The pendulum stroke must die!

I have the same problem... recently i've been switching back and forth from 2 styles. Filipino stroke and snooker. Some nights i would try and shoot like Alcano and other nights i would shoot like Alex P. Recently i was in a slump, so i studied both styles not until recently i watched a Bob Ogburn match against Jim Rempe. Bob's style is so smooth and simple... so now i'm trying to play a Bob Ogburn's style with a filipino stroke. I think it's working! :p
 
ShootingArts said:
Lock the cue stick in your hand. Lock your wrist. Try to execute a pendulum swing. Any more debate about the need to modify a pendulum swing's motion before reaching the cue?

Hu
Click to expand...

Chill, dude. We're just talking here.

Rather than locking the stick in your hand, a light two- or three-finger grip will let the butt pivot more freely in your grip and won't interfere with the pendulum arc.

pj
chgo
 
exactly what I am seeking!

Smooth and simple is exactly what I am seeking. Was that Accu-Stats or where did you find the video?

Thanks for any info.

Hu


Rudy said:
I have the same problem... recently i've been switching back and forth from 2 styles. Filipino stroke and snooker. Some nights i would try and shoot like Alcano and other nights i would shoot like Alex P. Recently i was in a slump, so i studied both styles not until recently i watched a Bob Ogburn match against Jim Rempe. Bob's style is so smooth and simple... so now i'm trying to play a Bob Ogburn's style with a filipino stroke. I think it's working! :p
Click to expand...
 
trying to communicate

Patrick Johnson said:
Chill, dude. We're just talking here.

Rather than locking the stick in your hand, a light two- or three-finger grip will let the butt pivot more freely in your grip and won't interfere with the pendulum arc.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


Patrick,

Actually I was cool. I was simply trying to communicate in a simple method you could grasp. I really thought the first explanation was best:

"Consider three mechanical arms, one bending only at the elbow, one bending only at the shoulder and one bending at both. The one bending at both Will need far less correction at the end of that arm(in the hand and wrist) to move back and forth in a straight line."

Your reply made it obvious that you didn't grasp what I said so I simplified. You then assumed I was angry, I wasn't. Just trying to get the point across as simply as possible. There can be slight motion in multiple joints throughout the linkage or the total compensation has to be at the end of the linkage. From a mechanical standpoint it is that simple.

From a practical standpoint, humans use the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers in coordinated efforts many times a day and we have no problems with precise control. However we rarely try to hold the shoulder perfectly fixed and move the elbow, wrist, and fingers. The wrist and fingers do move in most shots with the pendulum stroke however my statement would be equally true if I just said we rarely attempt to hold our shoulder fixed and move our elbow freely in daily activities.

I have made some discoveries in earlier testing and by having other people participate in my experiments. I believe I know a major cause of missed balls or missed shape when the pendulum stroke doesn't work for people, bangers through shortstops and "A" players. The stroke itself breaks down. Empirical evidence indicates this is true. I accept this "given" as a starting premise of this project.

Is there a better way than the pendulum stroke for everyone or even a better way for just myself? After I explore other options for awhile I may return to the pendulum or I may develop my own stroke best suited to my body and playing style. Either way, I will have a stronger belief in whichever stroke I settle on.

Hu
 
strokes

Rudy said:
go to www.propoolvideo.com , click search, and type in Bob Ogburn. There's 2 matches you can watch.
Click to expand...

Rudy,

Bob Ogburn is mostly using what the proponents of the pendulum will call a pendulum stroke in both videos. He has a slight elbow drop before hitting the cue ball which does make it seem more natural than the "pure" pendulum stroke where the objective is to have zero movement of the elbow before the cue ball has left the tip. Maybe a little of TD's hybrid stroke although I haven't talked to Thomas in detail yet to understand exactly what he is doing now.

I did note that it appeared that Bob O swapped to a full arm stroke for some of the more delicate touch shots. The other thing he did is play an extremely elegant game in engineering terms. No wasted travel of the cue ball. That is an old school style of play and the one I once used. Getting back closer to this style is another goal. I find that nothing throws my game off as much as traveling the cue ball a lot playing nine ball. A tight concise game suits me better.

Bob Vanover was using a much more full arm style of play however it seemed he was also jabbing and jerking fairly often in this particular video. Definitely not what I have in mind. Using the full arm to smooth out the stroke, reduce hand and wrist movement that is counter to the elbow movement, and gain more precise control of the cue ball are the goals.

Thanks for the link information. I could watch Bob Ogburn's play for hours and will go back and watch again. The forum was talking about draw and follow shots in another thread and Bob demonstrates just how effective follow is and shot a truly beautiful force follow shot at one point.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Rudy,

Bob Ogburn is mostly using what the proponents of the pendulum will call a pendulum stroke in both videos. He has a slight elbow drop before hitting the cue ball which does make it seem more natural than the "pure" pendulum stroke where the objective is to have zero movement of the elbow before the cue ball has left the tip. Maybe a little of TD's hybrid stroke although I haven't talked to Thomas in detail yet to understand exactly what he is doing now.
Hu
Click to expand...
Hu,

I quick summary of what I have been using starts with my realization that limiting a range of motion in my stroke by rigidly applying the pendulum principle was unnatural (for me). And because I can't play for long-ish periods without getting fatigued. Right around the fatigue set-in point, the pendulum would break down and my play would get progressively worse. Like a nuclear meltdown.

I found that by allowing some movement (primarily dropping my elbow during follow through) while still performing the initial "steps" of the pendulum, I could play consistently for much longer. Basically, I still line up the same, use the same eye pattern, and warm up the same. But during the final stroke, I allow my body to do what it does natrually. The biggest difference here is that the follow through does not look like the pendulum follow through - rather it is more pronounced and longer.

The key here (as I previously mentioned) is having some (preferably good) timing. If you start to drop your elbow too early, you can mis-hit the cue ball - but typically it will not cause missed balls - only missed shape. The good news is, if you start dropping at or after contact, you have basically executed the pendulum stroke but "lopped off" the finish step. Another good part to this is that you can still use the same drills to practice. This is beneficial in that you can use the drills to reinforce fundamentals as well as catch flaws that seem to creep in overnight. I find that using/practicing true pendulum drills followed up with hybrid play works for me.

Maybe we can retitle this thread the pendulum follow through must die? ;)

-td
 
Great minds?

Thomas,

If I knew how to convert some recent video to mpeg you would see that your style is almost exactly what I am doing at this point although my drop starts a fraction sooner. My initial warm up is pure pendulum but then I let my arm collapse in follow through. My timing is consistent but not quite ideal. Right now I have to compensate my aim about 1/8" to correct hitting the cue ball that much high. Interestingly, I have found that few players all the way up to "A" level actually hit the cue ball as accurately as they believe. They can quickly learn to correct their stroke if they are aware the cue ball hit is off however most credit missed shots or shape to other things. I suspect pro's have the same issue but I haven't been able to collar any to test. :)

I think that my final stroke may end up being very close if not identical to what you are using now but I am going to pursue a completely different stroke for awhile also, one that guides the cue stick straight for pretty much the full extremes of the stroke and follow through. I don't know if I can perfect it but one advantage, it is very easy to set up practice equipment and I think I can build a stroke trainer with little difficulty too. I'm trying to put together a couple weeks on the road right now so making hardware may take a little while but I work on both of my strokes almost every day.

You are right about the title of course, I am moving away from the pure pendulum, particularly the follow through. The pure pendulum won't be part of my game for awhile. My thoughts are to add a little motion before the cue ball hit and a great deal after. I tend to do that on the seven foot tables and I sometimes forget I am old and gimpy and have flashbacks to seventies playing speed.

Since I have your attention, what are your thoughts about hitting late? Referring to when the angle between the shooter's forearm and the cue stick is well past ninety degrees before the tip strikes the cue. I notice some improvement in my game doing this and I couldn't help note that this is very typical of Bob Ogburn's style in the video's. Although I sometimes deliberately hit early or late applying maximum high or low spin my concern with hitting late consistently is the tip having some downward motion at impact.

A chuckle: I have had several people quit in midset when I went to a more natural stroke and a very economical style of play like Bob's. That seems to be a hint right there!

Hu


td873 said:
Hu,

I quick summary of what I have been using starts with my realization that limiting a range of motion in my stroke by rigidly applying the pendulum principle was unnatural (for me). And because I can't play for long-ish periods without getting fatigued. Right around the fatigue set-in point, the pendulum would break down and my play would get progressively worse. Like a nuclear meltdown.

I found that by allowing some movement (primarily dropping my elbow during follow through) while still performing the initial "steps" of the pendulum, I could play consistently for much longer. Basically, I still line up the same, use the same eye pattern, and warm up the same. But during the final stroke, I allow my body to do what it does natrually. The biggest difference here is that the follow through does not look like the pendulum follow through - rather it is more pronounced and longer.

The key here (as I previously mentioned) is having some (preferably good) timing. If you start to drop your elbow too early, you can mis-hit the cue ball - but typically it will not cause missed balls - only missed shape. The good news is, if you start dropping at or after contact, you have basically executed the pendulum stroke but "lopped off" the finish step. Another good part to this is that you can still use the same drills to practice. This is beneficial in that you can use the drills to reinforce fundamentals as well as catch flaws that seem to creep in overnight. I find that using/practicing true pendulum drills followed up with hybrid play works for me.

Maybe we can retitle this thread the pendulum follow through must die? ;)

-td
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Patrick,

Actually I was cool.
Click to expand...

OK. Guess it was your "any more debate?" challenge that threw me off.

Your reply made it obvious that you didn't grasp what I said so I simplified [...] There can be slight motion in multiple joints throughout the linkage or the total compensation has to be at the end of the linkage.
Click to expand...

Compensation for what? I don't think you get my message yet. My responses are intended to show how you don't need to "compensate for" the arc in a pendulum stroke.

pj
chgo
 
I realize your intention

Patrick Johnson said:
Compensation for what? I don't think you get my message yet. My responses are intended to show how you don't need to "compensate for" the arc in a pendulum stroke.
pj
chgo
Click to expand...



Patrick,

I "get" your message however your responses are in error. Of course we all have to compensate for the arc of a pendulum stroke if we use it. The loose grip is a compensation in itself but I don't think that you will find a match video of a single player that relies solely on a loose grip to compensate for the short arc of the pendulum stroke throughout the match.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Since I have your attention, what are your thoughts about hitting late? Referring to when the angle between the shooter's forearm and the cue stick is well past ninety degrees before the tip strikes the cue. I notice some improvement in my game doing this and I couldn't help note that this is very typical of Bob Ogburn's style in the video's. Although I sometimes deliberately hit early or late applying maximum high or low spin my concern with hitting late consistently is the tip having some downward motion at impact.
Click to expand...
I find that it's OK to choke up a little on the butt for straight pool and 1H, where your shots are more confined in speed, shape location, and ball travel. It also helps where you have a more upright stance. If you have better than average timing, I don't think it really matters if you hit past 90, up to around 100 or 110. However, when you get much past that, I think you better have a high-quality piston stroke working! It would be an interesting experiment though.

This is in specific contrast to 9-ball where many players have to "power" balls all the time, shape is more of a zone, and laying your chin on the cue is becoming commonplace.

Interestingly, I find that a mid-height stroke vastly improves my shot making, perhaps because of my body placement. However I don't incorporate much past 90 striking - most likely for historic reasons (aka, I just don't know any better).

-td
 
ShootingArts said:
... Of course we all have to compensate for the arc of a pendulum stroke if we use it.
Click to expand...

You keep making this assumption and I keep questioning it. I've given details about why I don't think it's necessary. If we all have to do it please explain why.

Here's what I've said: I think the only "compensation" needed for the arc of a pendulum stroke is to set up so you contact the CB at the bottom of the arc and to use a grip that allows pivoting at the stick/hand connection. No extra movement needed in your body and no change needed in the shape of the arc. Call it compensating if you want, but why isn't it enough?

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Reread my earlier posts and moving on to basics for you

Patrick,

I have given the reasons compensation is necessary repeatedly. It is as simple as the need to transform an arc into a linear motion. At it's purest the arc of the pendulum stroke makes it impossible to keep the stick in a bridge and the bridge on the table without compensation for the arc of the pendulum stroke. Oddly enough or perhaps not so oddly, not one other person has expressed any issues grasping that fact.

Since you are unable to visualize simple concepts, test for yourself. Build a 90 degree apparatus. Wood, PCV, whatever is handy as long as it is reasonably rigid. The long leg of this construction which will represent the cue stick from where the hand grips the stick to the tip should be 44"-48" inches long, the short leg should be maybe 16". Now drill a hole for a pivot point in the 16" leg fourteen inches from the base of the angle formed by the two legs so that the pivot will move in the same direction as a human elbow joint. Place a bolt, bar or other appropriate material through the pivot hole to use as the pivot. Position whatever stand you use to support this pivot so that the bottom of the long leg is roughly 7/8" above a table when parallel to the table. Allow the entire right angle assembly to swing freely from the pivot.

You now have a fair representation of an arm from the elbow down and the cue stick from the grip to the tip, with zero compensation.

The first thing you will discover is that very little backswing is possible due to the tip of the long leg, representing the tip of a cue stick, hitting the table. A very limited backstroke is possible and many alignment and aiming techniques become impossible. Hitting the cue ball low is severely restricted also. Of course any bridge at all would further inhibit this rearward movement.

Select a point at your typical bridge length back from the "tip" of your apparatus.(the free end of the long leg.) How much does the height of this spot vary when you attempt to move the apparatus the length of your normal stroke? Could a closed bridge remain on the table? Could the stick remain on an open bridge?

Hopefully the above explains to your satisfaction why various forms of compensation are required for the short arc of a pure pendulum stroke. Others manage to understand the obvious. My "assumption" is simply basic mechanical theory. Go to the library if you don't have time to make test equipment and look at the pictures in some of the basic "how things work" books.

Some form of compensation is required to convert the short arc of the pure pendulum stroke to a more gentle arc or straight line. If you still don't grasp that after reading this and possibly a trip to the library, get back to me after building the test fixture.

Hu



Patrick Johnson said:
You keep making this assumption and I keep questioning it. I've given details about why I don't think it's necessary. If we all have to do it please explain why.

Here's what I've said: I think the only "compensation" needed for the arc of a pendulum stroke is to set up so you contact the CB at the bottom of the arc and to use a grip that allows pivoting at the stick/hand connection. No extra movement needed. Why isn't this enough?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
I was messing around with pendulum some years ago, still use it on a couple of shots in a match. I play much better when I follow through longer and have a longer stroke. Just shortening the backstroke on soft shots.
 
ShootingArts said:
I don't think that you will find a match video of a single player that relies solely on a loose grip to compensate for the short arc of the pendulum stroke throughout the match.

Hu
Click to expand...

Could you give me your evaluation of exactly how Allison Fisher manages to use a pure pendilum stroke? How about Karen Corr? Or Kelly Fisher? All 3 of them have some of the purest strokes I've seen. I don't see them "compensating" for anything. They just have a relaxed grip, little or no elbow movement, and somehow manage to get the job done. Quite well, I might add.
Steve
 
pooltchr said:
Could you give me your evaluation of exactly how Allison Fisher manages to use a pure pendilum stroke? How about Karen Corr? Or Kelly Fisher? All 3 of them have some of the purest strokes I've seen. I don't see them "compensating" for anything. They just have a relaxed grip, little or no elbow movement, and somehow manage to get the job done. Quite well, I might add.
Steve
Click to expand...
I wonder how they play on slow cloth.
 
wrist and fingers

Steve,

I have watched maybe a half-dozen matches Kelly played in, I will freely admit I never paid her form a great deal of attention. Good basic form but I haven't really studied it so I won't comment on what she does or doesn't do.

I have yet to closely watch a match where Allison or Karen Corr relied solely on a loose grip to compensate for the pendulum stroke for the entire match and I would guess I have watched over a dozen of Karen's matches and far more of Allison's, often paying close attention to their grip and stroke. The old reruns on espn are pretty much the Allison morning matinee. The wrist bends, the fingers move. Those are compensations.

All strokes need compensations. My only reason for pointing out the compensations needed with the pendulum was to illustrate that it is not the extremely simple stroke it is often proclaimed to be. In fact, because of the tight arc with a pure pendulum stroke, the wrist and fingers have to compensate more than they do with other strokes. A loose grip compensates during some shots, by no means all shots. Even the "relaxed grip" is a compensation though. Tighten the grip and they can't execute the pendulum stroke without using another compensation.

There is no stroke without advantages and disadvantages. Human beings weren't designed around stroking correctly with a pool cue. I knew some folks would think I was wanting to bar-be-cue the sacred cow if I indicated that everything about the pendulum stroke wasn't perfect but that can't be helped. It remains to be seen if something else is as good or better for me. I like something else a little better but it will take awhile to groove it in and then it has to be tested under pressure and when I am tired and sore.

Hu






pooltchr said:
Could you give me your evaluation of exactly how Allison Fisher manages to use a pure pendilum stroke? How about Karen Corr? Or Kelly Fisher? All 3 of them have some of the purest strokes I've seen. I don't see them "compensating" for anything. They just have a relaxed grip, little or no elbow movement, and somehow manage to get the job done. Quite well, I might add.
Steve
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top