Science Schmience - Different Strokes?

mr3cushion · Aug 6, 2014

NH Steve said:
I forgot to mention, soft vs hard tips & different shafts. Wouldn't a softer tip linger a tiny fraction longer on the cue ball than a hard tip? Also, shafts with higher deflection, doesn't the cue tip have to linger a fraction longer on the cue ball than a shaft with lower deflection? I mean, these would be tiny fractions, but like you said, the moment of contact is very short anyway, so what's another ten thousands of a second "or so" -- well, just maybe that extra 10% is enough to make a little difference...

UH, What He said, in spades!

Patrick Johnson · Aug 6, 2014

pvclou said:
Patrick

Putting "science says" in front of a statement doesn't make it scientific. Also having a theoretical basis for a statement doesn't mean that it is scientifically supported.

Scientific ideas are ultimately rooted in reality. That means the model has to approximate reality and the subsequent theory and it's predictions have to be supported empirically. (This is roughly what is called the scientific method.)

I agree with all of that.

I think your premise (hypothesis) is that you can exactly determine (predict) the motion of the cueball solely from the momentum of the cue...independently of the rate of change of momentum (i.e. acceleration) or any higher derivatives of momentum with respect to time.

Or to put it in terms even I can understand, I don't think acceleration matters. Acceleration is one of the things alright.

I don't have sufficient systematic evidence to show you that your premise is false...so I won't say that it is incorrect.

Nothing wrong with saying you think so.

However in my personal experience i think the type of stroke does change the result of the cue ball motion. The rate of change of momentum does matter.

In any case what I really wanted to say is that while you use language that sounds scientific...

Aw shucks, you do it lots better.

I don't think what you say is actually scientifically supported.

Respectfully

Lou

I feel your love for acceleration, Lou. Do we agree that spot-angle-speed are factors, and only disagree on whether there are more?

pj
chgo

LSJohn · Aug 6, 2014

@pvclou

the model has to approximate reality and the subsequent theory and it's predictions have to be supported empirically. (This is roughly what is called the scientific method.)

I don't think this is quite right. My understanding is that scientific theories come to be accepted after repeated failures to disprove them fail, not because they are empirically proven.

LSJohn · Aug 6, 2014

treeMan said:
I am an engineer and can subscribe to a scientific treatment of the topic. What I find hard to accept in your statement is discounting the effect of acceleration. I have often pondered what is this thing we call "stroke", and every time (without scientific backing), I conclude that it has to do with the acceleration of the tip. Is there evidence that supports acceleration not affecting cue ball reaction?

If the tip-ball contact of 1ms is changed by +/-10%, wouldn't that change how the cue ball reacts? It's a game of inches ...

(I like the topic and just want to add my thoughts).

tree

My guess is that is humanly impossible to accelerate enough to hold the tip on the cb for anywhere near 10% longer... I'd think .01% might be possible.

Besides, what does your ability to drive a train have to do with science stuff? :lol:

lll · Aug 6, 2014

androd said:
Ed Zackery.
Rod.

rod
this means alot to me ...

larry

sappo · Aug 6, 2014

oh come on

oh come on

i play mostly one pocket but i also like and play 3 cushion, and without a doubt the cue ball reacts differently when i "stroke thru" the cue ball as opposed to when i use a "jab stroke". you don't need a robot, a lab or a slide rule to see the difference. as bob dylan wisely put it: you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. keith

Skin · Aug 6, 2014

Patrick Johnson said:
I think you'd only need to have a game of "horse" between the player(s) and the robot; a player executes a shot and then the robot does the same - repeat for different shots that supposedly require different strokes. This hasn't been done (that I know of), so this kind of empirical data hasn't yet been collected.

But there is some empirical data that guides good theory - for instance, it has been shown that tip/cueball contact lasts for only 1/1000 of a second or so, too short for stroke factors other than accuracy, angle and speed to matter - and we can't significantly change that.

Is there any good theoretical basis for the notion that different kinds of strokes are needed if the cue can be accurately delivered with one kind?

pj
chgo

Patrick, my personal bias is to approach any empirical problem from a reductionist perspective first. I believe that is what you're doing here and so, in principle, I agree wholeheartedly with your approach. However, in order to prove that strike location, angle, and speed are the only important variables, we need some well-designed and well-executed experiments. As you say, they haven't been done. So, neither side has any real evidence going for it.

But, there possibly are more variables that just those three. And they may exist in human body. Just as an example, there are a lot of bones and soft tissue in the hand that move, deform & displace, and shock-absorb (or not) as the cue moves and strikes. What might that have to do with it? Don't know but I do know you can "feel" when the stroke is right. And that's just the hand. There are other body parts involved.

What kind of hand are we going to give our stroke-bot? A rubber-covered clamp that cinches down on the stick? Is it also going to get a similar bridge hand? If so, it may never be able to replicate "stroke' (all those minute motions that might have something to do the final action on the cb).

But back to the body and the hand specifically. What happens in the hand, I suggest, is not perfectly replicable from one shot to the next. Same with the rest of the body (chaos?). And that introduces neurological feedback, which may be the soul of stroke. If you look at slow mo of very consistent strokers like SVB (there is a video somewhere; I've seen it), what you see is a mess of wiggling and wobbling and adjusting from the beginning of the forward strike all the way through. What's that all about? The shooter is using a giant, changing input of data to adjust and adapt to get that tip to that spot, at that angle, and at that speed...and to do it at least with stroke.

So, I think the problem might turn out to be a bit more complicated than our reductionist minds find comfortable, but I admire you for having the courage to start a science thread here, among the hide-bound denizens of the Grande Hall of The Pool Neanderthals! :lol

Grunt!

Skin

straightback · Aug 6, 2014

NH Steve said:
I forgot to mention, soft vs hard tips & different shafts. Wouldn't a softer tip linger a tiny fraction longer on the cue ball than a hard tip? Also, shafts with higher deflection, doesn't the cue tip have to linger a fraction longer on the cue ball than a shaft with lower deflection? I mean, these would be tiny fractions, but like you said, the moment of contact is very short anyway, so what's another ten thousands of a second "or so" -- well, just maybe that extra 10% is enough to make a little difference...

You have nailed it, Steve. Well said.

straightback · Aug 6, 2014

treeMan said:
I am an engineer and can subscribe to a scientific treatment of the topic. What I find hard to accept in your statement is discounting the effect of acceleration. I have often pondered what is this thing we call "stroke", and every time (without scientific backing), I conclude that it has to do with the acceleration of the tip. Is there evidence that supports acceleration not affecting cue ball reaction?

If the tip-ball contact of 1ms is changed by +/-10%, wouldn't that change how the cue ball reacts? It's a game of inches ...

(I like the topic and just want to add my thoughts).

tree

I agree, Treeman, acceleration needs to be added to the angle and speed variables, particularly with softer shots played with a ton of English.

Patrick Johnson · Aug 6, 2014

NH Steve said:
I'm not going to argue because to my view, what works is whatever works for a given player.

No argument here - but I'm interested in how it works so I can make maximum use of it.

There have been many great great players that did not necessarily understand the "science" but they sure could accomplish near miracles at the table. and often with a consistency that I can only fantasize about!! I.e., it is tough to argue with success.

Gotta agree, a degree in pool science clearly isn't a requirement for being a top player.

However, one thing you mention does get my attention, and that is the "or so" that you tacked on to the 1/1000 of a second.

There's a range of measured contact times depending on things like tip hardness, how far the initial contact is from center and (maybe) stroke speed.

I mean, just because a thousandth of a second is not very much time does not mean it is not enough time to matter, does it?? What it means to me is that it is such a short amount of time, then even a very slight difference in contact could well matter quite a bit, couldn't it?

I am pretty sure I get a different amount of "squirt" if I jab at the cue ball than I do if I stroke through the cue ball, and I can only assume my speed of stroke must be similar based on the resulting distance the object ball and cue ball travel, so I cannot ascribe the difference to speed. The extra squirt certainly changes my accuracy, but which is it -- the cause, or the effect, lol? Likewise, if I shoot with a stiff grip and wrist I don't get nearly the action on the cue ball that I seem to if I loosen my grip and flex my wrist -- again, even if the object ball travels about the same distance.

Are you saying the difference is only in my contact point or speed of stroke? It seems to me there is another difference that does have to do with the kind of stroke going on.

Yep, spot-angle-speed - that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. But even if I'm right your way of visualizing things might still be the best way for you.

pj
chgo

straightback · Aug 6, 2014

Skin said:
Patrick, my personal bias is to approach any empirical problem from a reductionist perspective first. I believe that is what you're doing here and so, in principle, I agree wholeheartedly with your approach. However, in order to prove that strike location, angle, and speed are the only important variables, we need some well-designed and well-executed experiments. As you say, they haven't been done. So, neither side has any real evidence going for it.

But, there possibly are more variables that just those three. And they may exist in human body. Just as an example, there are a lot of bones and soft tissue in the hand that move, deform & displace, and shock-absorb (or not) as the cue moves and strikes. What might that have to do with it? Don't know but I do know you can "feel" when the stroke is right. And that's just the hand. There are other body parts involved.

What kind of hand are we going to give our stroke-bot? A rubber-covered clamp that cinches down on the stick? Is it also going to get a similar bridge hand? If so, it may never be able to replicate "stroke' (all those minute motions that might have something to do the final action on the cb).

But back to the body and the hand specifically. What happens in the hand, I suggest, is not perfectly replicable from one shot to the next. Same with the rest of the body (chaos?). And that introduces neurological feedback, which may be the soul of stroke. If you look at slow mo of very consistent strokers like SVB (there is a video somewhere; I've seen it), what you see is a mess of wiggling and wobbling and adjusting from the beginning of the forward strike all the way through. What's that all about? The shooter is using a giant, changing input of data to adjust and adapt to get that tip to that spot, at that angle, and at that speed...and to do it at least with stroke.

So, I think the problem might turn out to be a bit more complicated than our reductionist minds find comfortable, but I admire you for having the courage to start a science thread here, among the hide-bound denizens of the Grande Hall of The Pool Neanderthals! :lol

Grunt! Skin

Skin, I think grip pressure is a variable as well, which is to say resonance is a variable.

Bottom line is this: what is required for a shot (angle, spin, etc.) does not change from person to person; however, there are multiple ways to "get there" and there are differing body types. Accordingly, there are different types of strokes. That's all there is to it.

Efrem Reyes can draw a ball with a 12' bridge; Allen Hopkins can get the same action with a 2" bridge (don't ask me how). Similarly, some draw with flat cues, some get a downward angle. Result is the same.

Probably every person is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of getting there with any of the strokes. However, their experience has corraled them into one that works for them.

Skin · Aug 6, 2014

I found the SVB video. Take a look.

[ame]http://youtu.be/CFeLlvCN-0s[/ame]

Skin

Skin · Aug 6, 2014

straightback said:
Skin, I think grip pressure is a variable as well, which is to say resonance is a variable.

Bottom line is this: what is required for a shot (angle, spin, etc.) does not change from person to person; however, there are multiple ways to "get there" and there are differing body types. Accordingly, there are different types of strokes. That's all there is to it.

Efrem Reyes can draw a ball with a 12' bridge; Allen Hopkins can get the same action with a 2" bridge (don't ask me how). Similarly, some draw with flat cues, some get a downward angle. Result is the same.

Probably every person is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of getting there with any of the strokes. However, their experience has corraled them into one that works for them.

Could be that's about all there is to it, straightback. That analysis certainly agrees with one's intuition. I can't dispute it - and I would be a fool to try!

Skin

Patrick Johnson · Aug 6, 2014

LSJohn said:
My guess is that is humanly impossible to accelerate enough to hold the tip on the cb for anywhere near 10% longer... I'd think .01% might be possible.

Probably not even that. When the tip hits the ball the hand's soft skin gives enough to effectively disconnect the hand's acceleration from the stick during the brief contact time. They've had to pad the grippers on some robots to simulate the effect.

Besides, what does your ability to drive a train have to do with science stuff? :lol:

lol

pj
chgo

straightback · Aug 6, 2014

I agree - Shane has a lot of twisting and turning on his forward stroke. However, so do a lot of pool players. Efren comes through crooked, not to mention Francisco. Earl curls the shit out of his wrist. The difference is that it is repeatable and therefore reliable and predictable.

You want straight? Look at Allison Fisher's stroke. However, you will notice she cannot create large spin volumes without getting real far out from center ball, which tends to result in high squirt. For pool, I'm not convinced a snooker stroke is the best stroke. Yeah, you can pocket like god, but pool is as much about cue ball control as it is pocketing.

mr3cushion · Aug 6, 2014

I have a question for those that adhere to the use of, "different" strokes theory.

Can you describe what and when to use different strokes, RE: Long draw, short draw, Force Follow, stun shot"... I almost forgot, and why!

Patrick Johnson · Aug 6, 2014

NH Steve said:
I forgot to mention, soft vs hard tips & different shafts. Wouldn't a softer tip linger a tiny fraction longer on the cue ball than a hard tip?

Yes, softer tips stay in contact longer, but transmit no more (and maybe less) overall force to the CB.

Also, shafts with higher deflection, doesn't the cue tip have to linger a fraction longer on the cue ball than a shaft with lower deflection?

I mean, these would be tiny fractions, but like you said, the moment of contact is very short anyway, so what's another ten thousands of a second "or so" -- well, just maybe that extra 10% is enough to make a little difference...

I don't believe it's possible to extend contact time with your stroke, but supposing you could, what's the benefit?

pj
chgo

mr3cushion · Aug 6, 2014

I hesitated about posting in is thread, just because of that whole, "robot" thing.

A computer or robot is ONLY as knowledgeable as the PROGRAMMER!

This is another excerpt from my book/DVD, "The Concise Book of Position Play." It explains and demonstrates the, "basic" strokes used in 3 Cushion Billiards, but can apply to pocket billiards as well!

The Stroke and Follow Through

The past and present strokes in 3 Cushion Billiards
One of the most common faults of amateur players is the incorrect concept of the proper stroke and follow-through in 3 cushion billiards. Unfortunately years ago in the pre-modern game era, 30’s 40’ and 50’s, the equipment in the United States was vastly different. Modern tables are heated. Synthetic rubber is used for the cushions. Phenolic balls are used instead of Ivory and the woolen table cloth slowed the cue ball down more than today's cloth. The statement, “you must follow-through on all shots”, was misleading. The professionals of that era should have said, “Apply the proper follow-through for each individual shot”.

The modern game of 3 cushion billiards has evolved into a precision game. In order to achieve that consistent precision, you must have a stroke that is free from flaws. A certain amount of natural hand-eye coordination will give some player’s more consistent results. But the proper stroke and follow through can be taught to the level of any player’s natural ability.

The start of the proper stroke
The proper stroke starts in the pre-setup routine. After analyzing the position that waits for you, determine what kind of stroke is needed to achieve a point. Before the player addresses the cue ball, he needs to decide on the rhythm and tempo for that particular shot. Use a couple of warm up strokes to get the feeling.

When addressing the cue ball, the cue tip should be fairly close to the cue ball before you start your backswing. The player should learn to develop the same number of warm-up strokes on every shot. This provides the rhythm component of the stroke.

I personally believe in the continuous straight, horizontal and vertical stroke method, and not pausing. If the player interrupts the rhythm, he may lose the timing and tempo he was trying to achieve. Another very important part of the stroke is crescendo, (increasing speed), never decelerating. Just remember, whatever number of warm-up strokes you choose to take, embed that into your game.

The five basic strokes to simpler billiards
It’s time to talk about the real basis for being able to play better and get better position with less effort. There are five basic strokes used in 3 cushion billiards. They are the: normal, short, rapid, slow, and dead ball strokes. These and their combinations are used to avoid kisses and play position. Knowing when and how to use these strokes is the core to being a better than average player. When the player knows the correct strokes to use for certain shots, they need not be concerned on contacting the first object ball exactly, that’s the one thing that makes 3 cushion billiards more forgiving than pocket billiards.

The normal stroke
Now to the different strokes, the normal stroke can be defined as a stroke that has a follow through approximately the same length of the bridge the player is using for that specific shot. This stroke is used for most shots that have a natural angle from the cue ball to the object ball and then to the first cushion. We can generally use the normal stroke for natural angle cushion first shots (banks), see Photo 15.

View attachment 10515
Photo 15

The short stroke
The next stroke is the short stroke. The name explains it all. The short stroke is probably used by better players more often than any other, especially on new cloth. This stroke is not an abrupt jab, but a well timed shortened stroke with a shorter follow through than the length of the player’s bridge, see Photo 16.

A little trick to help facilitate the effect is to use a shorter bridge than normal. Keeping the cue tip on the cue ball for a shortened time gives a purer hit. This makes sense. The common use of the short stroke is to make extremely thin hits on the object ball, keeping the cue ball from rolling forward on perpendicular angles into the first ball. Less wrist action helps with these types of shots

View attachment 10516
Photo 16

The rapid stroke
The rapid stroke is used for giving pace to the cue ball without really hitting the cue ball hard. It’s like a discus thrower winding up before he releases. It will give momentum to the shot. The rapid stroke simply means that the warm-up and delivery-strokes are moving faster than the normal stoke. This stroke is employed on five, six, and seven cushion shots, especially with full hits on the first object ball, to avoid a kiss, or drive that ball a lengthy distance.

The slow stroke
Using the slow stroke will allow the player greater accuracy when playing half-table, short-angle shots, where the first ball is hit less than half full. Another application of the slow stroke is to help impart extreme English to the cue ball. During the delivery strokes the cue will swing slower than the normal stroke. This will help facilitate an exaggerated follow-through at impact, combined with more impetus. This results in a high rate of spin on the cue ball, thus making it possible to maintain English on 3, 4, or even 5 cushions.

The dead-ball stroke
And finally, the last basic stroke is called the dead-ball stroke. This stroke is very useful when playing steep angle across the table shots and full length table short-angle shots. The dead ball stroke is really a combination of the short stroke, grip and the technique used for this stroke.

The technique for this stroke uses no wrist action and only the forearm moves from the elbow. There is no wrist-break with the dead-ball stroke. Don't open and close the hand around the cue. This gives less rotation to the cue, so less effect. With this technique, using the short stroke with no wrist action, the player is able to control the natural forward motion of the cue ball on very full hits. The long table full ball shots do not need much force. Thus, the player will have better control.

Some of these stroke can be combined id order to beat a "kiss", hesitating the CB for that fraction of a moment. and, also for some "power stroke" shots!

Release the, "Sings and arrows!"

tylerdurden · Aug 6, 2014

I personally think pool players have about as little idea with what is going on with their stroke than any sportsmen in the world. Golfers may be the best example. They really do analyze every aspect of their swing, and it seems to be a fruitful endeavor, because.... well, they do it and put a lot of time and effort into it.

The only way to say it may be offensive, but pool players just say "stroke it straight and follow through". Done. And they think certain players do that. There are no perfect strokes. I challenge anyone to install a little laser inside the butt of a cue (billiard player, pool, snooker) and watch what happens on the wall as he strokes. I think the results would surprise us all. We are not moving the pool cue in a straight line front to back like we all think. It is so easy to see in video.

Skin · Aug 6, 2014

mr. 3C: I personally believe in the continuous straight, horizontal and vertical stroke method, and not pausing. If the player interrupts the rhythm, he may lose the timing and tempo he was trying to achieve.

Bill, I hope word doesn't get out on AZB about this thread. All those SPF (set-pause-finish) guys are liable to overrun us with YOU as THE target. Set your phaser on stun just in case.

Skin

Science Schmience - Different Strokes?

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member