What's Good About A Good Stroke?

[nobcitypool]

English, you're correct with the "blued" test, I meant CB. Got my freaking CB/OB confused. LOL

I hear your points about the piston stroke. I'm no instructor and certainly no expert but as do most, have an opinion. I'm an Engineer by degree and therefore think of things in weird ways sometimes. I believe the pendulum stroke would be the system taught to most beginners because it has the least moving parts. Less moving parts, less complexity, less precise timing involved. I have thought about the pool stroke and considered what stroke I would use were I to program a robot, designed with a human arm, to execute a pool shot. That programming would be immensely easier using the pendulum stroke versus the piston stroke because of less variables and movement to account for.

Consider the anatomy of the arm. The elbow is a hinge joint. It can only move along one axis. The shoulder is a ball and socket, it can move 360 degrees. Common sense dictates which of those two mechanisms would serve you best if you are trying to move an object in a straight line. You seem to be, like myself, a golf fan. Then I know you're familiar when I refer to a good golf swing as being "on plane". That's the big difference with Trevino and Furyck's swing, they get off plane big time. However, due to their extraordinary skill, they bring it back on plane (or to a near perfect plane) prior to contacting the golf ball. They do that with great natural skill and exceptional timing. I've never heard of anybody trying to teach a student either of their swings however.

Again, I'm not proposing you change your stroke no more than I would advocate Jim F modifying his golf swing if for some reason he and I were to meet and chat for awhile. This is more a discussion of what stroke is fundamentally more sound based upon simplicity and therefore, would be the easiest stroke for a beginner to learn.

 

[duckie]

If you stop and really think about the motion of just the cue stick, its is always the same, just that how it is done is not. Meaning a piston and a pendulum stroke move the stick in the same motion, that motion being back and forth for this discussion and not up and down nor the side to side motion that can occur during the stroke.

Just considering the back and forth motion of the cue stick.

In order to make the CB move, the stick needs to be brought back x amount. Try just holding the cue tip at the surface of the CB and just stroke forward. Very hard to do.

The cue stick needs to move forward greater than x in order to move the CB. This proves that you must have follow through or the cue ball would never move.

After moving x amount, the cue must stop, even for a instance in order to change direction. Then on the forward stoke moves x plus whatever follow through is used.

Now the action used to move the cue may look like a pendulum stroke because of just pivoting at the elbow, put it really is a piston stroke in how the cue stick is moved, back, pause, forward.

Side to side motion can happen in both types of cue delivery, but only the up and down of the tip happens with the pendulum stroke where the wrist is not allowed to pivot in order to keep the cue tip from going up and down during the stroke.

The stroke is something that has to be adaptable, flexible because of the variety of shot positions that occur in playing pool. What might work for one shot will not work for another. I practiced shooting jacked up over a ball yesterday and that stroke I had to use was nothing like the stroke I used to do a stop shot where bridge hand placement and ball layout are not a issue.

I just remember qualified instructors say that the only reason the pendulum stroke is taught is that it is easy to do so. Kinda seems a limitation on the instructor more than the student.

 

[Slasher]

Grip
http://youtu.be/bmRcYLVZdVI

 

[Banks]

Grip
http://youtu.be/bmRcYLVZdVI

I think the Beastie Boys said it best.. hold it now, hit it.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Try just holding the cue tip at the surface of the CB and just stroke forward. Very hard to do.

I know this isn't exactly what you're saying, but...

If you put the tip at the CB, and pull back just on your wrist, and then snap forward you can get the CB to move pretty far.

It's actually a good technique when you have the CB and OB close together near a rail, and you want to just roll the CB against the OB for a safety.

 

[ENGLISH!]

English, you're correct with the "blued" test, I meant CB. Got my freaking CB/OB confused. LOL

I hear your points about the piston stroke. I'm no instructor and certainly no expert but as do most, have an opinion. I'm an Engineer by degree and therefore think of things in weird ways sometimes. I believe the pendulum stroke would be the system taught to most beginners because it has the least moving parts. Less moving parts, less complexity, less precise timing involved. I have thought about the pool stroke and considered what stroke I would use were I to program a robot, designed with a human arm, to execute a pool shot. That programming would be immensely easier using the pendulum stroke versus the piston stroke because of less variables and movement to account for.

Consider the anatomy of the arm. The elbow is a hinge joint. It can only move along one axis. The shoulder is a ball and socket, it can move 360 degrees. Common sense dictates which of those two mechanisms would serve you best if you are trying to move an object in a straight line. You seem to be, like myself, a golf fan. Then I know you're familiar when I refer to a good golf swing as being "on plane". That's the big difference with Trevino and Furyck's swing, they get off plane big time. However, due to their extraordinary skill, they bring it back on plane (or to a near perfect plane) prior to contacting the golf ball. They do that with great natural skill and exceptional timing. I've never heard of anybody trying to teach a student either of their swings however.

Again, I'm not proposing you change your stroke no more than I would advocate Jim F modifying his golf swing if for some reason he and I were to meet and chat for awhile. This is more a discussion of what stroke is fundamentally more sound based upon simplicity and therefore, would be the easiest stroke for a beginner to learn.

I hear you, but what about the wrist (gudgeon pin)? We are not machines but we have amazing biomechanics capable of amazing physical feats and our brains have already been programed quite amazingly well.

As I mentioned, maybe it's a matter of average(simplistic) vs advanced(Championship complexity).

Why did we 'gravitate' from a rock throwing sling to a spear to a bow and arrow, to a cylinder shaped rifle that propels piston shaped bullets with rounded noses?

How does a pinball machine hit the metal ball? Why do we have huge cylinders on our war ships propelling rounded nosed pistons instead on those old french gravity induced rock slings? I never can remember their name.

Seems to me the straight line cylinder encased (bridge hand & back hand) piston (pool cue) is how we naturally 'gravitated'.

Maybe as an engineer, you can convince me that employing an arch is better than employing a staight line when trying to 'propel' something to hit a precise point.

It seems that I only have a 'problem' with the prescribed pendulum follow through & the aingst of the dreaded elbow drop. However, if the set up for the pendulum stroke is done properly, the ebow drop is highly unlikey to happen before contact. Also the 'loose' grip & wrist can 'offset' it just as they do the tip wanting to raise if afixed tightly in the pendulum stroke.

Just as in most all hitting sports, the wrist & grip pressure are a vital component.

Best Wishes,

 

[sfleinen]

I hear you, but what about the wrist (gudgeon pin)? We are not machines but we have amazing biomechanics capable of amazing physical feats and our brains have already been programed quite amazingly well.

As I mentioned, maybe it's a matter of average(simplistic) vs advanced(Championship complexity).

Why did we 'gravitate' from a rock throwing sling to a spear to a bow and arrow, to a cylinder shaped rifle that propels piston shaped bullets with rounded noses?

How does a pinball machine hit the metal ball? Why do we have huge cylinders on our war ships propelling rounded nosed pistons instead on those old french gravity induced rock slings? I never can remember their name.

Seems to me the straight line cylinder encased (bridge hand & back hand) piston (pool cue) is how we naturally 'gravitated'.

Maybe as an engineer, you can convince me that employing an arch is better than employing a staight line when trying to 'propel' something to hit a precise point.

It seems that I only have a 'problem' with the prescribed pendulum follow through & the aingst of the dreaded elbow drop. However, if the set up for the pendulum stroke is done properly, the ebow drop is highly unlikey to happen before contact. Also the 'loose' grip & wrist can 'offset' it just as they do the tip wanting to raise if afixed tightly in the pendulum stroke.

Just as in most all hitting sports, the wrist & grip pressure are a vital component.

Best Wishes,

RJ:

Those are called Trebuchet, and if you're familiar with the sport of Pumpkin Chunkin' (held every year at this time of the year in Delaware), you would know they are the second-most powerful devices right behind the air cannons.

I think you are being a bit pedantic with your analogy of "technology gravitating towards piston delivery," though. You're grasping with that one. The gravitation has nothing to do with the delivery itself, and everything to do with the machine used to propel it.

Yes, putting a powder (or compressed air) charge behind a projectile in a cylinder is much simpler than trying to construct a trebuchet with the same power.

But you are forgetting you, the human pool player, is NOT a gun barrel, hydraulic cylinder, piston, solenoid, or any linear mechanical device like that. You *are* a trebuchet, by design -- just look at your anatomy. But your thinking is that you should try to emulate the linear movement of a cylinder-driven projectile, using a trebuchet-like device. You want the projectile's path to be "simple" (read: linear) -- at the expense of the gadget's (the human operator's) ability to deliver it in that fashion.

While it can be done -- i.e. a scissor stroke like Chris Melling's -- it is an EXTREMELY complex movement to master. Most instructors don't teach this, because of its complexity. Yes, championship-level players do use it, but that doesn't mean it's the one that should be taught as a "model of simplicity, keeping it simple."

-Sean

 

[nobcitypool]

English, it is not possible to take the wrist out of play in the stroke unless you surgically freeze the joint. My point is that you can take the shoulder out of play.

As to your piston analogies, consider how that engine works. There is no "shoulder joint" in the mechanism. In fact, the mechanism mirrors an elbow joint, it has no Z axis.

BTW, there is a still an arch involved with a piston type stroke. I may be mistaken but I believe you see the piston stroke as a way to keep the cue stick straight and level throughout the entire stroke. But as you have so often maintained, that is essentially irrelevant. It is the ability to return the cue tip to the precise same spot on the CB that you aimed at when you set up at the precise same angle that is the key. My point is, due to less moving parts with the pendulum stroke, it is "simpler" to accomplish that consistently and repeatably.

I would add, from an Engineering perspective, the arch (arc) is a beautiful thing. It is constantly employed in real life. What happens when you pull back a bow? You get an arch. The crankshaft in an engine moves in a circular motion. Try a simple experiment. Freeze your fingers and wrist and try writing with your shoulder. Try threading a needle with your shoulder only. The difference between center hit and extreme english is, I believe, 3/8". So convince me that type of precision delivery is better accomplished with a ball and socket joint located twice the distance from the target than the elbow is.

 

[ENGLISH!]

English, it is not possible to take the wrist out of play in the stroke unless you surgically freeze the joint. My point is that you can take the shoulder out of play.

As to your piston analogies, consider how that engine works. There is no "shoulder joint" in the mechanism. In fact, the mechanism mirrors an elbow joint, it has no Z axis.

BTW, there is a still an arch involved with a piston type stroke. I may be mistaken but I believe you see the piston stroke as a way to keep the cue stick straight and level throughout the entire stroke. But as you have so often maintained, that is essentially irrelevant. It is the ability to return the cue tip to the precise same spot on the CB that you aimed at when you set up at the precise same angle that is the key. My point is, due to less moving parts with the pendulum stroke, it is "simpler" to accomplish that consistently and repeatably.

I would add, from an Engineering perspective, the arch (arc) is a beautiful thing. It is constantly employed in real life. What happens when you pull back a bow? You get an arch. The crankshaft in an engine moves in a circular motion. Try a simple experiment. Freeze your fingers and wrist and try writing with your shoulder. Try threading a needle with your shoulder only. The difference between center hit and extreme english is, I believe, 3/8". So convince me that type of precision delivery is better accomplished with a ball and socket joint located twice the distance from the target than the elbow is.

Here we go but only once.

Where did I say one should take the wrist out of play?

How is an arch involved in a piston stroke.

When you release the arrow it is 'launched' in a 'piston like' straight line as it is 'pinned' by the string at the rear & by the bow & 'rest' or finger (bridge) near the front, much like a pool cue.

The crankshaft gets its circular power as a transfer of the power coming from the piston moving in a straight line inside the cylinder.

Where have I so often maitained that a straight cue is essentially irrelevent? It is totally relevent that one arrives with one upon impact.

I have pointed out that many Pros address the cue ball lower than they hit it & they have their reasons. So I disagree with your assertion that returning the cue to the precise same point as aimed is the key.

For whom is it simpler? Most people. As I stated, in this instance, I am not concerned with most people.

When you write very large as in a sign or on a chalk board you use your shoulder more than your elbow, wrist & fingers.

I just threaded a needle with only motion from my shoulder. It was not that difficult once I got the needle & thread in focus.

In the set up the elbow is a full upper arm distance farther behind the shoulder & farther away from the cue ball.

You're an engineer, but perhaps you minimize the amazing abilities of the human body & mind.

These inapplicable musings have done nothing to convince me that the 'prescribed pendulum follow through' is any more warranted than that of the piston J stoke.

This style of 'argument' seems very similiar to a couple of other staunch defenders of the pendulim stroke.

 

[nobcitypool]

[/COLOR]


Here we go but only once.

Where did I say one should take the wrist out of play?

You didn't. You brought it up in a previous post. The wrist is in play whether or not you use a pendulum or piston stroke was my point. The difference with the pendulum stroke is you take the shoulder out of play thereby taking a variable and timing challenge out of play.

How is an arch involved in a piston stroke.

You're joking, right? The piston doesn't deliver power directly to the crank shaft but does so through the connecting rod. The connecting rod most definitely moves in an arch and arguably is somewhat similar to a pendulum stroke. Before you go off on a tangent, consider the word "somewhat". The connecting rod has two transition points, the top and bottom of the stroke.

The crankshaft gets its circular power from the transfer or that power coming from the piston moving in a straight line inside the cylinder.

Where have I so often maitained that a straight cue is essentially irrelevent? It is totally relevent that one arrives with one upon impact.

You seem to maintain that a piston stroke maintains the cue in more of a straight line than a pendulum stroke. I believe these are your words which is at least one place I took your straight line from "Maybe as an engineer, you can convince me that employing an arch is better than employing a staight line when trying to 'propel' something to hit a precise point."

I have pointed out that many Pros address the cue ball lower than they hit it & they have their reasons. So I disagree with your assertion that returning the cue to the precise same as aimed as is the key.
For whom is it simpler? Most people. as I stated in this instance I am not concerned with most people.

Thanks for making my point. They've added a level of complexity by inducing the need for more timing into the equation. This would be like aiming a gun 6" low at a target to account for the flinch novice shooters experience anticipating the sound and recoil. Can one make it work? Of course. Have I ever seen a firearms instructor attempt to teach that? LOL

When you release the arrow it is 'launched' in a 'piston like' straight line as it ia 'pinned' by the string at the rear & by the bow & 'rest' or finger (bridge) near the front, much like a pool cue.

The arrow would be the same as the CB, the string analogous to cue stick. The bow itself would then be comparable to the stroke. The bow forms an arch when the string is pulled back.

When you write very large as in a sign or on a chalk board you use your shoulder more than your elbow, wrist & fingers.

Thanks again for making my point. Were you trying to hit a bowling ball into a 50 gallon drum, you'd be better served using a sledge hammer along with your legs, back and shoulder. In other words, high power, low precision. When striking a pool ball, 1/32" can be the difference in success and complete failure.

I just threaded a needle with only motion from my shoulder. It was not that difficult once I got the needle & thread in focus.

Dooh. My point was that precision is needed to actually get the thread started in the needle. I believe most people would do that precise type of work with their fingers and wrist versus elbow and shoulder.

In the set up the elbow is a full upper arm distance farther behind the shoulder & farther away from the cue ball.

Unfortunately, the shoulder has to deliver the cue stick through the upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand and fingers. If you're trying to consider logic like that, I don't see how any meaningful discussion can be had.

You're an engineer, but perhaps you minimize the amazing abilities of the human body & mind.

Not in the least. In fact, just the opposite. If not for these amazing abilities, many pros in all sports would never be able to perform at the levels they do when they have so many fundamental flaws. I subscribe to the theory that 99.99% or more of the professionals were born, not made. Before you jump on that, I believe that well more than .01% of people on the planet have the natural ability to be a professional. Only a select few combine that God given talent with the work ethic and mental attitude to achieve professional proficiency. Using a professional as a model for fundamentals is fool hardy. That would be like saying I want to be a professional basketball player and I'm using LeBron James as my model ignoring the fact that I'm 5'11" in height and have a vertical jump of perhaps a foot.

These inapplicable musings have done nothing to convince me that the 'prescribed pendulum follow through' is any more waranted than that of the piston J stoke.

I am not trying to convince you, I concluded it would be a near impossible endeavor to get you to change your mind. And BTW, I see no issue with that. I think it has been an interesting discussion with a number of things to consider. Not to be rude but I'm sure I care about what you think about as little as you care what I think. LOL I suspect you're a very good player and part of your strength is your confidence in the method you use. Unless you have aspirations of becoming a professional and feel you have reached a plateau, I cannot imagine why you would change at this point.

I recall a golf lesson I took many years ago from what many considered to be the top instructor in our area. I took numerous lessons from him. One thing in particular he said was I was young and athletic enough to play a very high level of golf without a simple, fundamentally sound golf stroke. He also told me it was clear I would not ever be a professional and while my "athletic stroke" would serve me well for some period of time, age would eventually catch up and dictate I either accept a miserable level of play, attempt to learn a fundamentally sound stroke at an older age or I'd give up the game. He told me he could teach me how to swing the right way or he could help me improve with whatever swing I wanted to use, it all paid him the same. He said in fact, if he were merely greedy, he'd prefer the latter since he was sure over time I'd be back to see him more often.

 

[ENGLISH!]

RJ:

Those are called Trebuchet, and if you're familiar with the sport of Pumpkin Chunkin' (held every year at this time of the year in Delaware), you would know they are the second-most powerful devices right behind the air cannons.

I think you are being a bit pedantic with your analogy of "technology gravitating towards piston delivery," though. You're grasping with that one. The gravitation has nothing to do with the delivery itself, and everything to do with the machine used to propel it.

Yes, putting a powder (or compressed air) charge behind a projectile in a cylinder is much simpler than trying to construct a trebuchet with the same power.

But you are forgetting you, the human pool player, is NOT a gun barrel, hydraulic cylinder, piston, solenoid, or any linear mechanical device like that. You *are* a trebuchet, by design -- just look at your anatomy. But your thinking is that you should try to emulate the linear movement of a cylinder-driven projectile, using a trebuchet-like device. You want the projectile's path to be "simple" (read: linear) -- at the expense of the gadget's (the human operator's) ability to deliver it in that fashion.

While it can be done -- i.e. a scissor stroke like Chris Melling's -- it is an EXTREMELY complex movement to master. Most instructors don't teach this, because of its complexity. Yes, championship-level players do use it, but that doesn't mean it's the one that should be taught as a "model of simplicity, keeping it simple."

-Sean

Sean,

Pendantic? The proof of the pudding is in the details. Only those afraid of the details want to keep them hidden. That is just a statement. No inference intended.

The gravitation has nothing to do with the delivery itself, and everything to do with the machine used to propel it. Can you clarify & elaborate?

How does the human body utilize gravity to hurl very large stones? I see no similarities between the human body & a Trebuchet.

As that relates to pool, the human body is using an underhanded motion with the forearm in the supponated postion to deliver a 'stick' 'into' a target. Should the human body do so on an arch or in a straight line fashion? What is more accurate? A sling or a bow & arrow? The pool cue delivery more resembles that of a bow & arrow. The bridge hand is the arrow rest & the back hand is the string connected onto the arrow.

Are you saying that all of the great players past & present that utlize the piston J stroke are Super Humans & only they can perform what you call a complex move that to me is very simple.

Do 'we' want to learn a simplistic stroke or do we want to learn a Championship stroke? I know which one I want. I do not under estimate the ability of the human body & mind.

Regards,

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

Pendantic? The proof of the pudding is in the details. Only those afraid of the details want to keep them hidden. That is just a statement. No inference intended.

The gravitation has nothing to do with the delivery itself, and everything to do with the machine used to propel it. Can you clarify & elaborate?

How does the human body utilize gravity to hurl very large stones? I see no similarities between the human body & a Trebuchet.

As that relates to pool, the human body is using an underhanded motion with the forearm in the supponated postion to deliver a 'stick' 'into' a target. Should the human body do so on an arch or in a straight line fashion? What is more accurate? A sling or a bow & arrow? The pool cue delivery more resembles that of a bow & arrow. The bridge hand is the arrow rest & the back hand is the sting connected onto the arrow.

Are you say that all of the great players past & present that utlize the piston J stroke are Super Humans & only they can perform what you call a complex move that to me is very simple.

Do 'we' want to learn a simplistic stroke or do we want to learn a Championship stroke? I know which one I want. I do not under estimate the ability of the human body & mind.

Regards,

RJ:

Dude, you are completely missing my point by trying to take apart my (your, actually) trebuchet analogy, with the "How does the human body utilize gravity to hurl very large stones?" thing. Again, you're grasping.

Rather, the question is posed to you to look at how the arm propels the cue. (And I'm not going to revisit the "push vs. pull" thing that we went through in the Ask the Instructor forum.) Because the cue is suspended by the arm, the arm *swings* the cue. Your biceps muscles (and your triceps, if you want to get pedantic) are both *above* the cue. They are not behind the cue, propelling it like an explosive charge. This analogy you're adhering to of linear movement because of how a gun works -- and how the human body should emulate those forces -- well, that dog don't hunt. You don't have a hole in your arm or body from which the cue propels from.

And btw, just because I say "some champions, like Chris Melling, have mastered such a complex movement," doesn't mean I meant to say "all champions use this." Let's get that clear right now. In fact, one champion -- that's at the top of the snooker heap, if you want to call accuracy into this conversation -- that is definitely a pendulum stroker is Judd Trump. The video links that demonstrate Judd's nearly-perfect pendulum stroke were provided earlier in this thread, but here's one so you don't have to go back:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZA67elaLPI

But let's take a step back. Just what is it that you're trying to argue, but yet say you're not arguing? You appear to be the "hey, this works for me, and has worked for me for 46 years" (I'll save you that so you don't have to write it ), but yet you're arguing 'til you're blue in the face about why the instructors teach the much simpler pendulum stroke? I don't get it.

Care to clarify?

Oh, and to leave no stone unturned:

The gravitation has nothing to do with the delivery itself, and everything to do with the machine used to propel it.

Can you clarify & elaborate?

Sure. It means, quite simply, the reason for human engineering's move to cylinder-drive projectiles vs. trebuchet-driven (or any kind of "hurl"-driven) projectiles is because of the simplicity of the device itself -- *NOT* the simplicity of the movement of the projectile. And, don't forget, you're glossing over the BIGGEST reason why -- explosives and accelerants. These are astronomically more powerful than any gravity- or centrifical-force-driven machines. In fact, they are the main reason why your analogy fails you, not whether the motion is linear or the shape of an arc.

-Sean

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

So, a good stroke is "a perfect throwing motion"? Well, these guys not only employ the elbow, they use the shoulder, wrist, and fingers as well. They seem to throw pretty straight to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhcP5DXh1gk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[ENGLISH!]

I am not trying to convince you, I concluded it would be a near impossible endeavor to get you to change your mind. And BTW, I see no issue with that. I think it has been an interesting discussion with a number of things to consider. Not to be rude but I'm sure I care about what you think about as little as you care what I think. LOL I suspect you're a very good player and part of your strength is your confidence in the method you use. Unless you have aspirations of becoming a professional and feel you have reached a plateau, I cannot imagine why you would change at this point.

I recall a golf lesson I took many years ago from what many considered to be the top instructor in our area. I took numerous lessons from him. One thing in particular he said was I was young and athletic enough to play a very high level of golf without a simple, fundamentally sound golf stroke. He also told me it was clear I would not ever be a professional and while my "athletic stroke" would serve me well for some period of time, age would eventually catch up and dictate I either accept a miserable level of play, attempt to learn a fundamentally sound stroke at an older age or I'd give up the game. He told me he could teach me how to swing the right way or he could help me improve with whatever swing I wanted to use, it all paid him the same. He said in fact, if he were merely greedy, he'd prefer the latter since he was sure over time I'd be back to see him more often.

I appreciate your response.

Was not Michael Jordon and George Archer both cut from their high school basketball teams by their coaches. One may have been right. I think the other one may have made a mistake. How do you know that your golf instructor did not ruin your chance to play professionally?

I understand your point. But... a golf swing is very much more dynamic than a pool stroke.

If you don't go for it you will never know if you can achieve it. Why would one want to limit one self before one even knows if one can perform at a higher level.

In golf, there is a risk / reward ratio & there is a time to take the risk & a time to play safe. Some know the difference & act accordingly. They take the risk when appropriate & often times reap the reward. Others never take the risk & therefore are only rewarded occasionally by accident.

There is no right way to swing a golf club. There was what your instructor deemed to be the right way. Everyones body is different, with different strengths & weaknesses. One has to get those different parts in 'harmony'. Hence different strokes for different folks. One teaches what one knows. When one learns 'more' they will teach 'more' if it is beneficial for the teacher to teach it to the student. How does CJ say it, the student will become the teacher.

I've seen some good league players that played with no english. Would I suggest that they never learn english? No. Should they learn it, understand it & know how & when to use it? I certainly think so.

I 'feel' that the Piston J-Stroke Finish is more natural & less contrived & therefore beneficial. If one can not perform it effectively, then one should probably learn a different method, perhaps the pendulum stroke or CJ's tennis grip forward 'stab / push' type stroke. He uses a very firm grip. Hence again, dfferent strokes for different folks.

I do care. I care because I love the game & the enjoyment that it can bring. There are many different levels of play, desires, rewards, & benefits regarding the game. I sincerely hope you & everyone else can get their fair share of benefit from the game & then give back as best that they can.

Regards,

 

[ENGLISH!]

If you stop and really think about the motion of just the cue stick, its is always the same, just that how it is done is not. Meaning a piston and a pendulum stroke move the stick in the same motion, that motion being back and forth for this discussion and not up and down nor the side to side motion that can occur during the stroke.

Just considering the back and forth motion of the cue stick.

In order to make the CB move, the stick needs to be brought back x amount. Try just holding the cue tip at the surface of the CB and just stroke forward. Very hard to do.

The cue stick needs to move forward greater than x in order to move the CB. This proves that you must have follow through or the cue ball would never move.

After moving x amount, the cue must stop, even for a instance in order to change direction. Then on the forward stoke moves x plus whatever follow through is used.

Now the action used to move the cue may look like a pendulum stroke because of just pivoting at the elbow, put it really is a piston stroke in how the cue stick is moved, back, pause, forward.

Side to side motion can happen in both types of cue delivery, but only the up and down of the tip happens with the pendulum stroke where the wrist is not allowed to pivot in order to keep the cue tip from going up and down during the stroke.

The stroke is something that has to be adaptable, flexible because of the variety of shot positions that occur in playing pool. What might work for one shot will not work for another. I practiced shooting jacked up over a ball yesterday and that stroke I had to use was nothing like the stroke I used to do a stop shot where bridge hand placement and ball layout are not a issue.

I just remember qualified instructors say that the only reason the pendulum stroke is taught is that it is easy to do so. Kinda seems a limitation on the instructor more than the student.

Duckie,

I agree with much of what you 'said'. What is your opinion on the 'finish' or 'follow through'?

Regards,

 

[ENGLISH!]

Grip
http://youtu.be/bmRcYLVZdVI

Good video. That's almost what I do, but my last two(2) fingers are almost always open & most times all of them are open until after contact and then I sort of 'catch' the cue. I just support the cue from falling out of my hand by the 'pressure' points on both sides as my hand 'wraps' from the top down to both sides with the bottom open, most of the time.

Sometimes I do close the first two & thumb, but I'm not conscious of when or why. I guess for certain shots. I guess I use two(2) grips. I also guess I'm playing unconsciously. I think that is a godd thing. My conscious mind is dealing with the task at hand & not the biomechanics.

Best Wishes,

 

[Scott Lee]

Greg...You, like Rick, prove that you really know nothing about how a pendulum stroke works...and never will be openminded enough to even try to understand it. None of us "instructors" have said it is the only way to do something. We have said, over and over, through experience with thousands of students, that it's a simpler way to deliver the cue, without excess movement or involvement of shoulder muscles. To that end, I'm hoping that us "instructors" will just be done with trying to argue or convince you two of anything. You've already proven that you do not play at any kind of high skill level. We don't know about Rick...and don't care. It's not a limitation of the instructor...it's simple physics. What we do know is what works best for most people. Nuff said...

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

If you stop and really think about the motion of just the cue stick, its is always the same, just that how it is done is not. Meaning a piston and a pendulum stroke move the stick in the same motion, that motion being back and forth for this discussion and not up and down nor the side to side motion that can occur during the stroke.

Just considering the back and forth motion of the cue stick.

In order to make the CB move, the stick needs to be brought back x amount. Try just holding the cue tip at the surface of the CB and just stroke forward. Very hard to do.

The cue stick needs to move forward greater than x in order to move the CB. This proves that you must have follow through or the cue ball would never move.

After moving x amount, the cue must stop, even for a instance in order to change direction. Then on the forward stoke moves x plus whatever follow through is used.

Now the action used to move the cue may look like a pendulum stroke because of just pivoting at the elbow, put it really is a piston stroke in how the cue stick is moved, back, pause, forward.

Side to side motion can happen in both types of cue delivery, but only the up and down of the tip happens with the pendulum stroke where the wrist is not allowed to pivot in order to keep the cue tip from going up and down during the stroke.

The stroke is something that has to be adaptable, flexible because of the variety of shot positions that occur in playing pool. What might work for one shot will not work for another. I practiced shooting jacked up over a ball yesterday and that stroke I had to use was nothing like the stroke I used to do a stop shot where bridge hand placement and ball layout are not a issue.

I just remember qualified instructors say that the only reason the pendulum stroke is taught is that it is easy to do so. Kinda seems a limitation on the instructor more than the student.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Greg...You, like Rick, prove that you really know nothing about how a pendulum stroke works...and never will be openminded enough to even try to understand it. None of us "instructors" have said it is the only way to do something. We have said, over and over, through experience with thousands of students, that it's a simpler way to deliver the cue, without excess movement or involvement of shoulder muscles. To that end, I'm hoping that us "instructors" will just be done with trying to argue or convince you two of anything. You've already proven that you do not play at any kind of high skill level. We don't know about Rick...and don't care. It's not a limitation of the instructor...it's simple physics. What we do know is what works best for most people. Nuff said...

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Mr. Lee,

I am fairly sure that I do understand the pendulum stroke and some of its benfits. It is simplistic, as many have stated & I am not unintelligent. I just do not concur regarding its' prescribed 'finish' vs the 'finish' of the J-Stroke. I am open mimded about it, but I need to be convinced that the finish is better. No one has been able to do that, other than to infer that the differences are insignificant. If they are insignificant then why does it matter?

Perhaps you would be willing to describe the stroke in detail while pointing out the benfits compared to the J-Stroke. A lesson tease, so to speak. It would probably be more enlightening done in the open forum, but if that is not to your liking perhaps a PM would be more suitable.

If you have already done this, can you steer me onto it.

Should you choose to decline the invitation, I understand since, "We don't know about Rick...and don't care."

It was just a thought of something that might soften my 'opposition'.

Regards,

 

[ENGLISH!]

RJ:

Dude, you are completely missing my point by trying to take apart my (your, actually) trebuchet analogy, with the "How does the human body utilize gravity to hurl very large stones?" thing. Again, you're grasping.

Sean, Dude, you are completely missing my point. An arch is not an affective delivery system. A straight line is. Hence a bow and arrow vs a rock sling. The arrow sits on a rest, bridge hand, & is connected at the rear by the string, back hand on the cue. When it is released it starts it's travel on a straight line til affected by gravity. A rock sling travelling on a continuing arch of a circle requires perfect timing of release in order to hit the target. I'm not saying that the pendulum stroke is the same as a rock sling. I'm referring to the arching down of the tip as the back hand rises to the prescribed finish. If not set up perfectly does the tip make contact moving straight or on its' downward arch? Does it hit where intended or lower than intended?

Rather, the question is posed to you to look at how the arm propels the cue. (And I'm not going to revisit the "push vs. pull" thing that we went through in the Ask the Instructor forum.) Because the cue is suspended by the arm, the arm *swings* the cue. Your biceps muscles (and your triceps, if you want to get pedantic) are both *above* the cue. They are not behind the cue, propelling it like an explosive charge. This analogy you're adhering to of linear movement because of how a gun works -- and how the human body should emulate those forces -- well, that dog don't hunt. You don't have a hole in your arm or body from which the cue propels from.

The arm does not swing as a pendulum. It is moved by the muscles as you point out. I'm certainly not implying that we should use explosives like a gun & I am not comparing how the projectile is propeled but merely that it is propeled in a straight line. I was merely making the analogy of a cylinder contained piston as a device for aiming at & hitting a target. The hole in our body in formed by the closed bridge, through which we 'propel' the cue stick. A pinball machine strikes a metal ball with a spring loaded 'piston' in a straight line, not a cylinder suspended on a rod like a pendulum weight, althought it could, if set up properly, meaning perfectly.

And btw, just because I say "some champions, like Chris Melling, have mastered such a complex movement," doesn't mean I meant to say "all champions use this." Let's get that clear right now. In fact, one champion -- that's at the top of the snooker heap, if you want to call accuracy into this conversation -- that is definitely a pendulum stroker is Judd Trump. The video links that demonstrate Judd's nearly-perfect pendulum stroke were provided earlier in this thread, but here's one so you don't have to go back:

The 'gravitation' of weaponry for aiming purposes was compared to the 'natural' great players 'gravitating' to the 'more complex' piston J-Stroke without any instruction was a quandry as to why. Why did they not gravitate naturally to the 'pendulum' stroke, particularly if it is supposed to be better due to its simplicity? To me, the piston J-Stroke is more simple than trying to rely on setting up perfectly all over the table to hopefully insure that the strike occurs at the exact bottom of a pendulum arch.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZA67elaLPI

But let's take a step back. Just what is it that you're trying to argue, but yet say you're not arguing? You appear to be the "hey, this works for me, and has worked for me for 46 years" (I'll save you that so you don't have to write it ), but yet you're arguing 'til you're blue in the face about why the instructors teach the much simpler pendulum stroke? I don't get it.

Care to clarify?


I am merely reacting to the many efforts that have failed to convince me that the pendulum stroke is better, merely because it is more simple than that used by living champions & those from the past. More simple does not necessarily mean better & I am not convinced that the pendulum stroke is better.


Oh, and to leave no stone unturned:

Sure. It means, quite simply, the reason for human engineering's move to cylinder-drive projectiles vs. trebuchet-driven (or any kind of "hurl"-driven) projectiles is because of the simplicity of the device itself -- *NOT* the simplicity of the movement of the projectile. And, don't forget, you're glossing over the BIGGEST reason why -- explosives and accelerants. These are astronomically more powerful than any gravity- or centrifical-force-driven machines. In fact, they are the main reason why your analogy fails you, not whether the motion is linear or the shape of an arc.

So... a cylinder-drive projectile, an unrestrain piston, is more simple than a trebuchet pendulum. Our new big guns will soon be a straight line rail gun propelled by electro magnetism. I think they will be more complex & harder to build but better than a trebuchet.

-Sean

Can we please quit the wordsmith wars & someone offer conclusive evidence that the pendulum stroke, particularly the finish is better than that of the 'piston' J -stroke. Better... & not because it is more simple & easier to teach, but better.

 

[predator]

And btw, just because I say "some champions, like Chris Melling, have mastered such a complex movement," doesn't mean I meant to say "all champions use this." Let's get that clear right now. In fact, one champion -- that's at the top of the snooker heap, if you want to call accuracy into this conversation -- that is definitely a pendulum stroker is Judd Trump.

Trump is very close to pure pendulum, but he also opens up the grip and drops the elbow a bit on longer strokes to be able to keep the cue level throughout and on chin. It is not pronounced movement like some other snooker players do, but it's still there. Higgins is an extreme opposite example, drops the elbow quite a bit during backswing to keep the cue level.
Melling, while maybe not at level of Trump and Higgins in snooker, also must have been trained in a similar manner.
Yes, this technique is complex and quite unnatural to someone who has been playing for years using something different. But it undeniably works.
Is this needed at all for regular US style pool which has bigger pockets and far more margin for error? Debatable. Probably not essential.