Pausing at the cue ball vs pausing on the back stroke

JoeW said:
BTW you are probably aware of the idea that all inferential statistical studies are correlational we only attempt to tease out causality.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. And you're probably aware that experimental science has very little use for "inferential statistical studies." And that there are very direct ways to address causality in experimental science.

Indeed, the issue here under discussion is MUCH better considered in the light of empiricism than statistical analysis. Without even SEEING any of the supposed "data" of "thousands of satisfied pool instruction students" I'd have to say I have pretty significant doubts about its accuracy. Come on!
 
GetMeThere said:
I agree on the obvious ways to test the effectiveness of training methods (and that they're not gonna happen). But I don't agree that we can only rely on anecdotes. One can always rely on REASONED hypotheses for new techniques that evolve from known, useful phenomena or fundamental knowledge. When a hypothesis is proposed that DOESN'T arise from a reasoning process ("let's try this") then an outcome of "it works" can be considered suspect--unless it's unusually remarkable.

If people newly taught to pause are moving to the pro ranks at unprecedented speed and number--and their game falls to pieces if they don't pause--then there's room to allow "reason" to take a back seat for awhile.

Furthermore, you seem like someone who should be in the position of knowing without being told, that causally correlating process and effect can be monstrously tricky. Claiming that someone who has received instruction in MANY areas of pool, and who reports that their play has improved (itself something tricky to know), and that the improvement is due to ONE SMALL PORTION of the instruction is....VERY problematic. RIDICULOUSLY problematic.

...and that's not even mentioning the difficulty in teasing out how much they might have improved over the same period with NO instruction whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I suspect it is safe to assume that we are both trained scientists and have no need for epistemological arguments with regard to the methods of science. So lets talk substance (If it helps I was recognized as a distinguished professor of research at my university -- so what. I am now retired and believe that we should let the revolution continue unimpeded!).

The Pause is perhaps a generaliztion from the game of Golf and there may be some substance and fertile ground there.
 
My point about clinical significance lies in the idea that action often requires us to operate out side the bounds of strictly construed scientific principles. Something that is useful 60% of the time is often quite useful. BTW I am a psychologist by training though I have worked in more than one hospital.

Incidentally, all of science is correlational, we only manipulate the time sequence and then evaluate antecedent consequent relationships (correlations). For some scientists this is a tricky issue and requires some serious thought.

On a slightly different tact, the scientist bases his thoughts on the data where possible and currently you do not have better data so try working with what you do have and think like a scientist within the contexts of the given limitations.

I am not seeking a recipe, nor do I advocate any one school of thought, though I do think that some schools of thought are better than others. There is much to the pool playing world that is based on myth, opinion, and downright arrogance. It is up to each of us to sort out that which is useful. I do not find it useful to simply find fault with someone’s poorly thought out comments. Rather I try to find what is of use. I recommend it as highly useful.

I begin by thinking the person believes what they say and that they have found it to be true. Then I look for what support I can find for their position. When support and my own experience find the idea lacking I move on.

Currently, the pause has much to recommend it and, in my opinion, it requires much study to learn its intricacies. Throwing stones at it is not useful. Now if you have something of substance, other than rhetoric, I am pleased to listen.
 
GetMeThere said:
All right. I'll accept that. And I'll admit that I know exactly NOTHING about golf--other than it's studied MUCH more closely than pool, and involves vastly more money.

I'll say this (with full admission that I don't really know what I'm talking about--so please correct me): I've heard it said that all good (modern) golf players share important elements of the swing in common; that there are several aspects of the swing that are unquestionably NECESSARY to effectively play golf.

Whereas, that's not the case in pool--witness the sometimes snake-like stroke of Francisco Bustamante as just one example of many possible.

Which is NOT to say that a case can't be made to recommend to new players that they should try to achieve a straight stroke rather than one that looks like a Disney roller-coaster ride.

To me it means that the HEART of great pool playing doesn't lie in some of it's aspects that are (based on variations among the greats) superficialities. I think there is every good reason (lack of consistency among the greats, lack of a solid cognitive or sports-performance-theory reason) to conclude that a pause after the backstroke is superficial to the game.

But if golf has something to say on the issue I'd love to hear it. I know NOTHING about golf. I'd like to think that if golf HAS a bearing on the issue, that it would have been brought up by those who are touting it here.
Click to expand...


Here is the deal on "the pause" in golf. It actually has more to do with tempo/rythum than anything.....If you are a fast swinger...(Tom Watson)...your pause at the top will be very short (and perhaps even un-recognizable to the untrained eye)...If your swing tempo is long and slow flowing....(Erne Els) the pause at the top will be more pronounced....It is referred to as a pause at the top of the swing...but it really is more of a transition move...The club stops moving as the lower body transitions (shifts weight) from the backwing to the downswing....during this body transition the club pauses for a brief moment..

In pool...since the only time the lower body transitions is on the break...the pronounced pause at the backswing may be less noticable on normal shots...SVB for example has a much more pronounced pause on his break than he does on his normal shots.....but if you watch close...you will see that his body is "transitioning" while the cue is "paused"

The pause in the normal pool stroke (IMO) is not the same catagory of importants as the golf pause since the body does not move...however...there is a shift in momentum of the stroke arm...that shift or transition is going to create even the slightest of pauses......The importance of the pause in the pool stroke IMO is to keep the player in rythum/tempo on the stoke...and to create an "accelerating" stroke instead of a jerk motion from the back of the backswing......A jerk motion when starting the forward stroke would cause a more decelerating cue which IMO is a bad thing....a slower starting accelerating stroke leads to a much better hit...IMO

Again..the "pause" will be determined by the players stroke tempo....a fast tempo will probably be a short pause...a slower tempo will likely be a more pronounced pause.

Ragarding the snake move of Fransico...It resembles the golf snake swing of Jim Furyk.....Neither one is the "norm"...."most" top pool players have very repeatable stroke types..(just like most top Golf pros)...I personally would opt to copy what "most" are doing.

My personal belief is that your ideal golf swing tempo and or pool stroke tempo will end up being determined by your pace of speech.....If you notice someone that talks rather fast...they probably have a fast stroke tempo (and probably pace of play)...if they are a slower paced tempo of communication...they will probably have a slower more deliberate tempo (and likely pause)...If you fall into a normal paced speech tempo....guess where your ideal stroke tempo will probably be???
 
JoeW said:
My point about clinical significance lies in the idea that action often requires us to operate out side the bounds of strictly construed scientific principles. Something that is useful 60% of the time is often quite useful. BTW I am a psychologist by training though I have worked in more than one hospital.

Incidentally, all of science is correlational, we only manipulate the time sequence and then evaluate antecedent consequent relationships (correlations). For some scientists this is a tricky issue and requires some serious thought.

On a slightly different tact, the scientist bases his thoughts on the data where possible and currently you do not have better data so try working with what you do have and think like a scientist within the contexts of the given limitations.
Click to expand...

It's pointless to sidetrack this thread with too much science theory....but I can't let the idea arise that the experimental sciences don't have VERY GOOD methods of investigating causality. In the biological sciences especially, the concept of "necessary and sufficient" is the usual recipe for determining cause. If it can be shown that inoculating the subject with anthrax bacteria is NECESSARY for the symptoms of anthrax to appear (i.e., they NEVER appear otherwise), and if it can be shown that ONLY inoculating the subject is SUFFICIENT for anthrax to manifest, then, by settled convention, one has "proved" that anthrax bacteria alone specifically causes the disease (there are other, minor, incidental controls necessary). Experimental science specializes in investigating causality--at least in an immediate sense; and does it quite well.

Regarding data and "pause:" There is none. If you know differently, please link to it.

JoeW said:
I begin by thinking the person believes what they say and that they have found it to be true. Then I look for what support I can find for their position. When support and my own experience find the idea lacking I move on.

Currently, the pause has much to recommend it and, in my opinion, it requires much study to learn its intricacies. Throwing stones at it is not useful. Now if you have something of substance, other than rhetoric, I am pleased to listen.
Click to expand...

Here I also have to disagree from a scientific perspective. Earlier you mentioned Karl Popper. Surely you must know that the central concept he put forth in the philosophy of science is the concept of "falsifiability."

That means that, ideally, the test of a hypothesis is to FALSIFY it, not to look for ways to support it. An hypothesis is supported when good attempts to falsify it FAIL. That means that what hypotheses need is for stones to be thrown at them. I hope I don't make you too upset if I say that the above has long been known as a serious failing of clinical psychology ;)

So, what I have to say that is substantial is: ABSENT any REASON for a pause based on fundamental principles of cognition or performance, it's up to the one offering the hypothesis ("a pause is necessary to a good stroke") to come up with evidence that the hypothesis has been successfully tested. I see no such evidence--no such "substance."

....but I will say that if some people have found it useful, they should continue. My original post in this thread began as: "I have to argue that this is one that should be individualized by the player."

It seems I'm being taken to task for that. I'm not sure why. Pro players vary from "pauses that aren't really pauses" to "distinctive and obviously deliberate pauses." I don't see anything wrong with seeing the same variability in non-pro players.
 
Thanks for that entertaining post, Neil ;)

I'll try to make it through knowing that you won't be "responding to me" anymore. I'll still be able to learn stuff by reading your responses to all your avid fans and followers, though.
 
Where is that magic forum ware JB was talking about where you could eliminate single users from your forum experience?

All that said. . .GetMeThere, what is your level? I like that Neil asked that because it matters when speaking from a position of authority. I suck, so you don't need to ask my level or listen to my response. I believe Neil's level is above suck, but we have never played.

Do you read your posts? I'm pretty sure you are not an author either. I really wanted to know what was in some of them, but frankly just can't figure it out.

People who are masters of a subject, IMO, can quickly make a point.
 
nksmfamjp said:
Where is that magic forum ware JB was talking about where you could eliminate single users from your forum experience?
Click to expand...

I think that it is an add-on for Firefox. But here you can to to user CP and there is an ignore list option on the left had side. I have just tried it and it seems to work well :thumbup:
 
I play better when I have a pause at the end of my backstroke. And in golf, at the top of my swing.
 
You pause at the cue ball to resolve a few things before you shoot. You make sure of your aim, you relax your body (you can't relax completely at the back of your stroke), check your breathing, say your prayers, and whatever else you do before you pull the trigger. If you make a deliberate pause, you can take as long as you want. Some days it takes longer for your brain to work.
You pause on your back stroke because it helps you to smooth out your forward stroke. If you went back then immediately went forward, you would be hurrying, and probably would also jerk on your stroke.
Also, that pause on the back stroke will also help you feel that your stroke is still on line with the shot.
 
GetMeThere...At least Neil knows what he's talking about. :rolleyes: That's why he has fans and followers (including myself).

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

GetMeThere said:
Thanks for that entertaining post, Neil ;)

I'll try to make it through knowing that you won't be "responding to me" anymore. I'll still be able to learn stuff by reading your responses to all your avid fans and followers, though.
Click to expand...
 
My point was pausing intentionally, either at the cue ball or on the back stroke, for just a couple of seconds. This thread has side tracked with people arguing semantics.

My two players of example are Shane and Buddy. Shane pauses at the cue ball for a second or two. Buddy pauses on the back stroke for a second or two. That's all I'm talking about.

Quit with the bickering over semantics that nobody really cares about.
 
David_Smith said:
Hi Randy! Hope you are doing well, but I have to disagree, lol. Efren's warmups end and he pauses. Then, he takes one more pre-shot stroke and then pulls back and shoots without any pause between the two that I can see. It is my opinion that this style is what gives him better stroke timing than anyone else in the game.

I believe that a pause develops most people's games because when they have to shoot off the rail they don't think there is enough room for a normal continuous stroke.
Click to expand...


Shooting off the rail, where the CB is on or very near the rail, is the one situation where my body/brain often try and pause on the backstroke. At least that's my natural inclination in that situation.

But what I have found is that I actually make that kind of shot with far more accuracy and consistency when I don't pause. Pausing at the backstroke completely throws my stroke off. For me, it's much more important to establish and maintain a good rhythm on my delivery when shooting off the rail.

Lou Figueroa
 
cuetechasaurus said:
My point was pausing intentionally, either at the cue ball or on the back stroke, for just a couple of seconds. This thread has side tracked with people arguing semantics.

My two players of example are Shane and Buddy. Shane pauses at the cue ball for a second or two. Buddy pauses on the back stroke for a second or two. That's all I'm talking about.

Quit with the bickering over semantics that nobody really cares about.
Click to expand...
Reasons for the "pauses" can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
 
lfigueroa said:
...For me, it's much more important to establish and maintain a good rhythm on my delivery ...
Click to expand...

I can understand that. But rhythm and a pronounced pause before delivering the cue are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In particular, instead of thinking of the pause as a buffer between the backswing and the forward release, you develop a pause that becomes part of the backswing, it is possible to maintain a strong rhythm in the stroke.
 
lfigueroa said:
Shooting off the rail, where the CB is on or very near the rail, is the one situation where my body/brain often try and pause on the backstroke. At least that's my natural inclination in that situation.

But what I have found is that I actually make that kind of shot with far more accuracy and consistency when I don't pause. Pausing at the backstroke completely throws my stroke off. For me, it's much more important to establish and maintain a good rhythm on my delivery when shooting off the rail.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

The truth is real simple. Some players have a smooth backstroke while others tend to jerk their cue backwards. All of us have to make a "transition".

The things we look for on the backstroke are twofold.
1. Did you have to re-grip your cue because of it's momentum?
2. Now is your cue stick still in line with the target?


Some players do this Naturally while others struggle....SPF=randyg
 
JoeW said:
[...]
The SPF school has been in operation for several years and has, I have heard, thousands of satisfied students. Some time ago I asked, in a cursory way, about student satisfaction and found that over 95% of the people who responded found the information taught of much use. Of course it is known that dissatisfied people are less likely to reply to such a query, none-the-less by any statistcal method I know of this type of response on a forum that is prone to criticism, suggests that "many" people find SPF to be among the best of schools for learning to play well.

SPF stands for Set, Pause, Finish and the pause is a mainstay of their approach.
Click to expand...


I think you have to be careful here. I've been through a few SPF schools, and count me among the 95%. Their approach is excellent, imo. Here is a excerpt from my own training materials for a foundations course. Note that on one hand I embrace the basic SPF pendulum stroke pretty well (as does nearly every instructor, imo), the actual details paint the "S" and the "F" as the two key pauses. Many of the SPF instructors in practice are pretty close to me in their approach, but they call the backstroke transition a "pause" whether the player actually pauses or not.

So that part is just a semantic issue

So student satisfaction in the SPF approach is just not very related to the disctinct back pause issue.

exerpt from Fargo Billiard Academy: "Foundations Level I"

SPF
Many pool instructors refer to the simple pendulum stroke as an “SPF” stroke, where the letters refer to SET (solid red line in the figure above) , PAUSE (dashed purple line), and FINISH (dashed yellow line) positions. The drills you do in the Foundations courses are designed to help burn the SPF sequence into your muscle memory. These drills pay particular attention to the SET and FINISH positions.


THE SET POSITION
As in many sports, the set position is key. It is from here that the fuse is lit for the final stroke. The player’s body is held completely still in the set position for at least three seconds. During the Foundations courses, students should hold every set position for at least five seconds. Here are some characteristics of the set position:
• Forearm is vertical.
• Tip is close to the cueball.
• Eyes switch focus from cueball to target location, with at least two seconds on target location.
From the set position, the player draws the cue back slowly to the PAUSE position. It is not necessary to actually pause at the PAUSE position. Some top players do; others don’t. What is necessary is the cue be drawn back slowly (not jerked back) and the transition from backward to forward motion be slow and smooth. The cue is accelerated forward from the PAUSE position. When the forearm becomes vertical again, the tip will be at the ball. At the tip-ball impact on the forward stroke, the player is passing again through the SET position.

THE FINISH POSITION
-going home-
Instructors in many sports, including pool, stress the importance of follow through. We disagree. Follow through focuses on what happens to the front of the cue, i.e., the tip. When a player decides in advance where he or she would like the tip of the cue to finish, there is no guarantee a pendulum stroke can comply. So a player attempting to get the tip to a particular location likely will call upon the shoulder joint. Pivoting about the shoulder joint drops the elbow and raises the tip.
We prefer instead to focus on FINISHING THE STROKE. The stroke is finished when the grip hand reaches its natural finish position—the natural end of the pendulum stroke. Depending upon the player’s body type and stance, this could be where the forearm hits the bicep, or it could be where the grip hand hits the side of the chest. So instead of focusing on follow through, we focus on finishing the stroke, on the grip hand going home.
A consequence of finishing the stroke is the tip of the cue will reach a particular finish location—for many people this is four or five inches beyond the cueball with the tip touching the cloth. So have no fear, others will think you are dutifully following through.
Unless doing so would disrupt the balls in play, freeze for at least two seconds in the finish position. Note that you’ve gone home.

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