What cue stroke are you using?

[BeiberLvr]

This is exactly right. AT NO TIME did any instructor say that the "piston stroke is inferior" to the pendulum stroke or anything of the sort. I dare Rick to produce ONE POST where an instructor said this.

No, rather, instructors might have said that the pendulum stroke is easier to troubleshoot, less moving parts, K.I.S.S. principle, etc. For beginners -- or those seeking the instructor out looking for the instructor to diagnose problems with consistency -- if the instructor notices the student has a stroke that's all over the place or else doesn't have a good baseline, of course the simplest accurately-repeatable and easiest-to-troubleshoot movement is recommended.

Rick, on the other hand, being brain-spinlocked on the "cue must travel straight, cue must travel straight, cue must travel straight" notion, takes umbrage with the fact that his stroke -- the piston stroke, with all its moving parts (elbow, shoulder, wrist) -- is not the baseline stroke taught by instructors. And what does he do? He blames RandyG "for causing all of this" -- essentially blaming RandyG for all of Rick's own Rick-initiated actions (i.e. "the devil made me do it") -- for something that RandyG said in passing more than a year ago. In fact, it was so long ago, that most of us have no idea what post Rick is talking about.

For a while, most of us were entertaining Rick's questions, and doing our best to be patient with the never-ending onslaught of further questions, challenges, "but you're wrong and you need to justify your position to me," etc. And then came his "need bio-mechanical explanation" thing. What the heck is that, anyway? Sounds like a biology major who fixes cars on the side trying to explain the inner workings of an engine or something. I was tempted at some point to go dig up some 12X or calculus formulas on how to predict the arc of a swinging pendulum, and then throw that at him with the directive, "here, solve for the variable 'x' and that's your answer."

Anyway, good explanation by Neil. It essentially nails it, and I hope my additional details help further explain why this entire thread -- as is any "pendulum stroke" started by Rick -- is a complete sinkhole of time. Rick has "pendulum stroke" lockjaw, is in the midst of a grand mal seizure, and needs "get back to reality" tetanus shots.

-Sean

Well stated. I'll even take it a step further. Thorsten Hohmann is a well known elbow dropper, and I can't think of one instructor out there that wouldn't say his fundamentals are practically flawless.

 

[Neil]

So I have no research here, but I think of it this way, Rick...

One way to achieve a straight line of travel on a pendulum machine is to dynamically vary the length of the pendulum. In other words, lengthen the pendulum on the back stroke, then shorten the pendulum as it accelerates toward the cue ball.

As I stroke the cue, I sub-consciously grip tighter as the tip approached the cue ball in anticipation of the hit. As the grip tightens, the 'pendulum' shortens (albeit only for a short period of time...say 'several inches').

I know that the shortening is not a large amount, but ANY shortening would result in a move toward a level stroke, and a well timed shortening will result in a perfectly level stroke for several inches.

No research involved here, so I can't provide any measured results, but that is what I have going in my head.

Yes, that is one way of doing it. However, it adds in "timing" of when to squeeze the cue. Something else that can go wrong. If you look at the video I posted, you will see that my hand and fingers do not change during the stroke. Neither does my wrist (maybe the wrist a tiny amount, I'm not a perfect machine)

What levels out the cue for me is exactly as I have described to Rick a number of times. A cradle grip. That allows the cue to rotate along the length of the hand, helping keep it level. (the hand actually rotates along the cue without changing position.) The cue basically rocks on the hand like a rocking chair does on the floor.

 

[MSchaffer]

Yep...the cradle grip does the same thing...adjusts the functional length of the pendulum (the distance, in a straight line, from the elbow to the grip). As your wrist hinges, the pendulum shortens and lengthens dynamically, resulting in a straight line travel, just like you showed in your video.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Unfortunately he blocks everyone so he'll never see the replies. Even if he unblocked a few people once you're into an argument this deep it's probably next-to-impossible to read with an objective eye. He's even gone off on me a few times which is why I don't participate in his threads.

Yeah, what did he do, blame you for not being someone he thought you were?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Mikjary]

... it has been shown that one can not even accelerate all the way to the cb. The last few inches before contact there is zero acceleration and the cue is traveling at a constant speed.

And why is that?

Best,
Mike

 

[Ghosst]

Yeah, what did he do, blame you for not being someone he thought you were?

It reminded me of Thomas Wayne going off on a crazy rant about me being named Bruce and how I believed giants were coming to kill us all. He swore up and down to RSB that he had proof and I was "Bruce". I decided to just not reply to Rick having remembered that, which may have been a mistake on my part.

 

[Neil]

And why is that?

Best,
Mike

I suspect why, but it might be better to ask Bob J. that question. He and his "crew" are the ones that found that out.

edit: on second thought, it might have been Ron Shepard. Here's a link to his article. (almost all of it went over my head, but if you kinda speed read it you can pick up some pertinent points written in "english" and not "math". http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_apapp.pdf

 

[ENGLISH!]

ENGISH!, the simple explanation is that as the cue approaches the tangent line the difference approaches 0. My explanation was that the cue tip variation from straight was 1/32 of an inch in 5 inches of travel at the sweet spot with a perfect pendulum stroke. I stand by that assertion.

Levers and leverage are the foundation of Bio-mechanics. I tried to show that due to the difference in the distance between the shooting hand and the bridge hand(the fulcrum) and the bridge to the cue ball any variation from straight at the shooting hand is diminished by a factor of approximately 5/1.

You seem to be set on placing Bob Jewett and RandyG in opposition. I contend that they are not. The cue does follow the path described by Bob and it does have a sweet spot that does not vary significantly from straight for several inches.

Perhaps I did sandbag my understanding of engineering principles and mathematics. You see, I did take a basic college course in mechanical engineering while a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. My strong scores in mathematics helped to gain a Congressional appointment to same.

Greg,

Thank you Sir. I appreciate your honest reply .

Ahhh, your statement above in bold may seem to be the answer.

It seems to me that you are saying that while the tip is traveling on the arcs as Bob Jewett's (Did I spell his name correctly? I certainly hope so.) analysis indicates but that the variation from straight/'level' is rather small. (But is a variation from 'level/straight.)

I can certainly agree with that. However even Neil agreed with me in the other thread that any difference could certainly be significant given that the target is a mere 3 millimeter circle on a small round ball.

I disagree with you that randG's assertion of several inches of 'level'/straight tip travel is consistent with the path of the arcs. And to call it a 'sweet spot' certainly seems to me to imply that there is a particular area along the arcs where the tip travel flattens out & travels 'level'/straight.

Has I did not see how, I asked for explanation.

To me you seem to be in agreement with me.

If we can agree that the tip does not travel 'level'/straight in a fixed elbow pendulum stroke but that the tip is changing in elevation to a rather small degree, then we can discuss how that might or might not effect what happens due to it moving on a slight arc perhaps before & during contact.

Thanks again for you efforts & input.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Edit: Greg, I just wanted to clarify or add that it seems that other than you & I, that nearly every one else has ignored Mr. Jewett's analysis whenever I have made any reference to them. Again I thank you for your honest opinion on what appeared & appears, at least to me, what was & to me still is conflicting assertions.

 

[Neil]

Greg,

Thank you Sir. I appreciate your honest reply .

Ahhh, your statement above in bold may seem to be the answer.

It seems to me that you are saying that while the tip is traveling on the arcs as Bob Jewett's (Did I spell his name correctly? I certainly hope so.) analysis indicates but that the variation from straight/'level' is rather small.

I can certainly agree with that. However even Neil agreed with me in the other thread that any difference could certainly be significant given that the target is a mere 3 millimeter circle on a small round ball.

I disagree with you that randG's assertion of several inches of 'level'/straight tip travel is consistent with the path of the arcs. And to call it a 'sweet spot' certainly seems to me to imply that there is a particular area along the arcs where the tip travel flattens out & travels 'level'/straight.

Has I did not see how, I asked for explanation.

To me you seem to be in agreement with me.

If we can agree that the tip does not travel 'level'/straight in a fixed elbow pendulum stroke but that the tip is changing in elevation to a rather small degree, then we can discuss how that might or might not effect what happens due to it moving on a slight arc perhaps before & during contact.

Thanks again for you efforst & input.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Just to clarify Ricks statement about me agreeing. I agreed that hitting the cb in a place other than intended can have a significant effect on the shot. If he thinks he is keeping the cue level with a piston stroke, I dare him to post a video showing it. And by level, I only mean staying on the same plane he is stroking on, like my video shows me doing the last 3-4 before contact. I'd like him to see him do it for the length of the stroke like he thinks he does.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'm assuming you couldn't see the quoted post?

In any case, it's a video that Neil recorded that backs up the statement RandyG made, that you're still hanging on too.

Here's the link again if you weren't able to see it in my other post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNIW3zwmeYo


I guess now you can move on to something else.

Are you trying to say that that video proves that the tip moves straight in a fixed elbow stroke & if so how so?

 

[ENGLISH!]

hmmm, not sure I recall. But I do remember that Harry had a *very* upright stance, so I would say that in all likelihood it was an elbow drop scenario.

Lou Figueroa

Thanks Lou. I was just curious.

Best to Y'a,
Rick

 

[Neil]

Are you trying to say that that video proves that the tip moves straight in a fixed elbow stroke & if so how so?

:yeah::yeah::thud::thud::banghead::banghead:

 

[ENGLISH!]

So I have no research here, but I think of it this way, Rick...

One way to achieve a straight line of travel on a pendulum machine is to dynamically vary the length of the pendulum. In other words, lengthen the pendulum on the back stroke, then shorten the pendulum as it accelerates toward the cue ball.

As I stroke the cue, I sub-consciously grip tighter as the tip approached the cue ball in anticipation of the hit. As the grip tightens, the 'pendulum' shortens (albeit only for a short period of time...say 'several inches').

I know that the shortening is not a large amount, but ANY shortening would result in a move toward a level stroke, and a well timed shortening will result in a perfectly level stroke for several inches.

No research involved here, so I can't provide any measured results, but that is what I have going in my head.

I agree with what you're saying about a changing rod length. I said that in the other tread as well as here of late.

I do not think I can agree with your bio-mechanical tightening of the crip being enough to result in a 'level'/straight stroke much less a 'perfectly' level one. However if doing so does effect the length of connection from the elbow to the cue then it would certainly be a contributing factor to changing the slope of the arc.

Thanks for your input & I think the idea of the change in rod length is on target.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[Mikjary]

I suspect why, but it might be better to ask Bob J. that question. He and his "crew" are the ones that found that out.

Yeah, that's pretty counter-intuitive. It's like voting and the Electoral College and all that. Maybe he'll read this and post a few brain cells our way.

I agree about hitting the cue ball where I think I'm hitting and reality. As an aside, Gerry Kanov told me to look at my tip if I miscued during a draw stroke or didn't get enough backspin on the cue ball. The missing chalk shows where you hit the cue ball...too low or not low enough.

I still think there is an element that hasn't been addressed about the stroke. The timing is more than a correct cue ball contact point and speed. As Mr. Lou F. pointed out, repeatability is the elusive characteristic we all, including the pros, anguish over.

Not simple timing, but the kind of feel we use in a creative sense. We know when something isn't right during our delivery. Although we hit the cue ball like we wanted, our results were not so good. Was our timing off? Were we slightly early or late on hitting the cue ball? Has anybody here been fooled by a change up? :smile:

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

Thanks for correcting it. I have not read Bob's paper so I cannot comment on that. What I do know is how well he plays, how gifted he is, and what a nice person he is. Having known him for many moons (let's no age ourselves here), I can honestly say that anything he teaches I would listen to. The same can be said for several others.

My personal disagreements with people have no bearing on them being great teachers. There is someone in this thread I vehemently disagree with on a certain topic. But when it comes to pool, I sit down, shut up, and listen because he knows more about using a pool cue than I ever will. In fact, he doesn't even know I disagree with him on that mysterious topic because I find more value in his teaching than any silly dispute.

I don't know if that will ring true to you or not. I hope it does.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the personal stuff as it relates to me. Would you care to clarify. If not here then perhaps a PM might be more appropriate.

And will you confirm to me that I mistook your identity & that you are not Mr. Ray Martin?

 

[Neil]

Yeah, that's pretty counter-intuitive. It's like voting and the Electoral College and all that. Maybe he'll read this and post a few brain cells our way.

I agree about hitting the cue ball where I think I'm hitting and reality. As an aside, Gerry Kanov told me to look at my tip if I miscued during a draw stroke or didn't get enough backspin on the cue ball. The missing chalk shows where you hit the cue ball...too low or not low enough.

I still think there is an element that hasn't been addressed about the stroke. The timing is more than a correct cue ball contact point and speed. As Mr. Lou F. pointed out, repeatability is the elusive characteristic we all, including the pros, anguish over.

Not simple timing, but the kind of feel we use in a creative sense. We know when something isn't right during our delivery. Although we hit the cue ball like we wanted, our results were not so good. Was our timing off? Were we slightly early or late on hitting the cue ball? Has anybody here been fooled by a change up? :smile:

Best,
Mike

Mike, what I have found best for me, and it has worked for others also, is to stroke like you are "going through" the cb. It's very easy, especially when focusing on hitting the cb precisely, to just "hit" the cb.

What actually happens when we just hit the cb is we decelerate on the way there. That gives a much different result than trying to accelerate through the cb and actually hitting the cb at a constant speed.

Very often, when we know we didn't "hit it right", something was off in our delivery, and our subconscious went to trying to fix that and left out the speed of the cue going forward. If you hit with a stroke that is slowing down, you won't get the same spin as with a stroke that is hit as you intended to hit it.

Now, for the caveat- slowing down or accelerating doesn't matter, but it does matter. What that means, if you hit the cb at the same speed both ways, you get the same result. But, when you intend to hit it at ...say....12mph, and your stroke slows down on the way there, and you actually hit it at 9mph, you will get a different effect at 9 than at 12 mph.

As to looking at your tip, that CAN help make a determination. But, it is not the "end all" to the determination on if you hit the cb low enough. What you are looking for is where the chalk is rubbed off the tip. Is it at the edge, or near the center? Now, you can hit with the edge of the tip and still not be low enough on the cb. Anytime you hit the cb off center you will be using off center of the tip to make contact with it.

 

[Mikjary]

I always feel that, when I'm playing my best, I can go through the CB at all different kinds of angles. It's odd, but I can only make it happen occasionally.

Lou Figueroa

I know the same frustrating feeling. I've been on a quest lately to identify my dead stroke trance. I look for triggers that help me get there. Oddly enough one of them is to breathe only through my nose. :grin:

Another is this timing thing I've been working on. Another test, like the last one, is for rail shots. I used to have trouble with them until I realized, I was changing the length of my bridge to shoot them. It threw my cueing/timing off and life sucked.

I try to make my bridge length similar on the rail to regular shots off of the rail. It keeps the flow going and I really start to relax. I pocket a lot more balls, too. BTW, some of this info I've plagiarized and added my own spin to it. But, I feel that it's improving the content. After all, pro players don't really know what's happening. They can just do it.

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the personal stuff as it relates to me. Would you care to clarify. If not here then perhaps a PM might be more appropriate.

And will you confirm to me that I mistook your identity & that you are not Mr. Ray Martin?

Gee Rick, think it might be this post? The one you owe him an apology for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosst View Post
I'm reposting these links so you can see them Rick, any thoughts? I still want to see you post your own as well. I'll add mine later today.


English: Go back & read the JA apologizes to MD thread & tell me why I should do anything for you.

AND when I mistook you for Ray Martin & asked for a clarification, as far as I know & I checked, you did nothing to make me aware that you are not Ray Martin as someone else has advised me.

That certainly leads me to believe that you are not opposed to deception & are not one to be trusted.

That also makes me doubt your sincerity here. It seems to me that you might merely be someone's puppet & doing their 'dirty' work.

Why all of sudden are you interested in this topic only after the JA/MD thread interaction?

Sorry. I have too many questions about you to give you any answers.

Apparently there is more deception on AZB than I would have ever thought.

 

[Mikjary]

Mike, what I have found best for me, and it has worked for others also, is to stroke like you are "going through" the cb. It's very easy, especially when focusing on hitting the cb precisely, to just "hit" the cb.

What actually happens when we just hit the cb is we decelerate on the way there. That gives a much different result than trying to accelerate through the cb and actually hitting the cb at a constant speed.

Very often, when we know we didn't "hit it right", something was off in our delivery, and our subconscious went to trying to fix that and left out the speed of the cue going forward. If you hit with a stroke that is slowing down, you won't get the same spin as with a stroke that is hit as you intended to hit it.

Now, for the caveat- slowing down or accelerating doesn't matter, but it does matter. What that means, if you hit the cb at the same speed both ways, you get the same result. But, when you intend to hit it at ...say....12mph, and your stroke slows down on the way there, and you actually hit it at 9mph, you will get a different effect at 9 than at 12 mph.

As to looking at your tip, that CAN help make a determination. But, it is not the "end all" to the determination on if you hit the cb low enough. What you are looking for is where the chalk is rubbed off the tip. Is it at the edge, or near the center? Now, you can hit with the edge of the tip and still not be low enough on the cb. Anytime you hit the cb off center you will be using off center of the tip to make contact with it.

Acceleration through the cue ball? Nah! Only CJ does that and look how he plays. :grin-square:

Have you tried hitting the cue ball like I said? Before your last stroke, move forward or back an inch or so without adjusting anything. If you truly don't change anything, all kinds of alarm bells will go off. You may even have to repair the rip in your cloth on a power stroke.

This is the static timing I'm talking about. When everything comes together in your stroke and you don't compensate or steer the cue ball. Once you can hit the cue ball straight, is your timing consistent? Subtle, yet it may be everything in your stroke.

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

Acceleration through the cue ball? Nah! Only CJ does that and look how he plays. :grin-square:

Have you tried hitting the cue ball like I said? Before your last stroke, move forward or back an inch or so without adjusting anything. If you truly don't change anything, all kinds of alarm bells will go off. You may even have to repair the rip in your cloth on a power stroke.

This is the static timing I'm talking about. When everything comes together in your stroke and you don't compensate or steer the cue ball. Once you can hit the cue ball straight, is your timing consistent? Subtle, yet it may be everything in your stroke.

Best,
Mike

I haven't "tried" it, but that's because I've done it enough times to know exactly what you are talking about. Comes up a lot on easy shots when we just plop down into some semblance of a stance because the shot is so easy we can't possibly miss it. Then we do miss it and kick ourselves.

It goes back to the timing I was talking about. Our subconscious getting the cue to arrive at the point we intend to hit at the speed we intend to hit. It does that from repeatability from a known starting point. When we alter our stance, it's basically our subconscious telling us that something is wrong and it won't compensate for it, we have to do it consciously. If we don't consciously fix it, then after the shot our subconscious reminds us "told ya so, dumb ass".

edit" Mike, it's not that we don't steer the cue, odds are it still is being steered at least a little, but our subconscious know how to steer it from our standard position. When we alter that position, it doesn't quite know what to do. The ultimate goal is to have a good enough stance and alignment that our subconscious gets us into that position, and doesn't have to steer the cue at all.