
Interesting. Not sure if the constant stroke length method/theory is for me.

The varying stroke length style is working well in partial because it seems to be more repeatable and require less maintenance. But this may be because I believe in it.
Click to expand...

Man, if you got it working great.....keep it.

randyg
 
The "rule of thumb" is the shorter the shot the shorter the bridge

ronscuba said:
Interesting. Not sure if the constant stroke length method/theory is for me.

The varying stroke length style is working well in partial because it seems to be more repeatable and require less maintenance. But this may be because I believe in it.
Click to expand...

Using a constant stroke length doesn't make sense considering the nature of the game. Golf, Tennis, and even throwing footballs/baseballs requires many lengths of "stroke" and pool's no exception. The "rule of thumb" is the shorter the shot the shorter the bridge....especially on "touch shots".

I do advise when your shorten your bridge, do it by choking up slightly with your back hand so everything else DOES remain consistent.
 
CJ Wiley said:
Using a constant stroke length doesn't make sense considering the nature of the game. Golf, Tennis, and even throwing footballs/baseballs requires many lengths of "stroke" and pool's no exception. The "rule of thumb" is the shorter the shot the shorter the bridge....especially on "touch shots".

I do advise when your shorten your bridge, do it by choking up slightly with your back hand so everything else DOES remain consistent.
Click to expand...

CJ, I was previously doing what you suggest. Changing bridge position with stroke length. Seems like the traditional way. Recently took a lesson with a new instructor and he suggested trying a constant bridge position, but changing stroke length. My bridge is 10 inches, but my short shots use a short stroke.

Theories being, consistency in setup leads to repeatable stroke
- consistent distance between eyes and CB, view of CB is always the same
- position of both hands does not change
- I use backhand english, constant bridge at my shaft pivot point, makes english more predictable and unintended off center CB hits will deflect less
- consistent stroke tempo, but varying stroke length helps with pressure shots & CB speed control
- 3 basic stroke lengths combined with vertical CB hit position creates a way to gauge CB speed control

I know there are many different theories and styles. Maybe as I get better I may change to something else, but this is working well for me right now.
 
Last edited:
Sure...You can hold the cue tightly, and drive the stick through the CB using arm and shoulder muscles; or you can hold the cue loosely, and use the weight of the cue & timing to create the stroke speed. Since the ultimate aim is to "feel" the cue strike the CB, imo that's more easily accomplished with the loose grip, and great timing. I've seen some champion players who 'force' the CB around the table...but many more who 'finesse' the CB. Those, again imo, are the better players.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

PaulM said:
Scott, would you elaborate please?
Click to expand...
 
boyersj said:
It was what I was taught and I also teach in my lessons. Randy has chimed in and confirmed his belief as well.
Click to expand...

With all due respect Sir, I think you might be misinterpreting what Randy is saying. He said his "normal" bridge length is around ten inches, & he says he likes the "right bridge length" for a full stroke.

My interpretation could very well be wrong but I take this to mean that he is in agreement with CJ, a full stroke for a soft touch shot will not be the same length as a full stroke for the break shot.

This is good discussion here that could help students down the road.
 
(((Satori))) said:
With all due respect Sir, I think you might be misinterpreting what Randy is saying. He said his "normal" bridge length is around ten inches, & he says he likes the "right bridge length" for a full stroke.

My interpretation could very well be wrong but I take this to mean that he is in agreement with CJ, a full stroke for a soft touch shot will not be the same length as a full stroke for the break shot.

This is good discussion here that could help students down the road.
Click to expand...



I was taught to always take a full stroke. I was also taught to shorten my bridge for finesse shots aka...the bunt or the chip. So therefore I have my standard bridge that I use for 80% of the shots and my shorter bridge for softer shots.

The main focus should be the full stroke. This allows the Bicep to perform it's job accurately. There are many ways to get the job done, I look for the most Natural way.

randyg
 
The answers to this question have gone off on a few tangents.

In my humble (not certified as an instructor) opinion, I would say that a good stroke is one where the shooter can repeatably put the tip onto the cue ball very nearly exactly where intended & with the cue stick on the angle as intended at all different speeds required to play the game from a very soft stroke to a break speed stroke.

The OP's question had a reference to aiming systems & what some have said in regards to such. Well the point of that is that the shooter has to be able to send the cue ball where intended or no aiming system can be efficiently functional. So, I think it should go without saying that that is the intention of ANY stroke & without that component ALL strokes are useless. So... 'aiming' where one wants to send the ball & getting it there are vital components of a good stroke. If that can not be accomplished the stroke is useless regardless of how pretty it is to look at or how 'fundamentally' sound it is.

So for the sake of the 'argument' of playing the game, it could be said that ANY stroke that gets the cue ball to where the shooter intends it to go is a 'good stroke'. It can be the shortest of short like Allen Hopkins or it can be a long & fluid one with plenty of movement like so many others.

The point is that getting the cue ball where intended & with what intended spin, if any, is what defines a 'good stroke'. The specific mechanics one uses to accomplish that mean nothing so long as that outcome is accomplished.

Now if one wants to change the question to what is the best 'looking' stroke' or the most fundamentally sound stroke given certain parameters, then that is a different discussion.

I think that the word 'good' connotes benefit & benefit connotes end result.

So... to the other question as to when one is ready to learn an aiming system, it is my opinion that one should learn some form of system from the very start as the purpose of the game is to get the balls into the pockets. What good is it to work so long & hard on ones stroke if one does not know how to direct that stroke to a 'good' purpose. The thing that one has to be aware of is that it is about a combination of an aiming method & the ability to execute that method, which is dependent on the accuracy of one's stroke. So when one misses there is always a question of whether or not the mis was a result of poor execution of which one. Was it poor execution of the 'aiming' method or was it an 'off' stroke?

Some will say that one has to learn to walk before one can learn to run. Well, I will say that one learns many other things during the same time frame that one learns to walk. In fact, a baby learns more totally foreign quantitative 'material' in the first 9 months of their lives than they will learn in the rest of their lives. A baby will actual often run at times & loose their balance & fall, but they get up & the next time that they run they usually do a better job of it even if they fall again.

So, in conclusion I think one can & certainly should learn at the same time both a functional stroke & an 'aiming method' that allows one to pocket balls. IMO, to learn one without the other is an inefficient use of one's time & I certainly feel that nearly any human being can learn two things during the same time frame, especially when they go so much hand in hand.

Sorry for being so long winded but for what it is actually worth that is my 25 cent answer.

Regards to ALL,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Shorter bridge

boyersj said:
Power is acceleration, not distance. You can strike the ball very softly or break speed without changing stroke length or bridge position. The biceps is the key.

Think about driving a car, you dont adjust your seat to hit the pedal harder, you just flex your hamstring. Everything else stays the same :)
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but on the other hand when I need to really finesse a shot (move the cue ball a very short distance), I have more success by shortening my stroke AND my bridge distance. It seems to work for my students as well.

Just a little like a jeweler cutting a diamond. They get as close to the work as possible, rather than at arms length.
 
Donny...We teach that too, for a finesse stroke. That's not what boyersj was talking about. He meant "normal" shots, which we identify as SOP (standard operating procedure)...which are, by nature, about 90% of the shots we shoot.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Donny Lutz said:
I tend to agree, but on the other hand when I need to really finesse a shot (move the cue ball a very short distance), I have more success by shortening my stroke AND my bridge distance. It seems to work for my students as well.

Just a little like a jeweler cutting a diamond. They get as close to the work as possible, rather than at arms length.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top