The longer bridge and stroke acceleration?

8-10 inches should be plenty I think. I can generate an awful lot of power with a full 10 inch backswing, I can't imagine needing to hit the ball any harder on a non-break shot.

FWIW, check out Earl's bridge length from 1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHQw9T5uvyk

Snooker players are generally taught a 10-12 inch bridge. This is one of the best position shots I've seen, makes Corey Deuel's version on the pool table seem very easy. So what the red didn't pass :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIoPHYHaaDg&feature=related
 
Great article Dr. Dave.....covered all the bases. As well as easier sighting down the length of the cue, one can easily see if they are stroking straight on practice strokes.

Using a longer bridge without proportionately lengthening your stroke will not change the acceleration of the cue, but if one lengthens their stroke appropriately they have a better chance of making positive contact with the cueball.

It seems the stroke used by professionals today is longer by several inches than that used during the straight pool era. Perhaps it is because they prefer to power the ball around the table, having it skid rather than roll into position, for accuracy on longer shots. Straight pool players preferred rolling the cueball into position, which affords greater accuracy when controlling the ball over shorter distance. I've also seen many pros, pinoys included, adopt a shorter bridge when playing 1-pocket, where rolling the ball is required on far more shots.
 
henho said:
Great article Dr. Dave.....covered all the bases.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

henho said:
As well as easier sighting down the length of the cue, one can easily see if they are stroking straight on practice strokes.
Click to expand...
Good point.

henho said:
Using a longer bridge without proportionately lengthening your stroke will not change the acceleration of the cue
Click to expand...
Actually, by using on a portion of the bridge length, more acceleration will be required (for a given desired cue speed). Also, tip contact point accuracy suffers unnecessarily with the unused extra bridge length.

henho said:
but if one lengthens their stroke appropriately they have a better chance of making positive contact with the cueball.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "positive contact," but a longer stroke does allow a smoother delivery (with less acceleration), which can be more accurate.

Regards,
Dave
 
Longer bridge length when breaking

One more thing I learned from Dr. Dave.

When Bob Jewett was in town filming their videos using high speed cameras, Dr. Dave also filmed my stroke to determine if, when I contact the cueball, I was at peak acceleration (or something like that). What I learned is with my normal bridge and stroke I was accelerating through the cue ball, so my peak was a little further than past the cue ball. I am not as accurate using a long bridge so where I utilized this new info is that I now break with a longer bridge to maximize my acceleration. It has helped. Thanks Mr. Dr.

Dave
 
12squared said:
One more thing I learned from Dr. Dave.

When Bob Jewett was in town filming their videos using high speed cameras, Dr. Dave also filmed my stroke to determine if, when I contact the cueball, I was at peak acceleration (or something like that). What I learned is with my normal bridge and stroke I was accelerating through the cue ball, so my peak was a little further than past the cue ball. I am not as accurate using a long bridge so where I utilized this new info is that I now break with a longer bridge to maximize my acceleration. It has helped. Thanks Mr. Dr.

Dave
Click to expand...
You're welcome Mr. 12.

The longer bridge length makes sense for your power stroke. Now you are using all of that late acceleration to get more cue speed. Brilliant!

I bet the light fixtures really fear you now. ;)

Regards,
Dave

PS: FYI, here's the video: HSV B.40 - stroke speed and acceleration analysis, with Bob Jewett
 
Last edited:
I also play with a long bridge and when people see me play they wonder why and how I can play like that , it's just my style like alot of others .
 
more than one factor at play

A longer bridge length can be useful when you need to power the cue ball and want to keep your stroke smooth. But sighting is also a factor and this is affected by the the shot distance.

TWOFORPOOL said:
The big advantage of a longer bridge is that it allows you to have more time/distance to accelerate the cue. A very short bridge requires a "Jab" or "punch" to accelerate the cue thereby loosing stroke and feel.
Click to expand...

I agree. But only if you use all of the bridge (ie bring your tip right back to your bridge hand). If you watch tapes of players with long bridges, eg snooker footage on Youtube, they usually don't. So there are other factors at work.

henho said:
...easier sighting down the length of the cue, one can easily see if they are stroking straight on practice strokes.
Click to expand...

I am sure that this plays a part. I don't have access to a 12' table at the moment, so I am going from memory. But if I visualize myself playing a length-of-the-table thin cut safety (soft shot at distance), it 'feels' fine using the using a long bridge. But I would be a lot less confident using a short bridge.

tom mcgonagle said:
The books written about pool tell you to use a bridge that's six to twelve inches behind the cue-ball.

What the books, fail to state, is that they were written by people that grew up playing straight-pool. Straight-pool is a game that requires more cue-ball control and less movement of the cue-ball.
Click to expand...

In straight pool most shots are also played at close range. This affects what is a comfortable bridge length for sighting.

Having said this, it is not obvious to me why moving your bridge hand closer to your eyes affects your sighting of the shot so much. [EDIT: Of course you don't move your bridge hand relative to your body - you move your body relative to the c.b.:o But why should a couple of inches make that much difference? (On-topic replies only please!)]
 
Last edited:
I played last night, trying to bridge at the pivot point. For my cue that is 300 from the tip.The shots that I missed where when I could not comfortablely bridge 300 mm from the ball and had to shorten up to about 150-200 mm.
It seems to me that the bridge from the pivot point is more forgiving compared to a non pivot point shot.
To improve the non pivot point shots , I tried a closed bridge instead of the open bridge that I normally use.It seemed a closed bridge helped in the 150 mm range and was still good at the 300 pivot point. I am just not used to that type of bridge. I think it helps in keeping cue on target.
I am now thinking that cues have a range of where they shoot best and of course in the hands of those who know what they are doing ,it seems to make little difference,or they know the limitations and can some how compensate for that.
Neil
 
conetip said:
I played last night, trying to bridge at the pivot point. For my cue that is 300 from the tip.The shots that I missed where when I could not comfortablely bridge 300 mm from the ball and had to shorten up to about 150-200 mm.
It seems to me that the bridge from the pivot point is more forgiving compared to a non pivot point shot.
Neil
Click to expand...

There is probably be a theoretical basis for this if a principal cause of missing the shot is a cuing error that causes you to sometimes not hit the c.b. where you mean to (and we have all been there).

But even if it helps you make the shot, bridging at the pivot point it will not help you to stop putting unwanted english on the ball. And if the pivot point is further from the tip than you would normally bridge, it might make things worse in that respect.

So it might be only covering up errors that perhaps it would be best to work on curing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top