Stroke Instructor Challenge

[pooltchr]

IMO...Natural starts from a standing upright position.



If you stand relaxed with arms hanging at side....your palms will sort of face your body (naturally)....now if you bring the grip of the cue up into your hanging hand it will naturally be facing across your body....now if you (without twisting your wrist) just fold your arm up about the elbow it will be a movement across your body.

:

When discussing stance with students, I often use this test (from PAT). Standing relaxed and holding the cue, it will often give an idea of what is the natural alignment position. But it is not the same for everyone. I have seen the cue at a 30 degree angle, a 45 degree angle, and in some cases, even straight ahead, indicative of a possible "natural" snooker stance.

Steve

 

[luckwouldhaveit]

Exactly. Which is what myself and the other instructors have said on here many, many times. But, when you can't go straight consistently, then it is time to look at what could be causing it.

Neil, I had the sinking feeling your "counter argument" to optimal alignment is that you should "go with what's right for you" and that the players with optimal alignment have it because it happens to be "what's natural for them". I'd already responded to this earlier in the thread, suggesting that you are addressing the symptoms as opposed to solving the problem. If I understand correctly, your rebuttal as it stands is "nuh uh". I don't know if you realize it, but you've also contradicted yourself.

Depending on the level of play you strive for, "repeatable" easily means "every single time". I feel the optimal alignment I've described is the most easily repeatable and foolproof way to achieve "every single time".

 

[brophog]

Given that an infinite number of planes exist in which said cylinder intersects said sphere and the shoulder and wrist can both be manipulated as such to generate any number of said planes then there is no 'natural stroke plane'. That's poor terminology. It gives the implication of singularity when no such implication exists.

Lines 1 and 2 in the original post are a reaction to the body attempting to put the eyes in the correct position while still generating a stroke plane that intersects the ball but does not intersect the body.

In the language and constraints of the original post, I'd like anyone to explain to me how the following can take place:

1) Shooting jacked up (particularly for shorter players).
2) Shooting a jump shot or masse.
3) Using a mechanical bridge.
4) Playing from a wheelchair.
5) Throwing a football.

 

[duckie]

Neil, I had the sinking feeling your "counter argument" to optimal alignment is that you should "go with what's right for you" and that the players with optimal alignment have it because it happens to be "what's natural for them". I'd already responded to this earlier in the thread, suggesting that you are addressing the symptoms as opposed to solving the problem. If I understand correctly, your rebuttal as it stands is "nuh uh". I don't know if you realize it, but you've also contradicted yourself.

Depending on the level of play you strive for, "repeatable" easily means "every single time". I feel the optimal alignment I've described is the most easily repeatable and foolproof way to achieve "every single time".

Well, describe away how your optimal alignment can be used on these shots and any one else please describe how to do'em using the stances as described so far.

The first is the green stripe in the corner, the second is the 6 in the corner, the corner is the 13 in the corner, this one is fun for a right handed player.

 

[Wolven]

You can show many other situations where normal stance would not do but the relationship described originally as 1 and 2 can be used even in the situations in the pictures.
Luckwouldhaveit even broke it down as a training aid so that the stance was a result not a cause.
It is backward thinking but it makes perfect sense when trying to learn. Keep your gun, eye aligned and even 1 and 2 and then improvise the rest of the body.
One of the things that will change will be the amount of elbow pointing toward the body.
Similar advice was given by Max Eberle on shots that one cannot reach easily.

 

[luckwouldhaveit]

Given that an infinite number of planes exist in which said cylinder intersects said sphere and the shoulder and wrist can both be manipulated as such to generate any number of said planes then there is no 'natural stroke plane'. That's poor terminology. It gives the implication of singularity when no such implication exists.

My argument is that there's 1 plane (with a tolerance) for an optimal natural motion. Just as an example, say you contract your bicep so your hand goes way outside of your elbow. I think that'd be an "unnatural" motion and would be difficult to repeat with great consistency. I'd argue that the closer the motion is to the optimal lines, the easier it is to repeat.

I'm no physiologist, but this picture "makes sense" to me when I look at the stroking motion.

Lines 1 and 2 in the original post are a reaction to the body attempting to put the eyes in the correct position while still generating a stroke plane that intersects the ball but does not intersect the body.

So are other lines that a person's body can "naturally" takes to from the onset. I disagree that correctly aligning your dominant eye alone will necessarily lead to optimal alignment, if that's what you meant.

1) Shooting jacked up (particularly for shorter players).
2) Shooting a jump shot or masse.

3) Using a mechanical bridge.

4) Playing from a wheelchair.

Duckie hopefully that addresses your questions too.

 

[brophog]

These pictures highlight a root problem with this thread: definitions.

In this case, the definition of the word 'plane'.

The angle of the lower and upper arm, respective of each other, does not necessarily define a unique plane. If you take your upper and lower arm and fix them at 90 degrees to one another and rotate them through space around a fixed point, then they generate unique planes.

Imagine a bookcase with two long support beams and shelves at 90 degrees to said beams. Each shelf would therefore be considered a unique plane parallel to the other shelves and perpendicular to each beam.

If, for example, we defined our pool shot plane as the right foot, elbow, hand, and shoulder then imagine those four points on one of those shelves. If any of those four points no longer rests on that specific shelf then it is no longer in that plane.

My argument is that there's 1 plane (with a tolerance) for an optimal natural motion.

This theory defies the body's ability to accurately produce a variety of throwing motions. Even if we agreed that an optimal alignment between the forearm and upper arm does exist, it neither accounts for the necessary requirements to turn an arc into a horizontal vector nor is such a degree of exactness necessary for the body to execute said motion. The existence of an optimal does not guarantee the necessity of said precision.

The reason I led off with the mathematical principle is to highlight the problem with the one plane theory. Pick any throwing motion you like and twist the body to generate different planes (bending down for a shot, for instance). Any one of those discrete planes may or may not be optimal for pool performance, but they represent samples of the infinite planes that exist in the cylinder and sphere relationship.

So are other lines that a person's body can "naturally" takes to from the onset. I disagree that correctly aligning your dominant eye alone will necessarily lead to optimal alignment, if that's what you meant.

I said nothing about eye dominance. The generic 'correct position' need not be explicitly defined for our conversation.

There is a commonality that can be seen in almost all players who video tape their actions for the initial time in that there is usually a reaction of surprise in one or more facets of their form. Even experienced players who believe they have proper mechanics will often be shocked by some detail that they felt was one way but then find out it is another. In pool this can manifest itself as the upper arm and elbow protruding either toward the body or away, the lower arm not being vertical, the wrist curling, the grip.........etcetera, etcetera.

The reason I put eye/head placement in that sentence was due to the fact the head is a relatively fixed position on the human body. It's much easier to manipulate the arms, wrist, and fingers than it is to attempt to reposition the head around any arbitrary alignment of those parts.

If we define our optimal alignment by the position of those other parts, then we, by definition, must move the head to fit that alignment. If, however, we place the head first then we can take advantage of those infinite planes that exist in the cylinder and sphere relationship.

Take the example I described above. What makes each of those planes more or less optimal is not the relationship of the arms to one another (because we set that fixed to some arbitrary angle) but the ability for the eyes to gain the information necessary to process the shot. The head and eyes alone cannot define the optimal alignment as they are only one point in space, but the head does help dictate how the other motions of the body align and react.

 

[luckwouldhaveit]

The angle of the lower and upper arm, respective of each other, does not necessarily define a unique plane. If you take your upper and lower arm and fix them at 90 degrees to one another and rotate them through space around a fixed point, then they generate unique planes.

The angle of the lower and upper arm define the stroking line of the cue. I previously mentioned there are different body alignments that still result in the same line 1 and 2 relationship.

This theory defies the body's ability to accurately produce a variety of throwing motions.

Clearly there's more than 1 throwing motion, but you should consider that they are maximized towards different goals, such as your football example. I feel it'll be fruitless to compare an underhanded motion intended to move 20 oz 1 foot within 1mm accuracy to an overhanded 20 yard pass or 90mph fastball.

In my previous post, I gave you an example of sub-optimal stroke alignment. Would you agree that there are sub-optimal stroking lines?

With sub-optimal alignment, your body has the natural tendency to pull your cue off the intended path. There needs to be some additional effort or motion to compensate for that, meaning a more complicated stroking motion which effects the precision of repeatibility.

it neither accounts for the necessary requirements to turn an arc into a horizontal vector nor is such a degree of exactness necessary for the body to execute said motion. The existence of an optimal does not guarantee the necessity of said precision.

Let's replace "turn an arc into a horizontal vector" with "stroking line". Can you also go back to the first post and follow the outlined steps and tell me if your forearm naturally moves towards your shoulder or in towards your chest when you contract your bicep?

With optimal alignment, you may still fail to follow the precise stroking line for a variety of other reasons, so no, it does not guarantee precision. What I'm arguing is that it does result in greater consistency in precision.

 

[duckie]

You can show many other situations where normal stance would not do but the relationship described originally as 1 and 2 can be used even in the situations in the pictures.
Luckwouldhaveit even broke it down as a training aid so that the stance was a result not a cause.
It is backward thinking but it makes perfect sense when trying to learn. Keep your gun, eye aligned and even 1 and 2 and then improvise the rest of the body.
One of the things that will change will be the amount of elbow pointing toward the body.
Similar advice was given by Max Eberle on shots that one cannot reach easily.

Well if the amount of elbow postions changes then this makes it not the same as decsribed now huh.

Gun and eye, this ain't shooting, cause with a shotgun, I don't need to really have to my eyes in the right spot to hit something. This whole idea of eye dominance......oops sorry wrong thread.

Well here are two shots:

CueTable Help

The one is to be made with the cue behind your back.

The second is to be made holding the cue out over the table to make the 6.

Kinda blows the whole line 1 and line 2 and where the eyes need to be out of the water.

It is these types of shots that make it impossible to have one set way, system of doing anything. No matter what is being taught. And yes I practice these because my lack of skill at them at one time cost me a game. This is when I started thinking in terms of concept's to good pool playing instead of how to's.

Like this concept:
The key component that is always needed to do is to place the cue in such a postion that you can move it forward to move the cue ball to a spot on the table you wanted.

This is all that is needed no matter how it is done really does matter, unless you are make a living at it, I guess. The guy in the wheel chair is a good example. He has taken that concept aboved and applied it to the best in his situation. Using the bridge, same concept.

I also find the the distance between my bridge hand and grip hand at time of stroke is the most important thing, but nothing bout that. Maybe thats why the elbow is pointing as it does in the pics and if the grip was moved, the pointing of the elbow will move.

 

[brophog]

The angle of the lower and upper arm define the stroking line of the cue.

No, they don't, because of the shoulder, wrist and hand's potential involvement in the shot. Even more basic, that angle can be maintained and not be anywhere near the desired stroke plane.

I previously mentioned there are different body alignments that still result in the same line 1 and 2 relationship.

Absolutely, and therefore, different stroke planes. There cannot be an optimal stroke plane, relative to motion alone, because there are an infinite number of planes whereby the cylinder intersects the sphere.

I feel it'll be fruitless to compare an underhanded motion intended to move 20 oz 1 foot within 1mm accuracy to an overhanded 20 yard pass or 90mph fastball.

Why would it be fruitless? The body cares not about orientation. That's language to help us describe things, but physiologically there may or not be a difference. Furthermore, because of the arc length the distance between the thrower and intended target has a large effect on the actual target.

For a 1 degree difference on a 9 foot shot, my resulting arc length is 1.88 inches. For a 1 degree difference on a 20 yard pass, my resulting arc length is 12.56 inches. The distance to home plate is only slightly more, with an arc length of 12.67 inches. The plate is only 17 inches wide.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a discussion involving the topic of necessary precision omits the precision necessary for other throwing motions. If we surmised that such a relationship between the arms is as delicate as you propose, then we'd certainly need to agree that it would have vast implications on these other throwing motions.

In my previous post, I gave you an example of sub-optimal stroke alignment. Would you agree that there are sub-optimal stroking lines?

Please cite it again.

To answer your question, though, yes there are sub-optimal stroking lines......the ones that do not run from the point of contact of the cueball to the target. I don't think anyone is disputing the non-existence of a sub optimal stroking line, however, there is some dispute over the exact motion necessary to generate that line.

With sub-optimal alignment, your body has the natural tendency to pull your cue off the intended path.

I think it is easy to agree that there are a lot of ways not to generate the necessary alignment and motions to stroke on that desired line. The only question should be if there is the existence of an optimal relationship between your defined lines 1 and 2 and if it results in a higher degree of precision given the complete motion of the various parts of the body and the alignment required to both execute that motion and properly see the stroking line.

The problem with this statement is that 'sub-optimal' implies a dichotomy between what works and what doesn't work. It's not a binary relationship as there is a large range of alignments that do not pull the cue off of the path, but may not be optimal (if such a thing exists).

Let's replace "turn an arc into a horizontal vector" with "stroking line".

No, we can't. Your model only generates an arc with tangent lines to that arc. If we limit our model to only one relationship then we must limit our examination to only the outputs of that single relationship.

 

[brophog]

The one is to be made with the cue behind your back.

<Snipped for space.>

For the sake of discussion, let's ignore the lower body alignment and just focus on the plane of the stroke.

I agree, for the sake the conversations, which are based more on idealized models, I would also recommend we just disregard the legs entirely. For most shots (certain break techniques being the most likely exception) the legs are only a base for balance rather than actively involved in the shot process. I think we can acceptably limit the conversation to the torso and up and isolate the required alignments.

In re-reading this thread over again, I think most pertinent things have been covered. I also suggest anyone wishing to continue this thread re-read it to see if their point is being repeated.

 

[duckie]

Gees,might as well post a pic the shot to be used for this discussion.

My points made............

 

[Wolven]

Duckie,

I will quickly address some of your points but what I really want to say is in the next post.

Nothing ever applies 100% to 100% of situation, it is the overwhelming number of situation where it applies makes it a standard, exceptions have their own rules but a lot of it can be derived from the main standard.
For shots where main standard doesn’t apply like shooting behind your back a new standard is developed.

Yes, you are right the distance between bridge hand and grip hand will move the elbow in this setup.
I shoot with different grip placements forward for precision and back for power and a few in between,
so it doesn’t make any difference to me, but there are other components that I require to be the same to execute, so once again I can sympathize with your requirement.

What is not changing is the position of the eye, stick, grip hand, shoulder in relation to plane and each other.
I believe there is an optimal relation but others less optimal will give similar result.

Less optimal relations will take away ability to execute power shots consistently and to its maximum.
If all the shots are short range shots and you don’t have a long back swing then being in complete harmony becomes less and less important.

It is a gun.
I can shoot in all kinds of ways and hit the target.
However, if I want to shoot a precision shot over long distance I go for a scope. It is degrees of accuracy.

I play one handed in upright position and make balls at break speed and my eyes are not in optimal position but I’m doing it the same way so I know what you mean.
Just because this can be done, doesn’t mean that having a dominant eye over the stick in exactly the same fashion is not important.
Geno is right, different eye position vs stick different shot picture, inconsistent results.

 

[Wolven]

Proposed shooting cycle for overwhelming majority of the shots.

Positioning of legs is very important, some leg positions will not allow you to get into your desired plane.
Leg position comes first and it gives you repeatable way to get down on the shot, while shooting but not while learning.

When learning:
Leg position is dependent on your upper body and plane you pick.
First you figure out the plane and the relationship eye, stick and grip hand, shoulder, elbow all based on desired movement, let’s call this a gun.
Then, notice the relationship of this gun to your torso.
Then figure out where the legs have to be, call it platform.

So, order of things would be: desired motion, grip and stick relation to shoulder and angle to torso, platform. (gun, torso, platform)

That is learning. Now when you are playing order is different.

When playing assuming you have already learned.

Order of things: platform and torso positioning in order to get into the plane. (platform, torso, gun)

Full cycle while playing:
Standing up: Eye on aim line, back leg on aim line, torso positioning in relation to aim line, stick to eye (aim line)
Transition: forward leg into position and simultaneous dissention while keeping an eye on the target and maintaining the gun in position

Any problems with that?

 

[hunger strike]

Overlooked

I wanted this thread to run its course a bit so that I could see if anyone noticed a critical point in this poster's discussion. This OP had a valid observation about seeing the shoulder outside and elbow inside on many champions. However, he stated right from the first post that while standing up his biceps pulled his grip hand inward toward his chest. His theory of why champions he had seen had their elbow in was based on this premise. I could be wrong, I looked through this thread, nobody pointed out to him that of course the bicep pulls the hand inward while standing.... because the relaxed forearm angles OUTWARD while STANDING. We are all capable of lines of thought based on a false premise. But why didn't anyone ask him where his biceps pull when he is bent over to shoot? While standing, essentially the "anatomical position," the shoulder is inside the hand and thus the biceps pull the hand toward the chest but ALSO toward the shoulder which is inward from it as well. Bend over my friend, and flex your elbow tight. Do the biceps flex your wrist toward your right shoulder? Of course. Even while standing, the biceps do not flex to touch your pecs but ends up with the wrist near the shoulder ~ being flexed toward the chest is incidental. You could similarly say that the right wrist is pulled toward the left shoulder and you'd be partially right. Flex completely and you'll start on a path to understand and re-tool your theory on this subject. I really hope this helps. There are several great instructors on here who deserve credit for being nice and trying to help the OP. I sincerely hope that I am not offending people I respect and learn from myself, such as Blackjack and others. Maybe the OP can start over and get some understanding. Keep in mind how much and in which part of the stroke the biceps flexes when trying to understand the phenomenon of the shoulder sticking out. Good luck....

 

[Roger Long]

I wanted this thread to run its course a bit so that I could see if anyone noticed a critical point in this poster's discussion. This OP had a valid observation about seeing the shoulder outside and elbow inside on many champions. However, he stated right from the first post that while standing up his biceps pulled his grip hand inward toward his chest. His theory of why champions he had seen had their elbow in was based on this premise. I could be wrong, I looked through this thread, nobody pointed out to him that of course the bicep pulls the hand inward while standing.... because the relaxed forearm angles OUTWARD while STANDING. We are all capable of lines of thought based on a false premise. But why didn't anyone ask him where his biceps pull when he is bent over to shoot? While standing, essentially the "anatomical position," the shoulder is inside the hand and thus the biceps pull the hand toward the chest but ALSO toward the shoulder which is inward from it as well. Bend over my friend, and flex your elbow tight. Do the biceps flex your wrist toward your right shoulder? Of course. Even while standing, the biceps do not flex to touch your pecs but ends up with the wrist near the shoulder ~ being flexed toward the chest is incidental. You could similarly say that the right wrist is pulled toward the left shoulder and you'd be partially right. Flex completely and you'll start on a path to understand and re-tool your theory on this subject. I really hope this helps. There are several great instructors on here who deserve credit for being nice and trying to help the OP. I sincerely hope that I am not offending people I respect and learn from myself, such as Blackjack and others. Maybe the OP can start over and get some understanding. Keep in mind how much and in which part of the stroke the biceps flexes when trying to understand the phenomenon of the shoulder sticking out. Good luck....

hunger,

I believe I stated in one of my posts on this subject that it had not been firmly established that the biceps "naturally" bring the hand to the chest when flexed from a standing position. I based that statement on the fact that when I took that test for myself, my hand came up to my shoulder. I believe it happened that way because my subconscious mind told my hand where it should be. To me, that's a more natural ending spot than having the hand come to the chest from a standing position. I say that because if you put a dumbbell, or any other heavy object, in that hand and then flex your bicep, that's where your hand will most likely end up "naturally."

However, I still agree with the OP's right to question anything and anyone on any subject. That's what forums are for.

Roger

 

[hunger strike]

Overlooked part 2

Now I am the overlooker, at least partially. Remember, I did mention to completely flex the bicep rather than just starting the motion. Complete flexion demonstrates that, of course, the biceps pulls the wrist to the shoulder. But since in the mind of a typical player their idea of biceps use is to get the forearm going in flexion but not usually to completely flex. In this way the incomplete practice stroke flexion may have caused the OP not to notice that complete flexion would leave the wrist at the shoulder rather than to some end point on the chest. I have noticed champions doing practice strokes while standing, completely flexing the biceps. This can be done comfortably as a practice stroke while standing because the cueball is not in the way as it is when down at the table. Practice strokes while down on the table usually involve partial flexion of the biceps, resulting possibly in incomplete or inadequate flexion of the biceps during the final stroke. I am glad you took the time to make an educated and civil reply to my post. I am also grateful that AZB is here as a resource for us all and I intend to be a positive contributor here.

 

[hunger strike]

"ending point"

By the way, Roger, I can see that you already understand what I am saying becaused you mention ending point. Great comment, green to ya.

 

[duckie]

CTE Sucks!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hunger strike]

I really like your diagram by the way...

I completely agree that the cue can be propelled in a variety of ways by a variety of muscles while you are bent over, ready to shoot. These latest posts are about a player, the OP, who made an observation about his own elbow joint flexion while standing with his arms at his sides. This is done with his biceps ....... or with the various muscles of the person twisting his arm to pay taxes for the over 50% of American households who pay none.