the throw stroke

[cuetechasaurus]

Yeah but, he's a straight pool player. I don't wanna take anything away from his game but really good straight pool is about pattern-play. There's less emphasis on long-position. Straight pool players consciously avoid shots that require a lot of spin. A lot of straight pool is a little draw here, a little follow there and stop shots. I can name a few 100 ball runners who simply can't play nine-ball.

Name them. And they can't play 9-ball compared to whom? To be a 100+ ball runner in straight pool you have to be able to come with shots.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Name them. And they can't play 9-ball compared to whom? To be a 100+ ball runner in straight pool you have to be able to come with shots.

I'm not about to name them. These are people I know. I'm not saying you don't have to come up with shots. I have more respect for straight pool than that. I'm simply saying that straight pool players don't spin the ball around the table as much as nine-ball players do.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

I'm not about to name them. These are people I know. I'm not saying you don't have to come up with shots. I have more respect for straight pool than that. I'm simply saying that straight pool players don't spin the ball around the table as much as nine-ball players do.

That's not what you said. You said that they can't play a lick of 9-ball, and I'm asking compared to whom can't they play a lick. If you said that they don't play good 9-ball compared to the top pros, that's understandable. But you said that they "simply can't play".

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

That's not what you said. You said that they can't play a lick of 9-ball, and I'm asking compared to whom can't they play a lick. If you said that they don't play good 9-ball compared to the top pros, that's understandable. But you said that they "simply can't play".

Ok, LITERALLY I mean they cannot play comparably to their straight pool peers who also play nine-ball. Yes, they're still run-out players but they obviously struggle in situations that demand long position. MY POINT is that in pattern games (like 1-pocket), a player can get away with a lot more mechanically than they can in a rotation game.

 

[Gregg]

I can name a few 100 ball runners who simply can't play nine-ball.

This place is getting out of hand when you have statements like this being made.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Ok, LITERALLY I mean they cannot play comparably to their straight pool peers who also play nine-ball. Yes, they're still run-out players but they obviously struggle in situations that demand long position. MY POINT is that in pattern games (like 1-pocket), a player can get away with a lot more mechanically than they can in a rotation game.

I don't know much about straight pool or 1-pocket, but I can see where you're coming from.

I used to play English Billiards with a lot of older guys who were pretty good at the game. But their range of shots was very limited. 95% of their shots were topspin with a touch of left or right playing cannons and in-offs.

When they played snooker and needed power stuns or draw shots they were B-level players. I'm sure most of them could rarely run a rack rotation style as their positional play was very limited, not to mention their long potting.

So it wouldn't surprise me if some guys were good at straight pool patterns and regular 50 runners despite having limited potting and positional skills compared to players of similar abilities who worked more on 9-ball.

 

[bruin70]

Yeah but, he's a straight pool player. I don't wanna take anything away from his game but really good straight pool is about pattern-play. There's less emphasis on long-position. Straight pool players consciously avoid shots that require a lot of spin. A lot of straight pool is a little draw here, a little follow there and stop shots. I can name a few 100 ball runners who simply can't play nine-ball.

you know what though, j,,,,,,if someone actually throws their cue at the cb, i would think it more likely in a game where small moves and precise position are less important,,,,because i think you lose control when you throw a cue before contact.

i guess i have to believe norcross, but i'd like tor hear someone confirm it. it would be an anomoly if it were so, but i guess people grow up doing certain things that others can't fathom.

 

[tedkaufman]

I'm not about to name them. These are people I know. I'm not saying you don't have to come up with shots. I have more respect for straight pool than that. I'm simply saying that straight pool players don't spin the ball around the table as much as nine-ball players do.

It's been three years since I left NYC, so I'm not sure who the new 100 ball runners are that have appeared since I left. But of those I knew, in no particular order--Flocko, Ginky, Mika, Vinnie, Tony R, and the late Johnny E and George Makula--all are/were outstanding 9-ball players. You don't run 100's if you can't make long shots or maneuver the cueball. Any legitimate 100 ball runner in straight pool can do pretty much whatever is necessary with the cueball--long, short or in between.

With regard to slip stroking, the aforementioned Johnny Ervolino had the prettiest slip stroke I've ever seen. He could also control the cueball on impossibly fast tables as well as anyone. I believe he told me as a kid he copied Mosconi, who was also pretty fair at controlling the cueball.

The idea of throwing the cue or slide stroking is nothing new either. I don't really know of any top player who actually lets it slip forward pre-impact, but plenty let it go post impact.

What is really important, and well advised, is releasing pressure on the cue just prior to impact. Watch any top players and you will hear the cue resonate at impact. This is because they soften their grip just before the cue makes contact with the ball. Many players who appear to have a firm grip on the cue--Allison, Sigel, Rempe and Miz come to mind--release in this way. You can't always see their hand release, but you can hear it.

A cue that is clutched tightly at impact does not resonate. Releasing pressure in that way allows the cue to be released without the interference of muscle tension, resulting in more accurate and consistent delivery.

 

[third_i]

I'm going to side with Jewitt on this and say it's really a poor short-cut to proper mechanics. In the long-run, you're probably better off avoiding this method.

ummm, I just said that.

can you give me a few examples of players who throw their cue at the cb? i assume you mean BEFORE contact, yes? cuz i don't see it.

because for a player to THROW his cue at the cb, it would mean he has NO follow through....that he stops his arm short of the contact and releases the cue. if he has a follow through, then he is still holding the cue upon contact, which means he is not throwing his cue at the cb.

i don't think ANY good player does this(throwing the cue at the cb),,,if i am to take your meaning literally. because releasing the cue before contact and throwing it at the cb means forfeiting any control and feel of the stroke.

I was talking about this stroke or whatever that is being discussed in this thread, I was just being crude and describing it in a different manner.


Let me make clearify myself again. I DO NOT USE THIS STROKE! I was answering this:

while practicing yesterday on a humid day on very slow house cloth, i kinda found a different kind of stroke. i've never read about this kind of stroke on all the pool books (books by capelle, byrne, and fels) i had, so i thought that it might be a flaw in the stroke.

i am talking about the throw stroke. my hands stay in the middle of the wrap in the warm-up strokes and when i hit the cue ball, i throw the cue forward catching the cue in the end of the butt (almost near the rubber bumper). i found out that using this kind of stroke makes drawing and following the cue-ball effortless when i'm playing on slow house cloth. it is kind of unorthodox when you imagine it, but for some reason it works for me.

have you encountered this kind of stroke? if so, i would really like to know the logic how this kind of unorthodox stroke works. is this kind of stroke documented in other pool books?

In MY opinion, this stroke should be avoided as I mentioned in my second post. The answer to this kind of stroke is a nice fluid stroke, maintaining a constant speed throughout the stroke. See this:

You are exactly right "maximum spin" spin is rarely used unless you're showing off. But with the fluid stroke you can repeat the amount of spin you get every time. My point was that the reason why the "slip-grip" or throwing the cue into the cue ball is that because it's being thrown that it's moving at a constant rate until it is caught(motion stopped). While this type of stroke might work, it is inaccurate and should be avoided.

Make sense?

 

[Tommy-D]

> I watch players strokes almost as much as I watch what the balls do,and not very often,but still several times a year,I see a unique phenomenon. The cue more often than not spins in their hand,sometimes it looks like 2-3 complete turns,as if the cue was purposefully spun. When this happens,it gives the impression that no part of their hand was actually touching the cue,but I don't think you can actually call that "airborne",since it never completely flies out of their hand. It is more like it was tossed forward several inches,then caught again very quickly,and pulled back. At times you can actually see the whole cue resonate or vibrate as it slaps the palm of the players hand when caught. I have deliberately tried this,and found for certain types of shots,it works great. The spin on the cue is caused by your cupped fingers curling under,and helps keep the cue moving straight back and forward,just as the rifling in a gun barrel will not allow anything but travel in a straight line. I wouldn't say in my own experience the cue is actually flying through the ball,but it does slide forward before the natural closing of the grip cuts the motion off,sometimes 5-6 inches on a longer shot where a full length stroke is used. I hope this makes sense,I have tried to relate what I know about the things I think the original post was describing,and variations on other peoples perceptions. Tommy D.