Lower Deflection Stroke according to Stephen Hendry

[WobblyStroke]

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.

If I were left to figure it out on my own it may well have taken me years or maybe I'd never get there. But as I said in my original post, I became much better 'overnight'. That said, I already had a stroke based on a throwing motion like you hear some ppl talk about so the jump to the super flowy 'Filipino' strokes wasn't very big. Yes, there were breakdowns in form as I got used to what makes it go and try to get out of the way for that to happen but it certainly needn't take years. The mechanics don't need nearly as much practice as you'd expect with all the moving parts as it is more about rhythm and timing like a pure swing in golf like Snead's. Those wild-looking warmup strokes just confirm a certain "if this, then that" relationship between arm and cue. If you just look at the final pull back and delivery of Efren, Busty, Earl, SVB, or even Varner, they look very similar indeed.

edit: I left out Mika... but really there are plenty of pros that move with a cue this way, some have just tightened up their mechanics so their flow is more restricted to a tighter path. Take Shane as an example of one who is very locked down and under control, but if you've ever seen him 'lazy stroke' it, his cue dances around as much as anyone's I ever seen.

 

[VarmintKong]

I'm a little hesitant to weigh in because I'm just a bum, but I think I have a pretty good example. Take it with a grain of salt and please call me out if I'm talking out of my rear.

Shots #6 and #21 in Bert Kinster's 60 minute workout are REALLY similar. For those of you unfamiliar set it up like this: (Long rail=x, short rail=y); sorry I'm not familiar with the table diagram tools.

Shot #6- CB(4,4) OB(2,3and1/2) Trying to play position right back to (4,4).
Shot #21- same setup but try to play position back through center table, off the long rail, and finish around (6,1).

If I shoot Shot #21 the same way I shoot shot #6, I'll beat it into the long rail every time. I can still hit it smoothly, but I have to hit it with more pace. There's more squirt and the same amount of distance where swerve can take effect.

What if I shoot both shots again, but place the CB in line with the shot a diamond down the long rail (5,1and1/4light)? I have to use more pace to reach the same positions, but I also have more time for swerve to take effect.

Shoot, before I posted this I spent quite some time shooting these 4 shots. The more I tried to think about the deflection the worse I shot. I really think you just have to know your stroke and where your line to the 2nd rail is even if you aren't going to hit it.

In fact, I think my original line of thinking, after initial consideration, is still pretty much the same:
"...I’ve been trying to boil it down to a statement that I can relate to. Something like, “a strong player uses just enough spin and speed to get position.”

So what factors contribute to a low deflection stroke?

Here’s where I’m at. Feel free to rip me apart; I don’t know spit:
-when using side spin try to minimize squirt. A softer stroke can get you where you need to go without throwing you offline as much. The harder the stroke the more compensation is needed from the intended contact point.
-given a choice roll over stun where cut induced throw needs minimized
-tip placement and quality stroke over trying to cram a ball in to a tight pocket. i.e. drag on a ball tight to the long rail at distance."

 

[Patrick Johnson]

…a tendency to overhit ... will cause more deflection even when hitting the exact same spot on the ball..

Maybe, if the shot’s long/slow enough for swerve to be a factor. It’s really less swerve, not more squirt.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

One thing not mentioned, grip. Start with a jerk and it is almost impossible to not tighten the grip. A tighter grip will cause more deflection, as will a heavier stick. A stiff heavy stick causes the cue ball to deflect most of all. A tighter grip has the same effect as increasing weight.

A gentle transition starting with a soft grip can maintain a soft grip. Try starting with a jerk and keeping a soft grip. I suppose it could be learned but the natural tendency is to tighten the grip so the cue stick doesn't slip in the hand. Most important of all, we still have a working acronym:

GRip plus ASS gives us GRASS! Got to have merit or the acronym wouldn't work.(grin)

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

A stiff heavy stick causes the cue ball to deflect most of all. A tighter grip has the same effect as increasing weight.

What about “it’s all about the end mass”?

Most important of all, we still have a working acronym:

GRip plus ASS gives us GRASS! Got to have merit or the acronym wouldn't work.(grin)

A man’s gotta know his priorities.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

What about “it’s all about the end mass”?


A man’s gotta know his priorities.

pj
chgo

Anytime we speak in absolutes we are likely to be wrong. For example, remember the robot with solid connections wasn't low deflection. Add bubble wrap in the grip area and it was low deflection then. The end mass stayed exactly the same yet the performance of the shaft changed. Common belief, only end mass matters was proven false by test results.

I do know that some testing got odd results. Not being privy to every detail I can't say why they got those results. Working in R&D one of my responsibilities was the test lab. There were times we didn't get the same results on paper and in the lab. It was always caused by incomplete data in the calculations.

If we stay within the normal range of cue weights, say 18 to 20 ounces, the results are pretty much as expected. Go to a twelve ounce cue and we have went from roughly a 3:1 weight ratio to 2:1 cue stick to cue ball weight. A 32 ounce cue is over 5:1. I have tested both of these weights. With this much change things don't go as expected. The inertia of the cue changes a lot. When we use side the whole cue moves sideways in the bridge and in the grip. Change the weight, we change the inertia, and we change the amount of deflection in the cue. More or less deflection in the cue changes cue ball deflection also.

Generally we just say "end mass" which is a constant although what it is isn't real clear. Tip to 4-5 inches back is a common number. However, the real factor is not end mass but effective end mass and that can be affected both by cue weight and balance and by how solid the bridge and grip are.

We dismiss factors that may be important mainly because we don't have numbers to work with. I don't have all of the answers but I have done enough testing to know I don't have all the answers.

Hu

 

[garczar]

Anytime we speak in absolutes we are likely to be wrong. For example, remember the robot with solid connections wasn't low deflection. Add bubble wrap in the grip area and it was low deflection then. The end mass stayed exactly the same yet the performance of the shaft changed. Common belief, only end mass matters was proven false by test results.

I do know that some testing got odd results. Not being privy to every detail I can't say why they got those results. Working in R&D one of my responsibilities was the test lab. There were times we didn't get the same results on paper and in the lab. It was always caused by incomplete data in the calculations.

If we stay within the normal range of cue weights, say 18 to 20 ounces, the results are pretty much as expected. Go to a twelve ounce cue and we have went from roughly a 3:1 weight ratio to 2:1 cue stick to cue ball weight. A 32 ounce cue is over 5:1. I have tested both of these weights. With this much change things don't go as expected. The inertia of the cue changes a lot. When we use side the whole cue moves sideways in the bridge and in the grip. Change the weight, we change the inertia, and we change the amount of deflection in the cue. More or less deflection in the cue changes cue ball deflection also.

Generally we just say "end mass" which is a constant although what it is isn't real clear. Tip to 4-5 inches back is a common number. However, the real factor is not end mass but effective end mass and that can be affected both by cue weight and balance and by how solid the bridge and grip are.

We dismiss factors that may be important mainly because we don't have numbers to work with. I don't have all of the answers but I have done enough testing to know I don't have all the answers.

Hu

My Mezz is 61", 20oz with the extension. If i take off the ext. the cue is 58"/18oz. I've used it both ways and can tell zero difference in how much the cb squirts. As you said you really have to go to wt/length extremes to notice a difference.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Anytime we speak in absolutes we are likely to be wrong. For example, remember the robot with solid connections wasn't low deflection. Add bubble wrap in the grip area and it was low deflection then. The end mass stayed exactly the same yet the performance of the shaft changed. Common belief, only end mass matters was proven false by test results.

I think you may be misinterpreting those results. Adding the bubble wrap was intended to correct the abnormally rigid connection between the robotic grip hand and the cue (compared to the yielding flesh of the human hand). The unyielding robotic grip drives the CB unnaturally fast for the same stroke, avoiding swerve and thereby looking like more deflection.

pj
chgo

 

[phreaticus]

I think you may be misinterpreting those results. Adding the bubble wrap was intended to correct the abnormally rigid connection between the robotic grip hand and the cue (compared to the yielding flesh of the human hand). The unyielding robotic grip drives the CB unnaturally fast for the same stroke, avoiding swerve and thereby looking like less deflection.

pj
chgo

Sorry, I’m getting a bit confused. Isn’t it by now widely understood and agreed that deflection (squirt) and swerve have a cancelling effect? So looking at your last sentence above, how does avoiding swerve look like less deflection? Thx

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry, I’m getting a bit confused. Isn’t it by now widely understood and agreed that deflection (squirt) and swerve have a cancelling effect? So looking at your last sentence above, how does avoiding swerve look like less deflection? Thx

Caught me! I meant to say “more deflection” (corrected above). Thanks!

pj
chgo

 

[phreaticus]

Caught me! I meant to say “more deflection” (corrected above). Thanks!

pj
chgo

Roger that, cool. Wasn’t trying to catch you or nitpick, just wanted to make sure I wasn’t more confused than I normally am.

I think the general conclusion after all these recent threads on deflection/shafts/stroke - is that yes, there is definitely the concept of a “lower defection stroke”, which lives in realm of feel that no one can quite quantify exactly. Which I think is nothing really new - but never ceases to be an interesting topic to try to dig into.

Surely we all agree that angle/speed/spin are the basic 3 physics axioms we’re dealing with in billiards, but there are 2 subtle things that still seems a bit of a mystery (to me at least).

First is that “angle” really pertains to a combination of vertical & horizontal angles.

Second is the notion of whether tip contact duration on the CB (0.0008-0.002 sec, is what has been captured on hi speed vid, I think) - has any meaningful affect. From what I gather via the literature/vids on this, the soft conclusion is that yes, it does have a minor affect, but that its really due to variations in tip soft/hard ness vs a players stroke/acceleration factor.

But, again how in-touch one is with their tip, combined with management of all the rest of the variables - are very subtle subjective things that all culminate in ones “feel/stroke”, and can never quite be fully quantified in diagrams, etc.

Cheers

 

[WobblyStroke]

Roger that, cool. Wasn’t trying to catch you or nitpick, just wanted to make sure I wasn’t more confused than I normally am.

I think the general conclusion after all these recent threads on deflection/shafts/stroke - is that yes, there is definitely the concept of a “lower defection stroke”, which lives in realm of feel that no one can quite quantify exactly. Which I think is nothing really new - but never ceases to be an interesting topic to try to dig into.

Surely we all agree that angle/speed/spin are the basic 3 physics axioms we’re dealing with in billiards, but there are 2 subtle things that still seems a bit of a mystery (to me at least).

First is that “angle” really pertains to a combination of vertical & horizontal angles.

Second is the notion of whether tip contact duration on the CB (.008 to .02 ms, is what has been captured on hi speed vid, I think) - has any meaningful affect. From what I gather via the literature/vids on this, the soft conclusion is that yes, it does have a minor affect, but that its really due to variations in tip soft/hard ness vs a players stroke/acceleration factor.

But, again how in-touch one is with their tip, combined with management of all the rest of the variables - are very subtle subjective things that all culminate in ones “feel/stroke”, and can never quite be fully quantified in diagrams, etc.

Cheers

I'd also add what ShootingArts mentioned on grip. A jerky stroke will tend to have a tight grip, which will have more mass in the shot and deflect more (or seem to) just as the strong gripped robot did, albeit to a lesser degree but likely noticeable if we are talking about the difference between a tight grip and a cradled by the fingers loose grip.

For me, final verdict is that there is indeed a 'lower deflection stroke' but even if you think that is a misnomer, there is a stroke that offers greater consistency in hitting your intended spot, at intended speed, with a still soft grip that keeps that extra heft out of the shot.

It's almost like JJ and Hendry actually know what they're talking about

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Surely we all agree that angle/speed/spin are the basic 3 physics axioms we’re dealing with in billiards, but there are 2 subtle things that still seems a bit of a mystery (to me at least).

First is that “angle” really pertains to a combination of vertical & horizontal angles.

Yes, but again, it's not really the cue's angle that matters, but the direction ("angle") the tip is moving - for example, with a "swoop" stroke the cue's angle and the tip's direction of movement are different.

Second is the notion of whether tip contact duration on the CB (.008 to .02 ms, is what has been captured on hi speed vid, I think) - has any meaningful affect. From what I gather via the literature/vids on this, the soft conclusion is that yes, it does have a minor affect, but that its really due to variations in tip soft/hard ness vs a players stroke/acceleration factor.

That's my understanding too.

But, again how in-touch one is with their tip, combined with management of all the rest of the variables - are very subtle subjective things that all culminate in ones “feel/stroke”, and can never quite be fully quantified in diagrams, etc.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the physical dynamics aren't real - it means that how things feel to you may not reflect reality even though it works for you.

For me, final verdict is that there is indeed a 'lower deflection stroke' but even if you think that is a misnomer, there is a stroke that offers greater consistency in hitting your intended spot, at intended speed, with a still soft grip that keeps that extra heft out of the shot.

Well said.

It's almost like JJ and Hendry actually know what they're talking about

Or that they play pretty good regardless...

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think the bottom line here is if you do goofy things to your stroke, you'll miss the shot.

If you practice with the goofy thing, you will learn to aim differently to compensate for whatever the goofy thing is and you will start to make shots again.

For mediocre players, a goofy thing might actually fix some other broken fundamental and they will make more balls. That's the wrong way to fix broken fundamentals.

If you are playing a shot with side spin, nearly any change will cause a miss unless you change something else to compensate. If you shoot at a different speed along the same line, the swerve will change and the cue ball will arrive at a different spot on the object ball. Even without sidespin, if you play at a different speed, the cut angle will change for the same fullness of contact. All of this is easy to demonstrate. Changing the cloth will cause a lot of shots to miss unless the shooter compensates.

 

[skip100]

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.

Shane Van Boening has a lot going on in his stroke as well:

 

[phreaticus]

I'd also add what ShootingArts mentioned on grip. A jerky stroke will tend to have a tight grip, which will have more mass in the shot and deflect more (or seem to) just as the strong gripped robot did, albeit to a lesser degree but likely noticeable if we are talking about the difference between a tight grip and a cradled by the fingers loose grip.

For me, final verdict is that there is indeed a 'lower deflection stroke' but even if you think that is a misnomer, there is a stroke that offers greater consistency in hitting your intended spot, at intended speed, with a still soft grip that keeps that extra heft out of the shot.

It's almost like JJ and Hendry actually know what they're talking about

I think most folks are familiar with Dr Dave's well known pages on all things deflection related. I re-reviewed some of that stuff briefly this evening, and also spent time digesting Ron Shepard's paper "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Cue Ball Squirt, But Were Afraid to Ask", which I had heard of before, but never read.

After all that & thinking about my own stroke, I've come to the following simple conclusions.

1. Those resources literally cover every single little nuanced thing that has shown up in these threads. If anyone really wants good answers, just spend time fully digesting the articles. If you want to just focus on one single thing to read in depth - the Shepard paper is great - it's heavy on math, which isn't for everyone, but you can skim all that & just focus on his key takeaways. The folks that worked on those resources must watch these threads and all of our collective pontification and bust a gut laughing... (or maybe crying).
2. Clearly there is such thing as a "low deflection" stroke. Noting that the modern technical definition of CB deflection is: net result of squirt + swerve.
3. All the various stuff like grip, acceleration, tip hardness, tip/CB contact time, swooping/swiping, etc - are all pretty minor factors (if at all) and tend to have a lot of subjective folklore around them.
4. By far the dominant factor of a low deflection stroke - is how in-tune a person is with the natural pivot point of their stick and dynamic use of BHE. Of course this is enhanced at all levels with consistency in all the obvious fundamentals (ie light ish grip, smooth stroke, bridge formation, speed control, etc). For some folks this seems to be a very intuitive thing, but apparently can be studied & consciously developed also. I suspect this is why some folks (ie myself) are also very sensitive to a cue's overall balance point.

There is zero original thinking above, I'm simply extrapolating what has been studied & explained by other very smart dudes for quite some time now into my own experience & observations. There is an amazing amount of work & info in those resources and all the answers are there for anyone really seeking them.

Cheers

 

[Poolhall60561]

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 .

Good Stuff

 

[justnum]

Not sure how many American youth will be motivated by this amazing instructional production.
Its a great video, it has a fire extinguisher on the rightside of the TPS logo.

Feels like a video about getting new players to blame the stroke, not the player or the equipment or the table or the balls.
The thread discussion almost triggered some old habits.

New players learning to focus on stroke and aiming lines is helpful.