What's Good About A Good Stroke?

[Patrick Johnson]

Some recent conversation about stroke reminded me of something Mike Page said about it years ago on RSB. This is my recollection of the gist of what Mike said.

What's good about a good stroke? If it's just consistency and accuracy like some say, how does that explain the ability to get more CB action with a better stroke?

Let's take draw for example. To get the most draw with the least effort we want to hit the CB as low as possible without risking a miscue. But our strokes aren't perfect, so to avoid miscues we have to aim far enough from the miscue limit so our usual stroke errors won't go beyond it.

We can't be trusted to do that so our subconscious does it for us, "steering" our stroke closer to centerball so our "range of usual stroke errors" will be mostly inside the miscue limit. Beginning players with really erratic strokes (wide "range of error") who have experienced the trauma of scooping the cue ball a few times can have a hard time forcing themselves to hit below centerball at all, wondering why they aim low but don't get any draw.

As our stroke gets more consistent and our "range of error" gets smaller, our subconscious steers our stroke less, allowing us to hit farther from centerball and get more draw more often. The smaller our "range of error" the closer our subconscious allows our stroke to come to where we think we're aiming.

pj
chgo

 

[charlieeeh]

My stroke is a lot like efren's/bustamantes. I rarely hit where I "aim" per say. To draw the ball, my aim is far below the miscue limit, dragging along the table cloth a good 1-2 inches away. But when I go to shoot and follow throw, my stroke naturally goes up (probably because of the looseness in my backhand). But the same doesn't apply for follow. I tend to hit where I aim for follow shots. Weird. But I do tend to shoot [hard] draw with closed bridge and follow with open.

I tried to look into my stroke in a lot more detail, even video taping it. But it honestly just escapes me. But along the same page, I trust my stroke enough to know what I'm doing, but in the very beginnings, it was so strange to "aim to scoop".

When I go to play on campus (casual players), they see me play and talk about "shooting the way he's shooting" and I just hear miscues all around.

 

[Bob Jewett]

A parallel point about this is that if a player is careless about chalking, he may also develop the habit of never spinning the ball a lot because he miscues when he tries. I've seen players who had a lot of difficulty with draw even though they knew they were supposed to hit low because a history of miscues forced their elbow to drop just before contact. The result: little or no draw. If such players can be forced to hit the ball low -- after chalking properly -- they can suddenly draw the ball up their sleeve.

 

[naji]

What's good about a good stroke? If it's just consistency and accuracy like some say, how does that explain the ability to get more CB action with a better stroke?

Let's take draw for example. To get the most draw with the least effort we want to hit the CB as low as possible without risking a miscue. But our strokes aren't perfect, so to avoid miscues we have to aim far enough from the miscue limit so our usual stroke errors won't go beyond it.

We can't be trusted to do that so our subconscious does it for us, "steering" our stroke closer to centerball so our "range of usual stroke errors" will be mostly inside the miscue limit. Beginning players with really erratic strokes (wide "range of error") who have experienced the trauma of scooping the cue ball a few times can have a hard time forcing themselves to hit below centerball at all, wondering why they aim low but don't get any draw.

As our stroke gets more consistent and our "range of error" gets smaller, our subconscious steers our stroke less, allowing us to hit farther from centerball and get more draw more often. The smaller our "range of error" the closer our subconscious allows our stroke to come to where we think we're aiming.

pj
chgo

View attachment 244215

It is not stroke that decides where tip hits CB, following are best to avoid this problem:
Arms mechanics (where butt is held, how low the shoulder, and the fear of hitting Knuckles in edge of table is gone
Small tip 12 mm or smaller (so you do not have to dig deep)
Those kind of shots are best done when they look at CB last
Length of bridge shortened for beginners
Pause with tip very very close to intended tip contact point, the closer the better
and finally pull extremely slow


Stroke job is to let a continuous straight (no left or right) smooth follow through motion take place without any negative thoughts.

 

[C.Milian]

Good strokes create power with little effort. I don't have one so I can't tell you how to get it, but if you look at Yang, maybe you should apprentice for Yang and tell us how he does it.

 

[bbb]

does this guy have a good stroke??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keznf66dSHE

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Edit: Made comments about the wrong video.

 

[Slh]

When you have a good stroke ( I'm not talking about cue power but stroke straightness) in pressure situation, you can trust in your stroke without the need of compensate for unwanted spin and all the consequences of the spin ( swerve, throw, deflection). When you have a not reliable stroke you have to compensate for all of them and a tough situation became even worse.

 

[Push&Pool]

When I'm about to shoot I:
1. Chalk up the cue (especially before powerful shots and spins)
2. Grab the cue at the center of balance
3. Position the other hand roughly 10-20 cm from the CB (depending on the situation)
4. For low-powered shots, I aim at the very center of the CB or a little below it
5. If I want mid- or high-powered shots, I hit the CB directly at the center (at least I try!) and follow through with my arm and/or body
6. Never combine high power and backspin :grin:

I know this is far from the best technique, but I'm quite comfortable using it.

 

[bbb]

my answer to the question
heres whats good about a good stroke
its dependable
doesnt break down
your options of what you can make the cue ball do are increased
you are able to generate more "action" with less power
thus more accuracy even when needing to "juice" the cue ball or travel much distance
one thing thats a give away in judging someones speed to me is if they can generate alot of spin (when necessary) and seem to hit the cue ball softly or with little effort thats a sign of a good stroke and an experienced upper level player
icbw

 

[justadub]

My stroke is a lot like efren's/bustamantes. I rarely hit where I "aim" per say. To draw the ball, my aim is far below the miscue limit, dragging along the table cloth a good 1-2 inches away. But when I go to shoot and follow throw, my stroke naturally goes up (probably because of the looseness in my backhand). But the same doesn't apply for follow. I tend to hit where I aim for follow shots. Weird. But I do tend to shoot [hard] draw with closed bridge and follow with open.

I tried to look into my stroke in a lot more detail, even video taping it. But it honestly just escapes me. But along the same page, I trust my stroke enough to know what I'm doing, but in the very beginnings, it was so strange to "aim to scoop".

When I go to play on campus (casual players), they see me play and talk about "shooting the way he's shooting" and I just hear miscues all around.

A very good friend of mine who plays on my league teams lines up the same way you do. It looks like he is addressing the cue ball almost on the bottom! Yet when he delivers his stroke, it's right where it's supposed to be. Amazes me. (He's by far the best player on our teams, and one of the better players in our league.)

 

[Dave Nelson]

My stroke is a lot like efren's/bustamantes. I rarely hit where I "aim" per say. To draw the ball, my aim is far below the miscue limit, dragging along the table cloth a good 1-2 inches away. But when I go to shoot and follow throw, my stroke naturally goes up (probably because of the looseness in my backhand). But the same doesn't apply for follow. I tend to hit where I aim for follow shots. Weird. But I do tend to shoot [hard] draw with closed bridge and follow with open.

I

I don't think it is weird at all. It's just easier to see where your cue tip is on high ball than it is on low.

Dave Nelson

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

There are hundreds of great strokes in the world, all of them quite different from each other in one way or another, and yet, most of them accomplish the same basic thing: pocket the ball and get shape on the next one. What I do think after watching hundreds of matches of every game from 3-cushion to snooker to 14.1 to 9-ball is that there is a bit more to a great stroke than cue velocity at contact and tip placement.

I find it's a pretty hard thing to define, but to quote Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." And after viewing a video of my stroke, he'd probably add, "and the video involved in this case is not that."

 

[hitman22]

Good post.

 

[Push&Pool]

There are hundreds of great strokes in the world, all of them quite different from each other in one way or another, and yet, most of them accomplish the same basic thing: pocket the ball and get shape on the next one. What I do think after watching hundreds of matches of every game from 3-cushion to snooker to 14.1 to 9-ball is that there is a bit more to a great stroke than cue velocity at contact and tip placement.

I find it's a pretty hard thing to define, but to quote Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." And after viewing a video of my stroke, he'd probably add, "and the video involved in this case is not that."

If I may add, the goal of a good stroke is not always pocketing the object ball and getting position for the next one. My CB control is practically non existing and still I play and win against players with good CB control. Also, sometimes you don't want to pocket anything, but to place the CB on a good defensive position, block the opponent, send his balls away from a pocket, break a cluster etc. Most of these situations require a little different stroke techniques.

 

[charlieeeh]

I don't think it is weird at all. It's just easier to see where your cue tip is on high ball than it is on low.

Dave Nelson

It's not a matter of seeing where the tip is, but where the tip is during aim vs where the tip is during the point of contact.

 

[sjm]

What's good about a good stroke? If it's just consistency and accuracy like some say, how does that explain the ability to get more CB action with a better stroke?

Let's take draw for example. To get the most draw with the least effort we want to hit the CB as low as possible without risking a miscue. But our strokes aren't perfect, so to avoid miscues we have to aim far enough from the miscue limit so our usual stroke errors won't go beyond it.

I think that by implying that speed is a constant, you oversimplify things. I think it is better to say that there is a fixed point on the cue ball that is optimal for draw and an optimal cue elevation angle, and that the way to get more draw for that given hit on the cue ball is to add velocity. Unfortunately, adding velocity makes most players more vulnerable to a) failing to hit the desired spot on the cue ball, b) an elbow drop and c) an inaccurate follow through, all of which will impair the efficacy of the draw stroke.

So, as ar as draw goes, I would define a good stroke is one that does not break down even when more and more velocity is added to the cue ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think that by implying that speed is a constant, you oversimplify things.

Speed is another topic.

I think it is better to say that there is a fixed point on the cue ball that is optimal for draw and an optimal cue elevation angle, and that the way to get more draw for that given hit on the cue ball is to add velocity.

First you have to be able to hit that point consistently.

pj
chgo

 

[sjm]

First you have to be able to hit that point consistently.

Disagree. That's not, in my opinion, the starting point. I'd say hitting that point at a low speed and hitting it at a high speed are two different challenges and there are many that can do the former consistently but not the latter.

Hitting that point consistently at high speeds is something that only the very elite ever achieve in a lifetime and is not a prerequisite for attaining a very high level of play.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
First you have to be able to hit that point consistently.

sjm:
Disagree. That's not, in my opinion, the starting point.

I don't follow you. Seems obvious to me that before you can learn how speed works for a given contact point you have to first be able to hit that point.

pj
chgo