Lower Deflection Stroke according to Stephen Hendry

[WobblyStroke]

Here is a vid of Stephen Hendry discussing levels of deflection caused by different stroking techniques. Smooth vs abrupt acceleration. The video is on 'learning potting angles' but his insights into cue delivery and effects on deflection and aim points goes a bit deeper than your standard instructional vid that stops at the very basics.

I could not find the original thread we veered off on the tangent of 'lower deflection strokes' that Jeremy Jones mentioned on a telecast, so posted this fresh thread. It seems as tho many world class players are aware of this concept while many even advanced players are at best subconsciously aware of what Hendry describes. You buy it? Or think the jerkiness and abrupt delivery of the cue are just prone to more deviations off the shot line? Personally I def buy it bc I never ever cue crooked and all my misses must be due to higher deflection like Hendry's and JJ's .

 

[Nick B]

The cueball knows physics. Not windup. How you deliver has zero effect (ditto with follow through). Anything else is just a feel good story. What he is promoting is something that you can repeat and deliver under pressure. Full discretion...I grew up playing snooker and am I huge Stephen Hendry fan.

Otherwise this guy would NEVER make a ball.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You buy it? Or think the jerkiness and abrupt delivery of the cue are just prone to more deviations off the shot line?

For any given set of player/equipment/conditions, there are really only three things that affect what the cue ball does:

-Where the cue ball is hit.
-The speed it is hit.
-The angle of the cue at contact.

That's it. If the "jerkiness" or "abrupt delivery" of the cue are creating different results than a smooth delivery of the cue it is only because the jerkier delivery is changing one or more of these three things. The jerkiness or abrupt delivery in and of themselves make no difference. If/when you deliver a jerky stroke that still manages to hit the exact same spot at the exact same speed and at the exact same angle then you will get the exact same results.

A smooth stroke (and good follow through) is so much more beneficial for this and in general simply because it increases the consistency with which you will hit where you intended and at the speed and angle you intended which in turn increases how often you get the results you intended.

Giving another example.....if Adam can draw the ball better Zeke it can only be because he either hits the ball lower, harder, or at a more advantageous angle (or some combination of those same three things). Those are the only three things the cue balls "knows" and that affect what it does for any given set of player/equipment/conditions.

 

[bbb]

if you slo mo the missed "pot"
he didnt over cut the ball which you would expect from more deflection from a non smooth stroke according to hendry

 

[hang-the-9]

I think that many top players don't quite understand the physics of pool, especially players that learned to play over 10 years ago. Sigel, Mizerak, Strickland, those guys all have some funky ideas about the game and what causes what actions. They know something is happening to the cueball or some other ball, but they don't quite know why, so can't explain it or teach it properly.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...there are really only three things that affect what the cue ball does:

-Where the cue ball is hit.
-The speed it is hit.
-The angle of the cue at contact.

Yes.

I like to think of it as Angle/Spot/Speed (for the memorable acronym).

pj
chgo

P.S. Except instead of "the angle of the cue", I'd say "the angle the tip is moving" (they can be different).

 

[WobblyStroke]

The cueball knows physics. Not windup. How you deliver has zero effect (ditto with follow through). Anything else is just a feel good story. What he is promoting is something that you can repeat and deliver under pressure. Full discretion...I grew up playing snooker and am I huge Stephen Hendry fan.

Otherwise this guy would NEVER make a ball.

View attachment 674184

Busty's stroke repeats and his fundamentals are pure...they are just different than the ones most others subscribe to. You see the same thing with different style golf swings; the cornerstone of one swing is a disastrous swing flaw to another. Yes Busty's stroke moves on an arc, but so does Earl's albeit tighter. They, along with Efren, who plays a wild looking pump stroke himself, are 3 of the best to ever play the game. They don't have bad fundamentals that took thousands and thousands of hours to overcome like you hear clueless comentators say. "Oh, don't try that style at home folks, you won't make a ball for the first 100hrs". BS. I learned that technique and was a much much better player overnight. These guys don't have bad fundamentals they overcame with talent, they have strokes that come with their own set of fundamentals that make them repeatable and amazing under pressure.

I think too many ppl look at techniques like that and immediately dismiss them as 'not for mere mortals like me'. "Maybe if I was Filipino"....as if your nationality affects how you can stroke a cue.

 

[garczar]

Yes.

I like to think of it as Angle/Spot/Speed (for the memorable acronym).

pj
chgo

P.S. Except instead of "the angle of the cue", I'd say "the angle the tip is moving" (they can be different).

So if you combine two acro's you get "KISS ASS"?? I don't think the delivery type(smooth vs. jerky) has any effect of deflection.

 

[SmoothStroke]

Maybe I should change my name.

 

[Cue Alchemist]

Busty's stroke repeats and his fundamentals are pure...they are just different than the ones most others subscribe to. You see the same thing with different style golf swings; the cornerstone of one swing is a disastrous swing flaw to another. Yes Busty's stroke moves on an arc, but so does Earl's albeit tighter. They, along with Efren, who plays a wild looking pump stroke himself, are 3 of the best to ever play the game. They don't have bad fundamentals that took thousands and thousands of hours to overcome like you hear clueless comentators say. "Oh, don't try that style at home folks, you won't make a ball for the first 100hrs". BS. I learned that technique and was a much much better player overnight. These guys don't have bad fundamentals they overcame with talent, they have strokes that come with their own set of fundamentals that make them repeatable and amazing under pressure.

I think too many ppl look at techniques like that and immediately dismiss them as 'not for mere mortals like me'. "Maybe if I was Filipino"....as if your nationality affects how you can stroke a cue.

One of the most interesting posts I've read in a while.
Your right. I too think, it's all about technique. And just about any will work. If practiced properly. All that matters is the final stroke, goes straight.
For me, efren and ronnie had the best strokes for there respective games.
And your right. Any of these can be learned. If your obsessed enough to figure it out!!
And years to practise the mechanics. That go into it.

 

[FunChamp]

Busty's stroke repeats and his fundamentals are pure...they are just different than the ones most others subscribe to. You see the same thing with different style golf swings; the cornerstone of one swing is a disastrous swing flaw to another. Yes Busty's stroke moves on an arc, but so does Earl's albeit tighter. They, along with Efren, who plays a wild looking pump stroke himself, are 3 of the best to ever play the game. They don't have bad fundamentals that took thousands and thousands of hours to overcome like you hear clueless comentators say. "Oh, don't try that style at home folks, you won't make a ball for the first 100hrs". BS. I learned that technique and was a much much better player overnight. These guys don't have bad fundamentals they overcame with talent, they have strokes that come with their own set of fundamentals that make them repeatable and amazing under pressure.

I think too many ppl look at techniques like that and immediately dismiss them as 'not for mere mortals like me'. "Maybe if I was Filipino"....as if your nationality affects how you can stroke a cue.

%100 correct. To many people get hung up on looking like a snooker player or Fedor or any of the other robots today. Yes it's a good baseline to learn how to play and it works. However......the cue ball has no idea what your fundamentals look like. Busty, Efren, Keith, Buddy, Sigel, Earl, Hopkins, Alex, Johnny, etc etc, all set up different, stroked different. But two things were the same. They hit the cue ball where they wanted and stroked straight through the ball.
The only thing that matters is can you strike the cue ball where you want and repeat said motion over and over again consistently. We all have different body types and mental makeup. Some folks are analytical and can't function in life without an equation or a system. Some are like musicians or artists that go by instinct and feel. Find what works for you but don't force yourself to be something your not.

 

[3kushn]

I don't think the delivery type(smooth vs. jerky) has any effect of deflection.

Yep, the CB is going to do what it's told to do. Your job is to learn what your cue is communicating to the CB.
I think the point of the vid on this topic is ... A Jerky stroke reduces your ability to accurately deliver the tip and thereforre makes things impossible to predict.

A "well practiced" jerky stroke can be perfected IMO. It just takes a lot longer to achieve.

Gar?

 

[garczar]

Yep, the CB is going to do what it's told to do. Your job is to learn what your cue is communicating to the CB.
I think the point of the vid on this topic is ... A Jerky stroke reduces your ability to accurately deliver the tip and thereforre makes things impossible to predict.

A "well practiced" jerky stroke can be perfected IMO. It just takes a lot longer to achieve.

Gar?

Yep, a big 10-4 on this one.

 

[telinoz]

A couple of us tried this out after watching Hendry's video.
Applied force matters a lot, just basic physics.
What he is saying is a jerky action is hand in hand with too much applied force, increasing throw.

3 of us lined up the same shot and tried different cue strokes.
We all missed the pot when we stabbed the shot vs. stroking it with a nice cue action.

So, video is helpful IMO.

 

[WobblyStroke]

A couple of us tried this out after watching Hendry's video.
Applied force matters a lot, just basic physics.
What he is saying is a jerky action is hand in hand with too much applied force, increasing throw.

3 of us lined up the same shot and tried different cue strokes.
We all missed the pot when we stabbed the shot vs. stroking it with a nice cue action.

So, video is helpful IMO.

Agreed. The tip is very helpful. But the terminology is what is throwing ppl off here (and in the JJ low deflection stroke thread, where ever that went). I think you hit the nail on the head. When you are abrupt/jerky u can easily over hit the shot. When you over hit it, it deflects more.

So, nobody is arguing against the ball doing the same thing with the same forces applied to the same points at contact. What cueing smoothly accomplishes is that it lets you come in to the chosen contact point at, or at least closer to, the speed you intended because the speed isn't changing so quickly. If you have an abrupt acceleration, timing it out so that it is at the correct speed at the ball becomes difficult, with a likelihood of an overhit which will deflect more.

 

[telinoz]

Agreed. The tip is very helpful. But the terminology is what is throwing ppl off here (and in the JJ low deflection stroke thread, where ever that went). I think you hit the nail on the head. When you are abrupt/jerky u can easily over hit the shot. When you over hit it, it deflects more.

So, nobody is arguing against the ball doing the same thing with the same forces applied to the same points at contact. What cueing smoothly accomplishes is that it lets you come in to the chosen contact point at, or at least closer to, the speed you intended because the speed isn't changing so quickly. If you have an abrupt acceleration, timing it out so that it is at the correct speed at the ball becomes difficult, with a likelihood of an overhit which will deflect more.

Yep, we are on the same page.

 

[bbb]

Agreed. The tip is very helpful. But the terminology is what is throwing ppl off here (and in the JJ low deflection stroke thread, where ever that went). I think you hit the nail on the head. When you are abrupt/jerky u can easily over hit the shot. When you over hit it, it deflects more.

So, nobody is arguing against the ball doing the same thing with the same forces applied to the same points at contact. What cueing smoothly accomplishes is that it lets you come in to the chosen contact point at, or at least closer to, the speed you intended because the speed isn't changing so quickly. If you have an abrupt acceleration, timing it out so that it is at the correct speed at the ball becomes difficult, with a likelihood of an overhit which will deflect more.

i agree with you but hendry seemed to imply to me its the stroke nit the inaccurracy
jmho
icbw

 

[WobblyStroke]

i agree with you but hendry seemed to imply to me its the stroke nit the inaccurracy
jmho
icbw

It is the stroke that causes speed at contact to be imprecise. You might hit the exact spot on the ball (less often imo) but with the higher level of acceleration (aka rate of change in speed for those that don't speak scienceese) it becomes more difficult to control the speed at contact, with a tendency to overhit...which will cause more deflection even when hitting the exact same spot on the ball.

Either way, good tip, funky wording is how I'd sum it up. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the smoothly accelerating stroke allows you to time the speed of the shot better so that you contact the ball with the intended speed more often, resulting in the expected amount of deflection. When you go jerky, the speed is much more difficult to time and as speed varies, so will deflection. So the jerky stroke is really a high speed variability stroke (which affects deflection) rather than a high-deflection stroke in and of itself.

 

[VarmintKong]

(and in the JJ low deflection stroke thread, where ever that went).

Here's the thread:
Low deflection stroke thread

Here's the quote:
“You always hear people talk about low deflection shafts, but you never hear people talk about a low deflection stroke.”

 

[WobblyStroke]

Here's the thread:
Low deflection stroke thread

Here's the quote:
“You always hear people talk about low deflection shafts, but you never hear people talk about a low deflection stroke.”

thank you. i dunno what is wrong with my search on here but i def typed that exact title in. woulda just posted the vid there cuz now we have heard someone talk about a low deflection stroke. Stephen Hendry no less.