Pool's "Best Practices"

jburkm002 said:
Not what I am referring to. Sorry. So on you final stroke you pull the cue back. Some bring the tip back the their Bridge hand. Some bring the tip back much shorter. My wife would get chalk on her bridge hand because she brought the tip back that far. I felt it made her very inconsistent and wanted to shorten her stroke. I just don't know what's to short. So it's long back swing vs short back swing.
Click to expand...

I agree that hitting the CB where you intend is the main objective.
I think if a player places their tip close to the the CB and uses very little back swing( maybe 3 or 4 inches) they stand the best chance of making the ball because it's unlikely they will miss miss their target on the CB. However as their stroke gets straighter they can keep lengthening the backswing for bigger strokes as they progress
At least that's my theory
 
I recommend the tip starts between a quarter to a half of an inch from the cueball.

An Irving Kay, there is one at Wilson Point.

jburkm002 said:
If the bridge hand is x amount of inches. What would be a good final strokes distance? Tip away from cue ball. I had my wife doing spot shots with a shorter stroke but also only using a forward motion. She was making just about all of them. New to her using a shorter stroke with a pause. She shot lights out last night on an Irving K. Shooting off the rail she was much more consistent. I just didn't know what a good length was from tip to cue ball.
Click to expand...
 
jburkm002 said:
Not what I am referring to. Sorry. So on you final stroke you pull the cue back. Some bring the tip back the their Bridge hand. Some bring the tip back much shorter. My wife would get chalk on her bridge hand because she brought the tip back that far. I felt it made her very inconsistent and wanted to shorten her stroke. I just don't know what's to short. So it's long back swing vs short back swing.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get you now.

Shorter is easier to keep straight and accurate, but also maybe harder to build and gauge speed (less room to accelerate smoothly). It's a tradeoff.

Start short and lengthen (if wanted) as experience is gained.

pj
chgo
 
Either is effective. A long pullback like Earl, or a very short one like Allen Hopkins.

When I was younger I had a long pullback, this past year, I have shortened it because for me, it has increased my consistency in striking the cue ball where I intended.

It is a matter of personal preference.


jburkm002 said:
Not what I am referring to. Sorry. So on you final stroke you pull the cue back. Some bring the tip back the their Bridge hand. Some bring the tip back much shorter. My wife would get chalk on her bridge hand because she brought the tip back that far. I felt it made her very inconsistent and wanted to shorten her stroke. I just don't know what's to short. So it's long back swing vs short back swing.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not trying to start anything but how can something be personal preference in a best practices thread?:wink:

Pleas note the yellow smiling winking guy.

This is a meant as a 'joke'.

I understand & have said that there are such things as basic fundamentals & also things that are individual fundamentals.

Best 2 All,
Rick
 
Tony_in_MD said:
It is a matter of personal preference.
Click to expand...
This is true for experienced players, but I think beginners benefit from more specific guidance about how to start (the point of this thread). As I said above, I think starting with a shorter stroke is probably easiest, at least until a more informed personal choice can be made.

pj
chgo
 
DTL said:
OK, I'll bite.

I believe Fran, after seeing Mr Jewett's post and/or possibly consulting with him, was open to a possible change of heart concerning this issue.:smile:

And when CJ wrote that he agreed with me, I thought for sure ENGLISH would do the same.............but that would hurt too much.:wink:

Carry on.
Click to expand...

No need to carry on, let's just drop the subject. It doesnt matter anyway.;)
 
DTL said:
OK, I'll bite.

I believe Fran, after seeing Mr Jewett's post and/or possibly consulting with him, was open to a possible change of heart concerning this issue.:smile:

And when CJ wrote that he agreed with me, I thought for sure ENGLISH would do the same.............but that would hurt too much.:wink:

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I actually misread your post. I thought you admitted to being wrong. Oh well I'm too tired to carry on anyway.


Maybe tomorrow.
 
I had to come back to this one last time.

I'm sticking to my guns when I said the backstroke is a pushing motion and the forward stroke is a pull.

Again:

Straightening the arm using the triceps is a push.
Bending the arm using the biceps is a pull.

I believe you are getting confused by the indirect object receiving the action.

What's being done to the indirect object has no affect on the type of action being performed.

You can pull or push something by both pulling or pushing it. That is to say I can push a boy by pulling him AND by pushing him.

Just because the cue is being pulled back doesn't mean I'm using a pulling motion to perform the action.

In Bob's analogy below the boy might be pushed but if I'm only engaging my biceps and bending my arm to do it then he is being pushed by a pull motion.

The orientation of the cue or the boy or anything has no relevance to what type of motion you are making with your body.






branpureza said:
I see the backswing as a pushing motion and the forward stroke as a pulling motion.
Click to expand...

Bob Jewett said:
Normally "pull" and "push" refer to where the load is and where the force is applied. You seem to be defining it elsewise. Why?
Click to expand...



Bob Jewett said:
So if you are trying to encourage a small child to move in a certain direction by pressing your hand against their back and contracting your biceps you are pulling them? I would think I was pushing them. On the other hand (or even with the same hand), if I grabbed the front of their shirt and made the same motion, I'd think of myself as pulling them as I pulled their shirt away from their body and in the direction I wanted their body to follow.

But why spend time on this distinction which we are unlikely to agree on? What use is it? Does using one word or the other change the action?
Click to expand...


DTL said:
OK, I'll bite.

I believe Fran, after seeing Mr Jewett's post and/or possibly consulting with him, was open to a possible change of heart concerning this issue.:smile:

And when CJ wrote that he agreed with me, I thought for sure ENGLISH would do the same.............but that would hurt too much.:wink:

Carry on.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
branpureza said:
I had to come back to this one last time.

I'm sticking to my guns when I said the backstroke is a pushing motion and the forward stroke is a pull.

Again:

Straightening the arm using the triceps is a push.
Bending the arm using the biceps is a pull.

I believe you are getting confused by the indirect object receiving the action.

What's being done to the indirect object has no affect on the type of action being performed.

You can pull or push something by both pulling or pushing it. That is to say I can push a boy by pulling him AND by pushing him.

Just because the cue is being pulled back doesn't mean I'm using a pulling motion to perform the action.

In Bob's analogy below the boy might be pushed but if I'm only engaging my biceps and bending my arm to do it then he is being pushed by a pull motion.

The orientation of the cue or the boy or anything has no relevance to what type of motion you are making with your body.

Click to expand...

You got it. But you may have lost it with the elaborations.

Another simple way to say it is that one pulls the angle closed & pushes the angle open. 180* to 90* is puling the angle closed. 90* to 180* is pushing the angle open. The first is pulling the hand in toward the shoulder & the second is pushing the hand out away from the shoulder. This way it is irrespective of direction as it would relate to other objects.

This way the same terms can be used to talk about different pool strokes.

The terms being used are relative terms but since the shooter is the one performing the operations it would certainly seem appropriate that they should be described from the shooters perspective irrespective of any weight load. It gets confusing if one starts relating the movements to things outside of the arm movement. It's similar to Einstein's Theory of Relativity in that from what perspective does one want to describe the movement with the same english words. the common perspective is from the inward perspective of the shooter, at least it is to me.

Naturally all of the above are just my opinions.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
DTL said:
OK, I'll bite.

I believe Fran, after seeing Mr Jewett's post and/or possibly consulting with him, was open to a possible change of heart concerning this issue.:smile:

And when CJ wrote that he agreed with me, I thought for sure ENGLISH would do the same.............but that would hurt too much.:wink:

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Let's be clear about this. I am yielding to Bob Jewett's scientific definition, however, I'm still researching the issue of the load and more, and it is by no means final for me.

And for all those who think the push-pull issue is irrelevant, I'm not so sure about that.
 
Muscles do not push or pull,they either contract or extend.

What you do with that muscle contraction/extension relationship is another matter.
 
duckie said:
Muscles do not push or pull,they either contract or extend.

What you do with that muscle contraction/extension relationship is another matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, okay.

Contract the angle between the two parts of the arm or extend the angle between the two parts or the arm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top