Is a Straight Stroke All That Important?

Banks said:
Many players, when performing their practice strokes, cue aiming at somewhere other than the spot which they intend to strike on their shot stroke.

Some players, as mentioned, have wavering motions or other types of odd hand/arm actions.

As with shooting, the primary focus is on repetition and accuracy of strike.

With that, I don't see that a straight stroke would be necessary as long as you consistently deliver the tip to the ball in a manner consistent with your intentions.

But, having a straight stroke does remove the larger possibility of miss-related errors from falling on a faulty stroke.

You can drive a car with alignment issues, but if you aren't a very good driver to begin with, it will be more difficult to know whether or not the poor driving is due to the driver or the car.

I have no idea if I even have a stroke, so I can only guess. :confused:
Click to expand...


Another interesting point. I forgot about the guys that point their cue tips elsewhere, like the base of the cue ball and then fire off the final stroke somewhere else.

Lou Figueroa
 
Neil said:
Yes, it did. And, I just found out why. Look at this sticky- http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=278062.

It will explain exactly what Lou is doing here. Nothing more than baiting out those that give instruction on here in the hopes of getting them banned. He can't do it in the aiming threads anymore, so he started one on stroking, knowing it would provoke the same response.
Click to expand...


lol. I could have been over in the aiming forum back when it started up if I had wanted to do that.

Lou Figueroa
 
Neil said:
Spin it any way you want to Pat. You always do. Haven't seen you add more than a line of anything of substance to this thread yet. You say I am creating a fight out of nothing. Yet, I have added substance to just why Lou is wrong. For that, I am disruptive. Yet, you do nothing but complain about my posts, and don't think you are disruptive. What a joke! At least try and add SOMETHING to the thread, or are you just in here to complain about me again?? Try to not be so transparent, Pat.
Click to expand...


Pat has contributed to this thread AND he has helped to keep you from de-railing it. Please leave it alone, Neil.

Lou Figueroa
 
dkleather said:
I am very pro coaching, but the coach, for me, has to be able to do two things, firstly, properly explain what they are trying to achieve, and secondly, demonstrate.

I can't really argue with your post but the classic example for me is former world snooker champion Mark Williams. In terms of accuracy of ball striking there's not much that's any harder than snooker in terms of cue sports.

Williams always cued across everything and got to the very top. When he stopped practising he plummeted down the rankings he went from being one of the greatest potters ever to almost being out the game.

Why? His timing had gone. He has since put the hours in and got back to the top, he has gotten to the top twice without a straight cue action.

One of the greatest triumphs of coaching is the job that Frank Callan did with Doug Mountjoy in his later years, that's well worth looking up. The job Ray Reardon did with Ronnie was also spectacular but that was mental rather than physical.

The fact is that when Tiger was the best player in the world, he saw his coach almost weekly, golf though is generally better money and therefore populated by more professional people and more professional coaches than our games.
Click to expand...

Agree quality coaching is worthwhile. I ignore the advice of almost all 'coaches' on here, not least because I suspect I'd beat most of them in my sleep. Lots are long on talk and short on action, as you're in the process of discovering. Quite what their credentials are is anyone's guess.

America has so many coaches and so few straight shooters. Why is that? The UK has few coaches and few ordinary guys who don't shoot straight. Why is that? Hmm.

I think you're a bit harsh on MJW's cue action - not one for the purists, perhaps, but I didn't think he 'cued across everything'. A tremendous player, regardless.
 
AzHousePro said:
Hey Lou, Neil and Patrick,
you know that other thread where we are all discussing hijacking of threads and vacations? This is what I am talking about.

What started out as a decent thread became...

Neil accusing Lou of showing an anti-instructor bias (which contributed nothing to the conversation)
Lou accusing Neil of showing his bias against Lou
Patrick chiming in to protect Lou (which contributed nothing to conversation)

And then it all just crashed and burned into a typical AzB clusterf^ck.

If you want to debate your opinions about straightness of stroke and it's importance, then feel free. But no more attacks on each other.

Mike
Click to expand...


Mike, I am trying to do that.

I have *politely* asked Neil three times to stop his attempted hijack. Pat has repeatedly tried to *politely* show Neil where he has misinterpreted what I've written and get the discussion back on track. If you eliminated Neil's antagonistic posts alone from thread, guess what happens? No AZ ClusterFock. You're tarring all of us when there is only one culprit.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
IMO, there are straight strokes, and then... there are straight strokes.

For the vast majority of players, anything vaguely resembling a straight stroke is good enough to play a few times a week, or in a league. After all, people can make an amazing number of balls with crooked strokes, opposite-handed, with mechanical bridges, one-handed, and of course, even no-handed.



Some of us that spend many hours playing (and hoping to play at the higher levels), exhaust a considerable amount of time on the practice table, in front of mirrors, with odd gadgets and Coke bottles, chasing down the elusive straight stroke. Until, perhaps, we discover that a straight stroke, in and of itself, isn't good enough. IOW, just because you stroke perfectly straight playing air pool, or going in and out of a bottle, or even with actual pool balls, isn't the secret.



I think the reason for that is that any player can make the cue travel on a perfectly straight track, using many different methods or techniques. Put another way, you can produce a perfectly straight stroke using a wide variety of stroke mechanics -- different stances, bridges, grips, head heights, crooked or bent bridge arms, grip arm alignments, pinkies on or off, etc. But it has to be a straight (or even crooked stroke for that matter) that produces the desired/expected results for your hypothesis, each time you shoot at a pool ball. The object balls need to be going in the pockets and the cue ball has to be going where you want and expect it to go. I think that's the secret. I'm not so sure it's important if the stroke that accomplishes that is straight, crooked, a swoop, or a dip.

What say you -- is a straight stroke all that important?



Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

John Brumback is a good example of YES.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
Neil, I hate to bring this to your attention...but I am personally putting your name on the list.
I don't know why you can't see it but you are on tilt.

You do not need to have the last word on the subject.

Dave
Click to expand...

..........
 
Last edited:
Neil...exactly what I'm talking about.

Instead of taking a warning and just beiing a sport..moving forward...cooperating.....

You had to get the last word in.
 
lfigueroa said:
You're right -- it is the speed of the tip. But that tip is being controlled by your grip, arm, elbow, and shoulder, which BTW, are all in position thanks to your footwork and whatever the rest of your body has done while getting into shooting position.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

In skiing, the only things that count are the knees and the ankles.
Any other extraneous body movement is detrimental to performance.
Compare the guy in the green pants to the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7W26SvVYDo

And skiing is a dynamic sport.

In billiards, what counts is the stationary pivot point - the elbow - the moving pivot point - the wrist - and the power delivered - the forearm.

Any extraneous movement may be detrimental to the desired outcome of the stroke.
 
what I read

What I read here is that Lou said there is more to a stroke than it just being straight. If you want speed control you have to find how to get it from your positioning and body movement. My issue with the pure pendulum, my speed control stinks using it. Part of that is no doubt because I can no longer get low to the table with the elbow relatively high and it is an extremely unnatural act for me to try to artificially lock my shoulder, something we have no mechanism for doing although it is indeed somewhat locked when we get low to the table and basically run out of range of motion in the shoulder.

Swoop shots work just fine if you master them by the way, a very crooked stroke. A hundred and fifty years ago when I was learning things on my own I didn't even know how to apply spin properly and simply altered my stroke on the final foreward stroke, arcing into the cue ball. The cue ball didn't know or care that my stroke looked like a rainbow, it only reacted to about a half inch or so of cue travel. For the record, I still think if there were a way to execute it consistently arcing at the cue ball would be the best way to hit it as that would come closest of the possible actions to being tangent to the surface of the cue ball. I think that is an advantage of backhand english over parallel english, the angle between tip and cue ball surface is better. I use both parallel and backhand english at different times but mostly parallel english, seems more natural to me after hitting a million balls or so like that.

Hu
 
Neil...

Am unconcerned with who the "trouble makers" are in the conversation.
I was addressing a specific behavior with you. I don't care about the last word.
What I am concerned with is that you are on tilt and it appears you don't know it.
I've been very patient with all parties ( I think ) but there are factions that feel the need to be more vocal than others. Neil, you're pushing the line for a reason that is intangible.
..or maybe just tangible to yourself.

Understand, I'm not itching to ban you specifically...I want the place to run smoothly. That's all.

I see it like this...you are jumping into deep water holding a cinder block.
You have a choice. Let go of that block and swim away..
or hold onto it for dear life and drown.

I'd rather you don't drown...but the choice is all your's.

Dave
 
I don't get where some people think they invented this game. It's only a stupid game. Not many if any of you are making a living playing and if you were trying probably wouldn't get any action because your assholes. OK, Ifeel better , now back to our regularlly scheduled arguement
 
ShootingArts said:
...I still think if there were a way to execute it consistently arcing at the cue ball would be the best way to hit it as that would come closest of the possible actions to being tangent to the surface of the cue ball. I think that is an advantage of backhand english over parallel english, the angle between tip and cue ball surface is better.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you can't get a better angle by arcing your stroke than you can get with "parallel" english.

Let's say with an arced stroke your tip hits the CB when it's traveling at a 10-degree angle from straight on. You can get the same 10-degree angle (and the exact same CB action) by angling your stick at 10 degrees beforehand and stroking straight (this is what's called "parallel" english). The same miscue limit and tip-offset-to-spin ratio applies either way.

I know it seems as if you could "swipe" the CB and get a greater spin/speed ratio (like swiping a spinning basketball on your fingertip), but it ain't so.

pj
chgo
 
actually it is

Patrick Johnson said:
Unfortunately, you can't get a better angle by arcing your stroke than you can get with "parallel" english.

Let's say with an arced stroke your tip hits the CB when it's traveling at a 10-degree angle from straight on. You can get the same 10-degree angle (and the exact same CB action) by angling your stick at 10 degrees beforehand and stroking straight (this is what's called "parallel" english). The same miscue limit and tip-offset-to-spin ratio applies either way.

I know it seems as if you could "swipe" the CB and get a greater spin/speed ratio (like swiping a spinning basketball on your fingertip), but it ain't so.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


PJ, actually it is true. The catch is that the swoop has to occur over a very short distance, perfectly timed. Done perfectly you can get tremendous spin without hitting a ball hard. Another of the things learned when trial and error was the only teacher.

Compare this to the way volley balls are sometimes hit, and some tennis and table tennis shots where they chop across the path of the ball. As always the mechanical properties stay the same.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Compare this to the way volley balls are sometimes hit, and some tennis and table tennis shots where they chop across the path of the ball.
Click to expand...
Those are good examples of straight strokes at extreme angles - they'd be miscues on a CB. Do you think it matters whether they're straight or swooping hits?

The cue ball only "knows" at what angle the tip is moving at the moment it makes contact - nothing tells it what direction the tip was moving even a microsecond before contact. So the tip's effect on the CB is exactly the same whether you start with the stick angled at 10 degrees or get to the 10-degree angle by swooping your stroke.

Here's a test: Use a marked cue ball (maybe an object ball) with the marking facing you so you can confirm that you hit the same spot on the CB with a normal "parallel" english stroke and your "swipe" stroke. Be sure the CB goes in the same direction both ways (perpendicular into a rail) at about the same speed (so it stops about the same distance), and see how much angle change you get. If you really test this carefully I promise you won't get more spin one way or the other.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Unfortunately, you can't get a better angle by arcing your stroke than you can get with "parallel" english.

Let's say with an arced stroke your tip hits the CB when it's traveling at a 10-degree angle from straight on. You can get the same 10-degree angle (and the exact same CB action) by angling your stick at 10 degrees beforehand and stroking straight (this is what's called "parallel" english). The same miscue limit and tip-offset-to-spin ratio applies either way.

I know it seems as if you could "swipe" the CB and get a greater spin/speed ratio (like swiping a spinning basketball on your fingertip), but it ain't so.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Swipping is one of those things that will be argued till the end of time. All I can say about these cuing techniques is if they don't have any validity then why do we see them at work with the pros? Ceulemans swipes the ball for max English. I watched this standing 1 foot from the table. Sang Lee used an up stroke for many many shots. So did Gilbert. I know the CB is gone 1/10000 sec and only the contact point matters. Then why all the other stuff. Loose grip for instance.

Hu My opinion on your comment is, when the cue comes in @ an angle other than straight to the shot you've changed the center of the ball in relation to the shot. As Pat mentioned the miss cue limits are the same. Think of the jump shot. Dead center ball moves toward the top of the CB. Nothing different on this cueing across the equator.
 
no time or interest

Patrick Johnson said:
Those are good examples of straight strokes at extreme angles - they'd be miscues on a CB. Do you think it matters whether they're straight or swooping hits?

The cue ball only "knows" at what angle the tip is moving at the moment it makes contact - nothing tells it what direction the tip was moving even a microsecond before contact. So the tip's effect on the CB is exactly the same whether you start with the stick angled at 10 degrees or get to the 10-degree angle by swooping your stroke.

Here's a test: Use a marked cue ball (maybe an object ball) with the marking facing you so you can confirm that you hit the same spot on the CB with a normal "parallel" english stroke and your "swipe" stroke. Be sure the CB goes in the same direction both ways (perpendicular into a rail) at about the same speed (so it stops about the same distance), and see how much angle change you get. If you really test this carefully I promise you won't get more spin one way or the other.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


PJ,

I proved that increasing contact time increased spin transfer long ago when I was a youngster with a table in the living room and plenty of time to play with things. When I make an hour and a half round trip to the pool hall I'll be playing with something I'm interested in at the moment, the slip stroke.

There are many ways to transfer force and that is something I had to delve into a bit long ago. A soft tip, more contact area, and a longer contact time has merit in that you might have a less efficient transfer per unit of surface area in any moment in time but it occurs over a wider area for longer. The radical swoop shot at the cue ball works with this tip. Been there, done that, I don't have to revisit old history.

A very hard tip relies on the grit of the chalk biting into both surfaces. There is less contact area, less dwell time, but there should be a more efficient transfer of force per unit of surface area during contact time. In theory the result of an arc at the cue ball should be much the same but the angle might be severe enough that the chalk fails to bite into the tip and cue ball resulting in a miscue as you mention. I don't know and I don't have the incentive to test. I have used the radical swoop in actual play, doing a little magic. I failed to execute it properly far more often so I took it out of my game. The swoop a hair early did result in a ridiculous miscue or more embarrassingly missing the cue ball entirely. A little late and at most the result was the same as applying english.

This swoop at the cue ball is no gentle motion. It is applied with a violent wrist flick or the arm swinging way out depending on if it was to the right or left. Extremely difficult to time and pretty low percentage. Not something I recommend someone putting in their game. However if you want to play around with it for a few hours or so you will find for yourself that every once in awhile you get the perfect timing and the cue ball comes off of a rail with more angle than you can possibly get with english without hitting the ball vastly harder. This was used to make the cue ball take a radical angle off the rail but not travel far.

Knowing that things were possible but not how to do them led me into some interesting areas when I first started playing. I didn't have any kind of a mentor for the first few years and never had a teacher, just someone that showed me a few things after my game was already at decent barroom level. The various swoops were a result of not knowing how to do things right.

Hu
 
3kushn said:
Swipping is one of those things that will be argued till the end of time.
Click to expand...
It can easily be tested. See my previous post.

All I can say about these cuing techniques is if they don't have any validity then why do we see them at work with the pros?
Click to expand...
My guess is they either have the same wrong impression non-pros do (it's so intuitive) or they compensate for squirt with backhand english (or both).

Hu My opinion on your comment is, when the cue comes in @ an angle other than straight to the shot you've changed the center of the ball in relation to the shot.
Click to expand...
Not really (although it seems so to me too at first impression). See this explanation I posted in another thread.

But the point here is that no matter where you want the CB center to be you can make it so without swooping your stroke.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top