The importance of a smooth cueing action

Mikjary said:
I think this is close to my opinions on the stroke and how it is defined by a portion of the posting membership on this forum. I'd add that while the ongoing discussion on fundamentals is important for a percentage of the lurkers, it's not what the advanced players should obsess about.

Since there are all different levels of players reading this forum, a case should be made to promote a basic understanding of what it takes to achieve all the necessary components of a reliable stroke. That being said, as a player develops this consistent stroke, the discussion should move toward understanding more advanced techniques which are not taught at the beginner or intermediate levels.

These advanced examinations of stroking and techniques should not be limited by discussions about cuing fundamentals reserved for lower level players. After the science is given, the player should start to develop creative abilities and expand their techniques with their advanced knowledge and understanding of what they're doing.

It's probably not possible to get a discussion going on this forum going without a helpful poster or two to correct all other posters. A suggestion would be to evaluate the posts and understand what level of players are posting before offering a blanket statement about the pool stroke. If it's an advanced discussion, parroting basic techniques is probably not on point for the conversation.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...
I don't believe you can segregate threads by skill levels. You have to expect that people of all skills will read all of them and speak to that varied readership.

I agree it's important to acknowledge that "model" techniques aren't the be all and end all, but it's also important to acknowledge that model techniques exist for good reasons - especially for less developed players. And sometimes it's important to point that out in discussions of higher-skill techniques too, so the fuller picture is understood.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't believe you can segregate threads by skill levels. You have to expect that people of all skills will read all of them and speak to that varied readership.

I agree it's important to acknowledge that "model" techniques aren't the be all and end all, but it's also important to acknowledge that model techniques exist for good reasons - especially for less developed players. And sometimes it's important to point that out in discussions of higher-skill techniques too, so the full picture is understood.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

A full picture is good when a discussion is about a general topic such as the stance, grip or other basic parts of the stroke. When more specific discussions are evaluated which would probably not be used or recommended for players at lower levels, staying on topic is not too common.

Probably many of the arguments center on debates of fundamentals versus non traditional methods. While both should be discussed, they shouldn't be evaluated at the same time. This always prevents an outcome for the original post and addressing its possibilities and value.

The swiping thread was a good example of examining the subject without interference by detractors of the stroke. It reached somewhat of a conclusion with a few more questions being raised. This is much, much better than an ongoing argument that creates camps and ruffles feathers. Kind of like Congress. :cool:

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
The swiping thread was a good example of examining the subject without interference by detractors of the stroke. It reached somewhat of a conclusion with a few more questions being raised. This is much, much better than an ongoing argument that creates camps and ruffles feathers.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good example of a topic that will never be discussed without controversy - not just about fundamental vs. advanced technique, but good vs. bad technique (and true vs. false reasons).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I think that's a good example of a topic that will never be discussed without controversy - not just about fundamental vs. advanced technique, but good vs. bad technique (and true vs. false reasons).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I look at it from a different perspective. It's a reason to gather more information and discuss new possibilities. Our ideas of good and bad are changing constantly and should always evolve.

All sports have a baseline of fundamental techniques. If you look at films of any professional sport from years ago, you'd see the improvements by today's standards. This doesn't mean the fundamentals have eroded and players are not adhering to basic techniques as a core foundation. Instead, more effective techniques have replaced entry level practices and improved the players' abilities.

Whether a technique is "good" or "bad" should be decided by anecdotal as well as empirical evidence. Combining the two promotes growth in the sport's techniques. And, an effort to continuously upgrade our accepted methods is also necessary even after we reach conclusions. No rest for the wicked.

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
I look at it from a different perspective. It's a reason to gather more information and discuss new possibilities. Our ideas of good and bad are changing constantly and should always evolve.

All sports have a baseline of fundamental techniques. If you look at films of any professional sport from years ago, you'd see the improvements by today's standards. This doesn't mean the fundamentals have eroded and players are not adhering to basic techniques as a core foundation. Instead, more effective techniques have replaced entry level practices and improved the players' abilities.

Whether a technique is "good" or "bad" should be decided by anecdotal as well as empirical evidence. Combining the two promotes growth in the sport's techniques. And, an effort to continuously upgrade our accepted methods is also necessary even after we reach conclusions. No rest for the wicked.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Not going to argue it with you yet again, but what you call advanced techniques are nothing more than idiosyncrasies of an individual shooter. There isn't anything they can do that solid fundamentals as taught can't do. And, that should be your litmus test, can you achieve more with a different technique than you can with just solid fundamentals? So far, the answer is a solid NO.
 
I've said this before but will say it again here, with an addition that I doubt will be accepted well by some.

I started playing at 13 years of age, about 3 years before my 1st. H.S. physics class. I am very glad for that fact.

I am also glad that I received 2 years of H.S. & 2 semesters of college physics education.

My advise to anyone that wants to learn to play pool well would be to put the science stuff out of your head & if possible don't allow it to enter your head.

It is not necessary.

At 16, Earl Strickland was not getting an introduction to physics in High School as I was. Earl was spending 16 hours a day, everyday, for a solid year, on a pool table learning his trade with no science education to either aid nor inhibit him.

If one wants to learn how to hit a curve ball one does not not study the physics of doing so from a book or any written words regarding the physics. If one wants to learn to hit a curve ball, one has a lot of curve balls thrown to them so that they can see & 'feel' what it takes to hit a curve ball.

We do not play sports well with our intelligence of the sciences. We play sports well by doing & gaining a feel for how to play well & using our natural intelligence to play the game well.

How many pro athletes, the best of their sports, even know what physics is? But they know how to play & some know how to play smart.

Support your local pool hall, spend time on the table & experiment & learn what it feels like to play. There is no need to know the science.

I guess what I am trying to says is you can either try to be an athlete or you can stay in class & be a 'bookworm'. No offense to either designation. I'd say I am a bit of both, but I know when it's time to be which & do not allow one to hinder the other.

Best 2 All,
Rick

PS My only reason for posting this is food for thought that might help some get out of the muck & actually learn how to play well & not know the why & wherefore of the science involved.

PPS I hope all can see & understand my points & my motivation to sincerely try to help others to simply play better.
 
Last edited:
I've said for years and even stated on AZ a time or two that speed of stroke is one of, if not the most important thing to learn about pool. It should go without saying that smoothness should go right along with it, at least it does to me.
I ain't one of the physics guys, for sure:sorry:
 
ENGLISH! said:
I've said this before but will say it again here with an addition that I doubt will be accepted well by some.

I started playing at 13 years of age, about 3 years before my 1st. H.S. physics class. I am very glad for that fact.

I am also glad that I received 2 years of H.S. & 2 semesters of college physics education.

My advise to anyone that wants to learn to play pool well would be to put the science stuff out of your head & if possible don't allow it to enter your head.

It is not necessary.

At 16, Earl Strickland was not getting an introduction to physics in High School as I was. Earl was spending 16 hours a day, everyday, for a solid year, on a pool table learning his trade with no science education to either aid nor inhibit him.

If one wants to learn how to hit a curve ball one does not not study the physics of doing so from a book or any written words regarding the physics. If one wants to learn to hit a curve ball, one has a lot of curve balls thrown to them so that they can see & 'feel' what it takes to hit a curve ball.

We do not play sports well with our intelligence of the sciences. We play sports well by doing & gaining a feel for how to play well & using our natural intelligence to play the game well.

How many pro athletes, the best of their sports, even know what physics is? But they know how to play & some know how to play smart.

Support your local pool hall, spend time on the table & experiment & learn what it feels like to play. There is no need to know the science.

I guess what I am trying to says is you can either try to be an athlete or you can stay in class & be a 'bookworm'. No offense to either designation. I'd say I am a bit of both, but I know when it's time to be which & do not allow one to hinder the other.

Best 2 All,
Rick

PS My only reason for posting this is food for thought that might help some get out of the muck & actually learn how to play well & not know the why & wherefore of the science involved.

PPS I hope all can see & understand my points & my motivation to sincerely try to help others to simply play better.
Click to expand...

Only Earl is Earl. And almost no one on here has that kind of time or money to play as much as Earl did. But, you heard it here guys, quit your jobs, divorce your wives, and just play pool. Maybe, just maybe, after enough years, you will make shortstop level. Don't worry about all those ways that will knock years off your learning, support your pool halls and live there! :rolleyes:

Rick, ever consider the fact that the only reason the science of the game has never helped you is because you don't have the wisdom to actually use the science instead of just scoffing at it as usual?

What level are you after all those years of playing without any science behind you?? Ever beat any pros? Shortstops? A players? B players?? I ask, because you stated it as such a solid fact, and not just your opinion.

Strange how you equate knowing the science as to not playing at all. Guess you also don't know that a good part of the science is called practice. That means time on the table. I guess it was all just another rant of yours to run down that which you admit you don't know much about. :rolleyes:
 
Neil said:
Not going to argue it with you yet again, but what you call advanced techniques are nothing more than idiosyncrasies of an individual shooter. There isn't anything they can do that solid fundamentals as taught can't do. And, that should be your litmus test, can you achieve more with a different technique than you can with just solid fundamentals? So far, the answer is a solid NO.
Click to expand...

There you have it, folks. Pool will never change. All information is already known, so quit buying dvds, books, etc. Subscribe to the B players on AZB.

Your "solid fundamentals" is addressed in my posting. Reread them. Your OCD to be right precludes your ability to read my posts and come up with anything more than what an unhappy curmudgeon would say.

Since when do I post to get your acceptance with my opinions? PJ presents a sensible discussion and states his opinion like a normal person. You get on here like the dean of the know it alls to school me and anybody else who'll read your consistent closed minded drivel.

Get over yourself. People's opinions form a think tank that solve problems. The more thought processes on here the better. It all adds up despite your best efforts to keep us tied down. Weighing in without attacking is not your strong suit. Your opinion is just one voice in a crowd, as is all of ours.

Your condescending attitude sucks. It drives away posters and skews the forum. Nobody likes somebody that can sit on ice cream and tell you what flavor it is. :D

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
There you have it, folks. Pool will never change. All information is already known, so quit buying dvds, books, etc. Subscribe to the B players on AZB.

Your "solid fundamentals" is addressed in my posting. Reread them. Your OCD to be right precludes your ability to read my posts and come up with anything more than what an unhappy curmudgeon would say.

Since when do I post to get your acceptance with my opinions? PJ presents a sensible discussion and states his opinion like a normal person. You get on here like the dean of the know it alls to school me and anybody else who'll read your consistent closed minded drivel.

Get over yourself. People's opinions form a think tank that solve problems. The more thought processes on here the better. It all adds up despite your best efforts to keep us tied down. Weighing in without attacking is not your strong suit. Your opinion is just one voice in a crowd, as is all of ours.

Your condescending attitude sucks. It drives away posters and skews the forum. Nobody likes somebody that can sit on ice cream and tell you what flavor it is. :D

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

That's typical you Mike. Accuse me of all the very things that you have done in your post, and I didn't do. You are a good student of Rick's. Make stuff up and then accuse someone else of saying them while calling them all sorts of names. The very thing you say you don't do.

Try getting over yourself and thinking you know it all. You must, because anyone with a different opinion you jump all over. I never attacked, yet you sure did. What a hypocrite you are! Your extreme bias against actual knowledge is what keeps you from ever actually learning anything and keeps you searching for that magic pill.

I guess we should all just listen to someone that thinks that skill level matters when it comes to stating things, but your own skill level is even lower than mine, so what are you then, a C player? Why then should anyone listen to you? Or to Rick, who others have seen him play and stated that he can barely run out a rack when it is wide open?

But, like Rick, never discuss anything, just attack those who disagree with you. I guess only your opinion on here carries any weight, huh?
 
Neil said:
That's typical you Mike. Accuse me of all the very things that you have done in your post, and I didn't do. You are a good student of Rick's. Make stuff up and then accuse someone else of saying them while calling them all sorts of names. The very thing you say you don't do.

Try getting over yourself and thinking you know it all. You must, because anyone with a different opinion you jump all over. I never attacked, yet you sure did. What a hypocrite you are! Your extreme bias against actual knowledge is what keeps you from ever actually learning anything and keeps you searching for that magic pill.

I guess we should all just listen to someone that thinks that skill level matters when it comes to stating things, but your own skill level is even lower than mine, so what are you then, a C player? Why then should anyone listen to you? Or to Rick, who others have seen him play and stated that he can barely run out a rack when it is wide open?

But, like Rick, never discuss anything, just attack those who disagree with you. I guess only your opinion on here carries any weight, huh?
Click to expand...

---------------------------------
 
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

Much can be learned by listening to how Golf Pros & even Amateur Golfers talk about & discuss the different aspects of different golf swings & different putting strokes.

But then some individuals could learn much about life & how perhaps best to live their lives by a study of golf.

Mikjary Mike has said that it is only a short list that would need to be addressed to restore these forums to the better version of their former selves.

I tend to agree with both You & Mike.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS Did you see SmoothStroke's small jest.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I remember once in the university discussing the autokinetic effect with a fellow student after having it demonstrated. We were arguing how much we felt the light spots moved and speculating on the causes of this effect, in a way that would leave no doubt what so ever that we had just had a lecture on it. Then the guy walking behind us rudely interrupted us in a squeky voice "You do know the lights don't actually move?" That's a pretty good illustration of the level of discussion here.

Don't worry I'll save us all the bother of 20 pages of insults and snarkyness and increasingly frustrating misunderstandings, so I'll make my position on the stroke as clear as I can.

1. General body movement. None (within reason)

2. Elbow movement. Watching the pros shows us that up and down movements of the elbow are perfectly acceptable in an awesome stroke. How much movement (or how little) is optimal, the timing etc. could be discussed on a reasonable forum. I've even tried to make some diagrams on it. In an attempt to compare to my own stroke. I'LL NEVER, EVER POST THEM HERE, for the above stated reasons. I will tell you this: Mike Massey has a secret...

3. Wrist movement. Watching every top player I know, they all have some kind of wrist movement. Most have the traditional forward snap often seen in snooker, some like CJ Wiley has the reverse. They both accomplish the same end result: The cues direction is controlled by our very capable hands in fingers rather than our clumsy bicep. Some have a lateral, twisting movement, combined with forward movement seen especially in players with a death grip, like Earl Strickland. It would be interesting to discuss the implications of this, I have several ideas on the matter, but again...maybe on a different forum. I do feel that the wrist movement should be straight as a general rule. The hand position throughout the snap would again be extremely interesting to study in detail as would the exact timing of the snap (I have experimented a lot with it).

4. Grip: Several philosophies can lead to a good stroke. The minority "death grip" can still be awesome with some tweaking. The loose grip however will allow some "play" in the cues contact with the hand, isolating it from some involuntary movements, while still maintaining control of the cue. I feel it is the better choice for most players, but I have enjoyed CJ's input on this, and can see the merit of some of his arguments.

5. Smoothness: I hope I've made my case on this topic.

6. Forward pause: I know of no decent player that doesn't have a distinct forward pause. I feel long is good here.

7. Back pause. I can see the merits of it, and feel it should be taught early in a players development. It was too late for me when I learned about it, so I don't have it (a prolonged one,that is).

Thanks to all of the positive contributors to this thread. It is nice to discuss things like this with people who actually understand what you mean...It would be great to pick your brains on some aspect of the stroke
Click to expand...
If you think much of this is controversial, then again I think it's your misinterpretation.

pj
chgo
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Maybe I should take up golf, lol. I've had an ideological dislike of that sport since a large part of my childhood forest playground and the river I used to fish, were destroyed to build a golf course. I guess, it can't be worse than discussing things while people are just waiting for you to slip up on some small point or deliberately quote you out of context, for the sheer thrill of the argument...Well I'm off to play pool now. And don't worry everyone, I won't make the mistake of making any more threads for a long while..I'll probably stick to scanning the 14.1 forum occationally.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your natural area. If you can play that course, I'd suggest that you do. I bet there are trees & water spots that will bring back memories.

I'd ask, not for my sake, but for the sake of the youngsters, that you not cease from posting. They need to hear from both sides so as to at least have a choice.

Best,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

Much can be learned by listening to how Golf Pros & even Amateur Golfers talk about & discuss the different aspects of different golf swings & different putting strokes.

But then some individuals could learn much about life & how perhaps best to live their lives by a study of golf.

Mikjary Mike has said that it is only a short list that would need to be addressed to restore these forums to the better version of their former selves.

I tend to agree with both You & Mike.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS Did you see SmoothStroke's small jest.
Click to expand...

So, when are you and Mikjary leaving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top