Is there an established system for discussing stroke speed?

fastone371 said:
I can defend my side but others have already done so, it just seems that you refuse to accept that it can work. This thread was originally about how to convey shot speed accurately to another person. It can be done if the 2 people practice a number system and both are adept and familiar with it. I also agree that once you get down to less than 1/2 of a table speed it would be very hard communicate that speed to another person. I can shoot shots that are 6" long cue ball travel shots but only because I practice pushing 2 balls that are very, very close to each other up the rail making completed shots for safety practice. Most people dont even know you can shoot a shot like that because they think they will double hit the cue ball, but I discovered the cue ball moves away from the cue faster than your stroke speed. But I cannot convey this speed to another person. Lag speed=yes, 1 1/2 table lengths=yes, etc.. it is the very short travel shots that are difficult to explain. Now if someone tells me to hit lag speed or double length lag speed I can do that pretty easy because I practice it, I have a baseline that I put a number speed on and it works. Just like golfers put numbers on golf clubs that relate to distance, which I believe you said in an earlier post numbers do not work well for people because early cavemen did not use a numbered speed for how hard to throw a spear. But cavemen Im sure did practice throwing that spear and the used some type of way to memorize how hard to throw that spear. If they had numbers they probably would/could have assigned them to how hard they wanted to throw the spear.
Click to expand...

You were doing okay up until the last part.

We have numbers NOW & Quarterbacks, outfielders, basketball players, etc. do NOT assign numbers for different speeds of full arm motions for different distances.

Also, pro golfers do NOT assign numbers for different speeds of full length swings to hit the ball different yardages. They use different lengths of swing for different yardages & they are playing for more than $1,000,000.00 at every weekly tournament.

I think THAT should be very telling. If full length swings at different speeds was the best method for doing that, I am rather sure that that would be how they would be doing it given the money, year long exemptions to continue playing, qualifying for The Masters, the prestige, & all that.

I have a question for you. Are you using a full back swing & full finsih for all of the different speeds that you want to hit other than less than lag speed?

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS It is like Duckie said, it is contrivance in order to have something to teach related to that subject.
 
You lucky man.

Neil said:
Beat you to it. All I had to do is make one post where I politely asked him to show us some proof of what he was saying. He responded by threatening to report me for daring to question him.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
ENGLISH! said:
I have a question for you. Are you using a full back swing & full finsih for all of the different speeds that you want to hit other than less than lag speed?
Click to expand...

Yes. Have not lagged for a while however every stroke is SPF. Object is to deliver a consistent repeatable stroke..And GUESS WHAT? ...That is Scott Lee's and the other SPF instructors teachings. Oh I'm such a Grandstanding SOB. Let's hear it in 15,000 thousand words or less.
 
Last edited:
GoldCrown said:
Golfers...play with their putz
Pool players with their sticks
Curious about soccer, tennis, Curling,
Where is Howard Cosell.
Click to expand...

You can try to make fun all that you like, while never giving one iota of rational logical support for your position on the matter.

That does not change the facts regarding arm movement for moving a ball various distances with or with out an implement.

One does not make a home rune swing to bunt the ball a few feet nor does one make a driver swing to putt the ball a few feet or even a few yards.

Those guys play for millions of dollars & tend to do what works best.

Have you ever heard of bio-mechanics & the subconscious mind?

It would seem not.

And if not, it would not surprise me.
 
Last edited:
See my red text below.

ENGLISH! said:
Here's the thing. That rail in that demo sounded soft.

So those arm stroke speeds are good for THAT table with THOSE rails on THAT day.

Go to a different table tomorrow & those same arm stroke speeds are no good & no longer valid for those target distances.

That is the point, to LEARN HOW to adjust. After all of this back and forth, you still don't realize that or do you just like to continue trolling?

Anyone can 'teach' whatever they choose. A potential student can pay for whatever they choose.

So happy to have your approval


That does not make something a viable & practical 'system' regardless of what impression is given or taken.

As the drill is to teach a player how to adjust then it is viable and practical.

What also needs to be learned is how much speed is taken off of the CB by ALL of the different angled collisions.

Of course but that is not the purpose of this drill.

What 'system' is there for finishing off with that of which is also required to even attempt to make the other 'system' in any way practical & of any real use?

You have a habit of having your fingers disengaged from your brain when typing.

As I said before, I think the credit for success is perhaps given to the wrong 'entity'.

I suggested in a PS of one of my posts to set up a close cut in a side pocket & then go shoot that shot from all over behind the string & pocket the ball & then lag the CB to the head rail & then do it & go back to the foot rail & see how successful one is from all of those different starting points & different collisions between the CB & the OB.

Sounds like a drill to me, care to post a video of you doing it?

Reality vs Drills. IMO Reality wins every time.

All of the Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

PS I am very glad that you did not allow those bullies from a while back to run you off.

Take a look in a mirror.
Click to expand...
 
GoldCrown said:
Yes. Have not lagged for a while however every stroke is SPF. Object is to deliver a consistent repeatable stroke..And GUESS WHAT? ...That is Scott Lee's and the other SPF instructors teachings. Oh I'm such a Grandstanding SOB. Let's hear it in 15,000 thousand words or less.
Click to expand...

The question was not directed to you.

You quote it out of context to give a false impression.

I think that should be telling to anyone considering your position on matters.
 
ENGLISH! said:
The question was not directed to you.

You quote it out of context to give a false impression.

I think that should be telling to anyone considering your position on matters.
Click to expand...

oops Position Matters. My mistake. Reset...back to default. Foul. Hi everyone. I'm a douche
 
ENGLISH! said:
I appreciate your post, but if Jimmy Reid & a GoldCrown are giving lessons in the same hall, then I am walking over to Jimmy Reid's table. One can extend that logic out to other individuals if they choose to do so.
I would take a lesson from Jimmy Reid anytime. I would also take a lesson from anyone that was doing something better than me, if what they were doing made any sense at all.
Here's the thing. That rail in that demo sounded soft.
Maybe. All things considered we play on pretty uniform conditions (those of us who play on tournament quality tables) compared to other sports.
So those arm stroke speeds are good for THAT table with THOSE rails on THAT day.
Well, that's the thing. "Arm speed" or "cueball speed in ft/sec" are completely worthless to me as practical speed measurements, until Dr. Dave or someone like him designs a cue that whistles at a different pitch when the speed changes. I have no way to relate that to what I'm doing at the table or communicating it to others. Length of cueball travel is what we want, and what we observe as poolplayers, so I don't understand why you are so opposed to using that?
Go to a different table tomorrow & those same arm stroke speeds are no good & no longer valid for those target distances.
Well that's the thing. Once you have calibrated the speed (using for instance the PAT drill), then you can still use the measurements and you can relate the speed to someone playing on a completely different table, so long as he calibrates his stroke. Beautiful, eh?
Anyone can 'teach' whatever they choose. A potential student can pay for whatever they choose.

That does not make something a viable & practical 'system' regardless of what impression is given or taken.
ANY system that has a way to quantify the variables will be better than some sort of ordinal scale system when you are communicating something to others. I've never been in the Navy, but if someone related distance in the "length of class x destroyers", at least that gives me some information and is much preferable to something like "long", even if it may be clumsy and impractical. "Medium speed" is almost completely void of any real meaning at all. Ask 10 people to hit a shot with medium speed and tell me your findings.
What also needs to be learned is how much speed is taken off of the CB by ALL of the different angled collisions.
Granted, but that is not the matter at hand, although if you aim with fractions, that will actually give you a decent idea, when combined with speed measurements.
What 'system' is there for finishing off with that of which is also required to even attempt to make the other 'system' in any way practical & of any real use?

As I said before, I think the credit for success is perhaps given to the wrong 'entity'.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this? Do you mean that practice is what improves a player rather than the system, or that the knowledge preached by some is stolen from others?
I suggested in a PS of one of my posts to set up a close cut in a side pocket & then go shoot that shot from all over behind the string & pocket the ball & then lag the CB to the head rail & then do it & go back to the foot rail & see how successful one is from all of those different starting points & different collisions between the CB & the OB.

Reality vs Drills. IMO Reality wins every time.
Disagree completely. As a way of systematically learning something the number of repetitions is critical. Drills typically gives you more repetitions of a given scenario than actual play. If your time is limited, you should definitely do drills as well as play.
All of the Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

PS I am very glad that you did not allow those bullies from a while back to run you off.
Click to expand...
Thanks. My critique may sound as if I'm picking on you, but there is a difference between disagreement and disrespect as your line says.

I disagree with you when it comes to systems of teaching. While a great artist/athlete will eventually free himself from the constraints of a rigid system (but not always), systems are very parsimonius and effective when it comes to conveying a lot of information relatively fast. It also helps you remember much better.

The people behind the systematic approach to pool teaching have a certain ideal of the perfect pool player in mind, even if that image may differ from mine and yours, they have found a way to get people close to that ideal. When you are going to teach a large number of very different people over relatively short periods of time, the teaching needs to be systematic.

I don't think anyone has made any spectacular claims about any of these speed number systems so I don't understand why you are so opposed to them?
 
Last edited:
Straightpool_99 said:
Thanks. My critique may sound as if I'm picking on you, but there is a difference between disagreement and disrespect as your line says.

I disagree with you when it comes to systems of teaching. While a great artist/athlete will eventually free himself from the constraints of a rigid system (but not always), systems are very parsimonius and effective when it comes to conveying a lot of information relatively fast. It also helps you remember much better.

The people behind the systematic approach to pool teaching have a certain ideal of the perfect pool player in mind, even if that image may differ from mine and yours, they have found a way to get people close to that ideal. When you are going to teach a large number of very different people over relatively short periods of time, the teaching needs to be systematic.

I don't think anyone has made any spectacular claims about any of these speed number systems so I don't understand why you are so opposed to them?
Click to expand...

A long post augmented to the following

I think we have some mis-communications going on.

I have no problem using table lengths nor diamonds nor feet nor yards, nor cue stick lengths etc. to designate distances.

What you seem to be talking about are not 'systems' but teaching props.

I am not sure that you are aware that a complete full arm swing is being used for this supposed playing 'system'.

I will not repeat things that I have already said nor will I add much to it.

I think telling one an approximate speed as in just hard enough so that the ball takes this route & stops about here is better than saying hit it at a 2 speed.

If they can not get close after me showing the route & the stopping area then I really don't want them on my team as I've done that with a mentally challenged middle aged man & he beat my friend who was his neighbor. He did exactly as I told him every time including spin. Perhaps it is because I am a coach & know not to NOT leave ANYTHING out in the directions & that I trust the subconscious minds of others.

I guess we will just disagree.

You know that I respect your knowledge & insights as I am the one that asked you to not let yourself be run off.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick
 
Last edited:
My take on these matters has nothing to do with who is promoting or teaching the contrivance.

Suggesting that it does is nothing more that a type of 'attack' the messenger tactic instead of offering up logical rational reasoning to support it as a playing 'system'.

Best Wishes for ALL.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Thanks. My critique may sound as if I'm picking on you, but there is a difference between disagreement and disrespect as your line says.

I disagree with you when it comes to systems of teaching. While a great artist/athlete will eventually free himself from the constraints of a rigid system (but not always), systems are very parsimonius and effective when it comes to conveying a lot of information relatively fast. It also helps you remember much better.

The people behind the systematic approach to pool teaching have a certain ideal of the perfect pool player in mind, even if that image may differ from mine and yours, they have found a way to get people close to that ideal. When you are going to teach a large number of very different people over relatively short periods of time, the teaching needs to be systematic.

I don't think anyone has made any spectacular claims about any of these speed number systems so I don't understand why you are so opposed to them?
Click to expand...

Here are my thoughts after sleeping on this.

The SPF system is different than the PAT method. The OP is looking for an "established" (uniform) method of communicating CB speed.

A 1 speed for SPF is a lag, 2 lengths of the table minus 2 diamonds & the 1 speed for PAT is 6 diamonds, etc. for both. They do NOT match up.

Someone from Alphabet, USA might have a method where letters are used for every 1/2 table length.

So... we need the BCA, or whomever, to come up with "OFFICIAL" CB speed designations that are defined by distances of a rolling CB.

I would think that 1 table length might = 1, 2 table lengths might = 2, etc. but without the 2 diamonds less for the kitchen line that is involved in both the SPF & PAT designations. Why confuse the mater using such odd lengths?

The above is NOT that of which I have an issue even though & think a physical pointing of the path & the landing area is much better for human beings as Michael Angelo did not paint by numbers & the caveman did not use numbers for his distance recognition when he throw his spear & we are visual creatures, especially the male gender.

My issue is the method dictated by SPF to obtain those speeds for the distances. My issue is delivery method of the cue stick for SPF.

SPF 'dictates' the 'stroke' method that should be used, a complete full back swing & a complete forward full follow through, or finish, delivered by various different arm speeds with a stationary elbow.

So for THAT to be the "established" method for communicating CB speed, EVERYONE would have to change their stroke method to coincide.

I, for one, will NEVER go to a full arm pendulum swing type of cue stick delivery.

Players in NO other sport, that I know of, uses a full arm motion with number designations assigned to desired distances of ball travel & most of them are playing for an extreme amount more money & prestige, etc, than pool players.

I hope that better explains my take.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Here are my thoughts after sleeping on this.

The SPF system is different than the PAT method. The OP is looking for an "established" (uniform) method of communicating CB speed.

A 1 speed for SPF is a lag, 2 lengths of the table minus 2 diamonds & the 1 speed for PAT is 6 diamonds, etc. for both. They do NOT match up.

Someone from Alphabet, USA might have a method where letters are used for every 1/2 table length.

So... we need the BCA, or whomever, to come up with "OFFICIAL" CB speed designations that are defined by distances of a rolling CB.

I would think that 1 table length might = 1, 2 table lengths might = 2, etc. but without the 2 diamonds less for the kitchen line that is involved in both the SPF & PAT designations. Why confuse the mater using such odd lengths?

The above is NOT that of which I have an issue even though & think a physical pointing of the path & the landing area is much better for human beings as Michael Angelo did not paint by numbers & the caveman did not use numbers for his distance recognition when he throw his spear & we are visual creatures, especially the male gender.

My issue is the method dictated by SPF to obtain those speeds for the distances. My issue is delivery method of the cue stick for SPF.

SPF 'dictates' the 'stroke' method that should be used, a complete full back swing & a complete forward full follow through, or finish, delivered by various different arm speeds with a stationary elbow.

So for THAT to be the "established" method for communicating CB speed, EVERYONE would have to change their stroke method to coincide.

I, for one, will NEVER go to a full arm pendulum swing type of cue stick delivery.

Players in NO other sport, that I know of, uses a full arm motion with number designations assigned to desired distances of ball travel & most of them are playing for an extreme amount more money & prestige, etc, than pool players.

I hope that better explains my take.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick
Click to expand...
Post a video of you doing the speed control drill. Would like to see your stroke and speed control.
 
GoldCrown said:
Post a video of you doing the speed control drill. Would like to see your stroke and speed control.
Click to expand...

Look at nearly every pro playing the game.

You seem to have an extremely closed mind & blind eyes.

I guess you believe it when someone says that every pro is using that 3 letter acronym of a supposed aiming system whether they know it or not.

What will you think when you buy a new DVD & it says that the best cue delivery is a straight line piston type stroke...

but not everyone can do it yet because they have spent years trying to keep their elbows stationary which just is not the natural thing to do?

Going against what is natural by a method that someone contrives is usually never the best way.

Do you remember high jumping before the Fosbury Flop (or baseball before Babe Ruth)

https://youtu.be/Id4W6VA0uLc

PS How about YOU post a video of you beating the 10 ball ghost with the contrived cue delivery method that you have been taught? Just like in the aiming war, one side, the side with no real logic to support their stance wants to make an intellectual matter a wolfing ritual. You seem to be a perfect example of PoolPlayer9's analysis of such individuals
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
PS How about YOU post a video of you beating the 10 ball ghost with the contrived cue delivery method that you have been taught?
Click to expand...

Would enjoy doing this but my camera is in the cleaners and they're closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top