The right elbow. My view.

[Mathew]

A long time ago, I created a picture which I think shows perfectly as to how the elbow works during the stroke.

I believe for perfect accuracy, the cue should never leave its initial vector line in 3D space.

I believe that the elbow should drop when you retract the cue from the set position, as the right hand then pulls the butt of the cue into the ball.. the elbow should rise until the point of impact and then drop back down again.

Now. Im not talking about big funky movements here if you can imagine the diagram in motion, unless you want to follow through a tonne on a break shot for example from powering the shot. There is definately a stability to the movement which leads people to think it is stationary due to the order contained within that movement which they can visually see but don't understand the geometry to them stationary seems the closest way to describe it for them on a conscious level, however the term 'stationary' is not technically correct.

 

[Mathew]

Acceleration

There has always been a mystery surrounding the stroke and its tempo.

You see force always has to work hardest during initial inertia. That means that the two times where most resistance is applied through constant force is during the start of the backstroke and the start of the downstroke. The acceleration at its greatest at these points from an exponential point of view. People that drive cars can testify to this from going from zero mph to max speed asap. Its like skating downhill on mud(initial inertial acceleration) and the mud clears (the inertial is overcome) and you start sliding on ice with a burst of speed.

You have to make the backstroke one movement and the forward movement another and you have to keep the overlap tight. Just as the cello player would if he was two play two notes stacato on the same string with a change in bowing direction. Thats why some people find the pause useful however it tends to disrupt the rhythm of the stroke as being 1-2. The timing of the three stations - set, stop, finish should be the same as a pendulum.

Constant force back, Constant force through... keep it consistant.

Constant time back, Constant time through...keep it consistant.

 

[Mathew]

Other strokes.. The nip shot

This is another stroke.

The arm is initially set forwards from vertical slightly and from 'address' it moves into a bicep/tricep tension curl where the arm is vertical (beat 1) or then you can release the tricep into finish where only the bicep is actively still holding (beat 2). Thats why people don't hold their shots.

Regardless of the stroke

You just have to turn both bicep and tricep together (beat 1) into its natural biomechanical position of equal amounts.

then

Finish with Bicep only and your right tricep relaxed. Think about these individually.

You might want to practice this sitting down somewhere with your arm raised and your palm facing the floor.

However this does not change the geometry of how the elbow works in the diagram above as that is shoulder muscles is what moves upper arm... your just learning how to open and close that hinge.

 

[Mathew]

Hey Dr Dave.

Your one of these people that think the elbow is stationary right???

 

[Siz]

keep the elbow still

I believe for perfect accuracy, the cue should never leave its initial vector line in 3D space.

I believe that the elbow should drop when you retract the cue from the set position, as the right hand then pulls the butt of the cue into the ball.. the elbow should rise until the point of impact and then drop back down again.

25 years ago I would have agreed with you. At that time, I was concentrating on my fundamentals for snooker and worked hard on keeping my stroke absolutely level. As you have pointed out, this necessitated some elbow movement before contact.

That was my first mistake.

The other mistake was modeling my stroke on someone else who was regarded at the time as having the perfect 'text book' action (Steve Davis).

If instead, I had paid more attention to what actually worked for me on the table, then I would have made a lot better progress.

About 5 years ago, after a 10 year break from all billiards games, I returned to pool. I completely remodeled my stroke, making sure I avoided the mistakes of the past. In the process, one of the things that I learned is that it is absolutely NOT necessary to keep your cue precisely on its initial horizontal plane; some vertical movement does no harm at all.

And if this vertical movement is a consequence of keeping the movement in the elbow only, then it is a price well worth paying imo. The pay-back will be in speed control, consistency and hitting the c.b. where intended.

 

[MitchAlsup]

a) at my age (57) there is no way for me to hold my sholder so close to the cue stick anymore. It come just below parallel with the elbow.

b) I do drop my elbow--but I think this is immaterial to the stroke overall

c) What is material is for the elbow to be vertical at the moment of impact--and then a nice long follow through. The verticality at impact means the tip is not moving in the vertical plane while impacting the CB adding precision to the contact point. It is durring the follow through where the elbow drops to keep the stick "relatively" level durring the follow through.

 

[gpeezy]

Your one of these people that think the elbow is stationary right???

I wouldn't be able to play a lick without mine moving at all.

 

[lee brett]

matthew when im in america which is soon, if im in your area look me up i coach the elbow drop, im a snooker coach from england

 

[pooltchr]

a) It is durring the follow through where the elbow drops to keep the stick "relatively" level durring the follow through.

Let me ask a question. If by saying follow through, you are speaking about the part of the stroke that happens after contact has been made with the cue ball, does it really matter if the cue remains level? Once the cue ball is gone, it doesn't care what the stick does.

My cue is moving at it's most level path when I make contact due to the 90 degree angle of my forearm at contact. When I finish, my tip is actually angled down to almost touching the table. That is the natural result of a pendilum stroke.

Steve

 

[RRfireblade]

Whatever stroke you can most easily repeat at all times is the correct one. For many it is the pendilum , for others it's something else.

My stance is snooker-ish , not completely snooker tho. But I do use body contact points , so during my stroke the cue stays pretty much right on plane at all times. As long as my setup up good , then I rarely ever have to think about my cue delivery.

Not that it matters to me but the only time my tip finishes on the cloth is on heavy draw shots.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Let me ask a question. If by saying follow through, you are speaking about the part of the stroke that happens after contact has been made with the cue ball, does it really matter if the cue remains level? Once the cue ball is gone, it doesn't care what the stick does.

In a pedantic way, you are correct, nothing after the millisecond of contact changes the outcome of the cue ball. However, if you do not drop your elbow on a draw shot, the tip scrapes along the felt and greatly increases the wear rate on the cloth.

However, if, by chance, you mistake where the cue ball is in relation to the tip, you certainly do not want the tip moving downward at the moment of impact, so there is some margin-of-error advantage for droping the elbow and keeping the shaft level through the whole stroke.

But, if you have good control over your stroke, the whole of this effect is "down in the noise".

 

[dr_dave]

Your one of these people that think the elbow is stationary right???

I do think it is important to not drop the elbow before CB contact. I also feel most people, especially beginners, can be more consistent with tip contact point accuracy if they don't drop their elbow after CB contact (during the follow through). Lots of rationale, justification, and video demonstrations on this topic can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#elbow​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Mathew]

25 years ago I would have agreed with you. At that time, I was concentrating on my fundamentals for snooker and worked hard on keeping my stroke absolutely level. As you have pointed out, this necessitated some elbow movement before contact.

Absolutely. Snooker players need to be accurate and by placing the cue under the chin, it better never leave the original vector line otherwise your cue is going to collide with your chin... This is a common error that can cause jumping up on the shot at around impact because the body and mind goes into instinctual mode - meaning it doesn't want to be hit so you move before that happens...thus spoiling the shot...

However, having the right shoulder actually behind your head (if you can actually do it that is) a very contorted position that has the additional disadvantage of its tendency to throw off the head position when aligning a shot.

Whilst there is definately a pivot motion that rotates the shoulders, it is my contention that the right shoulder, the right elbow lay on a plane slightly outside of the shot plane line. Someone like Steve Davis is about as close as you can get to the model in terms of the right arm being on the shot plane but even he, who is straining to make this work, doesn't quite do it either.... close but no cigar.

If the right elbow isn't onplane upon closer scrutiny as is my contention here, then the two planes must maintain their vertical relationship with the right forearm directly opposed to the shot plane so has no nessesary need to rotate during the shot. This contention would mandate that unless the player can deal with a little side to side movement in their stroke and higher head position, the stationary elbow is not the way to go. By using a stationary elbow your aiming your cue at one line moving it along another and the forearm turning and rolling in tandem with the cues movement... sounds like a felt rippers stroke to me.

That was my first mistake.

So I don't really think it was a mistake.

The other mistake was modeling my stroke on someone else who was regarded at the time as having the perfect 'text book' action (Steve Davis).

He was pretty solid cueist in his day and I certainly could think of a few people that are worse than him to copy. I mean he won 6 world championships...

Just do what he did and not what he thought he did.

If instead, I had paid more attention to what actually worked for me on the table, then I would have made a lot better progress.

The proof is in the pudding. For example, for years I was straining to actually get down on the table. I decided to put a minimal knee bend (so as not to fatigue the leg either). Made a big difference for me. However the mechanical model most people promote is just BS.

About 5 years ago, after a 10 year break from all billiards games, I returned to pool. I completely remodeled my stroke, making sure I avoided the mistakes of the past. In the process, one of the things that I learned is that it is absolutely NOT necessary to keep your cue precisely on its initial horizontal plane; some vertical movement does no harm at all.

And if this vertical movement is a consequence of keeping the movement in the elbow only, then it is a price well worth paying imo. The pay-back will be in speed control, consistency and hitting the c.b. where intended.

If your arm works in the correct way directly opposed to the shot plane, then there is really no where that you can't deliver the correct cue action. Just think of Keith McCready for an example.

Keeping the cue moving with zero unnessesary motion is going to strike the CB more accurately.... how can it not. Assume for a second we did both models within a range of proficiency... which will be more accurate a)a cue that never leaves its vector line or b) a cue which moves up and down on a plane around a fixed point. Which also do you think will be more consistant...

Speed control is about force of delivery...it has nothing to do with model. I don't know a single person in the pool rooms that couldnt learn to better control their speed with the strokes they have. It is something which is developed in a player regardless of stroke. A stroke has to be really screwed up to have a problem so big that this skill cannot be developed...lol

 

[pooltchr]

Keeping the cue moving with zero unnessesary motion is going to strike the CB more accurately.... how can it not. Assume for a second we did both models within a range of proficiency... which will be more accurate a)a cue that never leaves its vector line or b) a cue which moves up and down on a plane around a fixed point. Which also do you think will be more consistant...

On the other hand, it takes a good bit of extra arm movement (between the shoulder and the elbow) in order to make the cue move directly forward. It requires perfect timing every time.

If the only arm movement comes from the forearm (between the elbow and the grip), yes there will be some up and down movement of the tip. However, as your stroke moves back and forth, the grip passes through the exact same point every time. Now, if we know where the tip is going to be when our grip is at 90 degrees, we know that no matter how many times we move back and forth, whenever we are at 90 degrees, we know where the tip will be. So we take advantage of that simple fact, and set up with the tip nearly at the ball and at 90 degrees.

The idea considers both of your points. We have zero unnecesswary motion of the arm consistently bring the tip back to the exact point on the cue ball we want.

Best of both worlds.

Steve

 

[Siz]

If the right elbow isn't onplane upon closer scrutiny as is my contention here, then the two planes must maintain their vertical relationship with the right forearm directly opposed to the shot plane so has no nessesary need to rotate during the shot. This contention would mandate that unless the player can deal with a little side to side movement in their stroke and higher head position, the stationary elbow is not the way to go. By using a stationary elbow your aiming your cue at one line moving it along another and the forearm turning and rolling in tandem with the cues movement... sounds like a felt rippers stroke to me.

There is enough freedom in the elbow joint for the alignment issues you refer not to be a problem in practice. Certainly I have not found that minimizing the elbow movement introduces any lateral cue movement.

I do agree with you about keeping the chin right on the cue. Depending on your grip, this need not be a problem on the backswing; but in the follow through there needs to be an elbow drop. This can cause problems because of timing issues, including as you have pointed out unwanted head movement. But having a gap of half an inch or so between cue and chin seems to get round this.

He was pretty solid cueist in his day and I certainly could think of a few people that are worse than him to copy....Just do what he did and not what he thought he did.

A good point: The expert may not know exactly what he is doing nor how he is doing it. And so in following his instructions you might well go wrong.

But I don't think that it is as easy as saying 'do what he did and not what he thought he did': There are a number of reasons why what is right for one individual might not be right for another. So slavishly copying anyone, no matter how 'perfect' an aspect of their game appears to be, is not necessarily a good idea. Furthermore, how can an observer really know what the expert is doing? There is a lot that is going on that you will never find out about just by watching.

The conclusion I came to was to never copy anyone. By all means watch good players; learn from them and be inspired by them. But do not copy. Listen to others but then get on the table and try things out. See what works for you.

Assume for a second we did both models within a range of proficiency... which will be more accurate a)a cue that never leaves its vector line or b) a cue which moves up and down on a plane around a fixed point. Which also do you think will be more consistant...

I don't like this assumption. I doubt whether you will be able to operate both 'models' with the same degree of proficiency. The classic pendulum stroke is much easier to do. For me, it gives much more consistent results.

Speed control is about force of delivery...it has nothing to do with model.

No. Speed control is about the delivery of force. And that has everything to do with the model. In my experience you will be able to deliver the right force much more consistently by not actively employing any more muscle groups in the stroke than you need to. Easier to learn. Finer control.

As far as possible, keep the elbow still