A few nights ago I was sitting in the pool room having a few brews and there's this kid practicing 8-ball on the table in front of me. Someone had taught this kid some of the fundamentals of proper stance, stroke, follow-thru, etc and he appeared to be concentrating pretty well. What his tutor had apparently failed to tell him about was to keep a level cue.

Anytime this poor guy used any english he'd miss the shot. Then he'd set it up again and shoot it carefully - usually without english this time - and make it. This pattern went on for an hour or so, interrupted occasionally by him breaking the rack and sending the cue-ball flying at my head. He was trying the 8-ball break where you put the cue-ball near the side rail and hit the second ball back in the rack with draw. Since nobody had told him about keeping his cue level he was making a normal bridge on top of the rail. He was also striking the cue-ball well below center and shooting hard. After the fourth or fifth near miss I finally managed to catch his flying cue-ball in mid-air. I told him I would only give it back to him if he would listen to some advice on how to prevent it. Since he wanted his cue-ball back he had to agree.

I demonstrated a few good rail bridges and managed to convince him that he should strive to keep his cue as level as possible to prevent the cue-ball from curving or bouncing. I had to show him a few curve shots and jump shots to get my point across since he'd learned from his dad and his dad had never mentioned it.

The first time this kid broke with a level cue he snapped the eight in, so I had him hooked. We played for a while and I pointed out several small things like how sometimes he'd jump up from the shot too soon or he'd forget to chalk up before every shot, simple stuff like that.

I ran into him again tonight and he thanked me and told me that he'd learned something from just watching me shoot that was helping him even more than those things I'd specifically told him about, and that's the subject of this post. (This was before he started criticizing my stroke mechanics - that's another topic.)

Ever notice how just about all formal instruction on getting into a proper shooting stance starts with standing behind the shot, aligning various body parts with the line of the shot, then bending various other body parts to get into the stance itself? Why not just squat down and shoot? You'd have to change your alignment points before you squatted, but you'd end up with the exact same stance.

I think I know why you shouldn't just squat. The problem is going to be putting it into less than 1000 words and still getting my thoughts across clearly. But I really think this information can be valuable so I won't sacrifce clarity for brevity's sake.

First, and I hope everyone agrees with me here, shot angles are easier to see from an upright position. You don't see good players going around peering over the rails to plan their next shot. You plan your shots while your still standing up, while you can see the angles better. Once you bend into your stance, depending on how high your head is, you may still see the angle fairly well (upright like Bob Byrne) or you may only see a two-dimensional view of the balls (down low like Allison Fisher). The transition from seeing the shot well to being in position to execute the shot is critical. Ideally you want this transition to be smooth, so as you get into shooting position the view changes as slowly as possible - allowing your brain to keep up with the changing perspective. This means that information gained while standing up is (to your brain) still relevant once you get into your stance. There is no discontinuity caused by a too-abrupt change in perspective.

As an extreme example of this discontinuity, plan the shot while standing up then close your eyes as you get into your stance, then open them once you're set up. If you're like me at this point you have only a general idea of the angles involved in making the ball and moving the cue-ball into position for the next shot. The sudden change of perspective has caused your mind to throw out the information you obtained while standing. This discontinuity can happen any time the transition from standing to shooting position is too sudden for the brain to associate the two different perspectives into a complete image of the same shot.

So how do you minimize this discontinuity? By stepping into the shot instead of just getting into your stance. Find the shot while standing and keep looking at the shot as you move, straight along the shot-line, into your stance. This is what all the books and tapes say, but I've never seen any reasoning behind it, just references to choreographed consistency.

By paying attention to my pre-shot routine (such as it is, I'm an FP remember), it turns out that the angle formed with my eyes, the cue-ball, and the surface of the table is EXACTLY the same from the time I'm standing to the time I'm in my shooting stance. This cannot be a coincidence. It's just something I've unconsciously picked up over the years as the best way to get into position. It's like evolution. My mechanics have evolved, with no conscious thought, to the proper way to minimize this discontinuity. I think this is pretty darn cool.

My eyes in shooting position, are about 16" above and 28" behind the cue-ball. When standing my eyes are about 34" above the cue-ball. Run these numbers through some high school geometry and you can calculate the distance I must stand from the cue-ball to have the same viewing angle that I have in my stance. Plugging in numbers for other players' heights and in-stance head positions and you can figure out where they should stand to minimize the discontinuity. It turns out that more erect players should stand closer to the shot before getting into their stance and players with a lower head position should stand farther back. The chin-scrapers, in order to make full use of this, would have to stand back an impractible distance (people would think they were forfeiting the game) so they have to compensate for the increased difference in perspective by settling into their stance more slowly.

I hope this made sense. I plan to dig out my accu-stats tapes tomorrow and see if I can confirm that people are actually doing this.

I got into a little discussion with my newest student tonight about arm angles - specifically the angle between the grip forearm and the floor at the point of contact. Books will tell you that a proper stroke has the forearm pointing straight at the floor at the point of contact. My student pointed out to me that my forearm is perpendicular to the floor at the end of my final backswing, and that at the moment my cue hits the cue-ball my forearm is pointing forward about 30 degrees. He suggested that this indicated a flaw in my stroke. A summarization of the discussion that followed is here:

There are three type of strokes. One is what I call a "pull" stroke. The grip forearm is pointing down and away from the cue-ball at the point of contact. To accomplish this I would have to grip my cue at the very back end of the wrap. The second stroke I call a "coast" stroke. This is where the forearm is pointing straight down at contact, and this is what most books seem to recommend. The third type of stroke, and the one I use, I call a "push" stroke. The grip hand is nearer to the front of the wrap, and the forearm, at contact, is pointed down and forward as described above.

A pull stroke is so-named because you're still pulling the cue forward (with your bicep) at the point of contact and shortly thereafter. In a push stroke your bicep has taken a lesser role to other muscles by the time contact occurs. Your elbow drops as your shoulder continues to move the stick forward. I know this is considered by many to be a bad thing but I do have a point. The coast stroke is one in which, at contact, your bicep has no more work to do, and your shoulder doesn't get involved at all - the stick is more or less coasting.

Now I'm a feel player, and I didn't analyze any of this until years after my stroke had been established. As a feel player I just picked at some point the proper stroking style (for me). After thinking about this some I think I know why I ended up with a push stroke.

A pull stroke I feel is bad because I can't get the proper feel for the speed of the shot. I also don't think that the bicep is a good muscle to count on for the numerous tiny variations in speed that come up during play. A coast stroke affords me no feel for the shot whatsoever. There are no muscles active at contact. I could just as well throw the cue at the cue-ball and get the same feedback from the hit. I think I use a push stroke because it gives me the most feedback at contact. Everything from the shoulder down is active, and all those muscles moving gives me very good feedback - especially on the speed of the shot, but also for the amount of any spin I may be imparting to the cue-ball. Speed and quality of stroke can be infinitely adjusted with the bicep, the shoulder muscles, or a combination of both. Sometimes the triceps can even get into the act.

With a push stroke cue stick acceleration also becomes easier. Instead of relying on just the bicep to smoothly accelerate the cue through the shot, I can start with the bicep and add in the shoulder muscles as needed.

I know that the moment of contact is supposed to be so small that feedback becomes irrelevant. I know that many will feel that using a push stroke, with all those muscles involved, can add unnecessary complication to a stroke. But what I also know, and what's most important to me, is that getting a proper feel for each shot as I shoot it is a big part of my game as a feel player.

I welcome debate on this, but what I'm really interested in is what type of stroke the rest of you use. You MPs already know, but you FPs may need to actually stroke a ball and pay attention how you hit it. I'm curious as to whether any other FPs have also adopted a push stroke - possibly for the same unconscious reasons I have.

Ken,

I'm too lazy to go downstairs and get the book, but if I recall correctly what BB considers to be of "little use in actual play" is any SPIN transferred to the object ball. I think he does point out that this transferred spin can have a big impact on bank shots, but not on regular shots. I don't think BB feels that "get-in-english" is a viable tool.

Throw is of course different than transferred spin and I'd bet large amounts that BB points out many times how throw can be very useful.

Also, BB just posted here about some billiards research he's doing, so maybe he'll answer your question himself.

As long as we're on the topic of instructional books, I have a small gripe. Most, if not all, of the books I've read state that english on the cue-ball does not affect the path the cue-ball takes after contact. I've always felt this was a little misleading. The cue-ball path will always start out perpendicular to the line-of-centers at contact, right? What all of the books fail to mention (in this context) is that when you use english you've got to adjust the contact point to allow for the change in throw. This adjustment changes the line-of-centers, and that changes the tangent line that the cue-ball takes. So in a roundabout way using english DOES affect the cue-ball path after contact.

Of course, I've never written any books, let alone made any videos, so IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO.

Mike Page wrote:
> Do you mean to suggest you can't have a stiff cue with a soft hit?

I made no such suggestion. There was no secret code message imbedded in the simple list I posted. I also made no attempt to define "Stiff Hit" or "Soft Hit". I simply listed listed the cues I've shot with in increasing order of Stiffness-Of-Hit - as I understand that term.

While of course every cue is different, and transient things like tip hardness can also affect the hit of a cue, I do think that they can be generally grouped by Stiffness-Of-Hit. Stiffness-Of-Cue is, IMO, a completely different thing and cannot generally be used to desribe any particular cuemaker's works.

As I write this there have been 53 messages posted to this thread since it diverged from the original "Stance question". And in these 53 posts, I haven't seen any outright trolls or from-the-hip responses like "FPs rule, MPs drool". We've stuck to the subject at hand, and not once has anyone stopped being polite and respectful of other peoples' opinions. This has got to be some kind of record.

I could spend the next few hours replying, one at a time, to the dozen or so messages that that been posted here since I last logged on - and I congratulate Ken B. on having the patience to do just that - but I'm taking the lazy way out and just replying to the group.

Being an FP does not mean that you lack knowledge or maturity. I don't think the MP who first suggested this meant any insult, but if someone suggested to me that my game was ignorant and/or immature to my face I would certainly take umbrage. I'd put my pool knowledge up against just about anyone, I just access that information differently than a typical MP would. As for an FPs game being immature, well that's one of those words that's insulting without being too specific, but again I have to disagree with the spirit of statements like that. How do you define maturity in a person's pool game? One way I define it is "Using knowledge, temperament, and ability to locate and execute the best shot in any given situation." Anyone who's progressed far enough has that ability, whether they're FP, MP, or whatever.

There has been some discussion here regarding memory. Some MPs have expressed the opinion that FPs lack the ability to recall shots, runouts, etc. I completely disagree with this. That fact that my mind is not focused on kinesthetic details for each shot means that I'm able to use those extra neural circuits for an awareness of the table that, IMHO, your typical MP simply does not have. I may not be able to decribe how I hit a certain shot with anything other than vague generalities, but I'll never say "Duhhh. What six ball?", and if you set the shot up for me again I'll not only tell you how I hit it, but I'll be able to hit it again, almost exactly much the same way, without needing to go through any choreographed steps to assure proper alignment, english, etc. How is this worse than an MP's ability to recall the shot in extreme detail? How does an MP objectively accurately explain shot speed, amount of spin, and amount of "punch" in a stroke? The answer is that you can't, and neither can an FP. The knowledge is, however, still there for the player's future use. Any inherent difference between MPs and FPs regarding memory is, IMHO, nonexistent. Some people remember things, and make use of that learned knowledge later, and some people don't.

Well I've managed to miss-hit a key and my browser is stuck in full-screen mode, so you people get a break for now. I'll cut this post short.

I think you've made a good point Tom. I know when my game is a little off I'll actively "practice" each shot in my head before I bend over and shoot it for real. Taking a couple of practice stroke into the air while envisioning the shot helps me complete the effect. When I'm shooting well, however, I don't need these mental rehearsals. I just see the shot, step into it, and let it go.

Tom Bellhouse wrote: (Blah)
> So I wonder if the MP vs FP dichotomy is really just a matter
> of level of analysis, conscious vs unconscious. The feel > player does analyze, but just uses different tools (imagery)
>fed by experience. None of this "1/3 tip of right English
>and a 5/32 hit on the object ball with 75% of available power"
>stuff. Just "see" the shot, and then make the real shot match
>the imagined one. Grip it, imagine it and *then* rip it.

Okay, let me see if I've got these straight. You people scoring at home can check me.

FP - Feel Player (obsolete?)
IP - Intuitive Player (replaces FP)
MP - Mechanical Player (obsolete?)
AP - Analytical Player (replaces MP)
ZP - Zen Player (hypothetical)
EP - Emotional Player

Let's add some more:

BP - Beginning Player (hasn't chosen a path yet)
RP - Random Player (keeps switching styles)
SSP - Secret Society Player
PP - What you do first thing in the morning

Ron Shepard wrote:
> Another way to tell what kind of player someone is is to ask
> them some question about some detail of a shot when they are
> in dead stroke. I think the FPs will just give you a blank
> stare and ask "what 6-ball?".

I don't think this is quite true. I can certainly recall things like where the CB and OB were in relation to each other and what path the CB took to the next ball. I'll also have a vague recollection of what english and speed were used on the shot, but to really recall those physical elements I'd have to set the shot up again, hit it again, and take note of how I hit it.

That's only for recent games and matches. Older memories are much fuzzier, although that may be due to age and alcohol. I do have a pretty good memory of some various key shots in the past, but again only circumstancial memory - not a complete play-by-play.

I think the examples you use about not knowing the day of the week would more readily apply to the hypothetical "Zen Player" than the "Feel Player".

Now, what were we talking about again?

Derek S. Ray wrote:
> lots of attention in about two hundred different directions

That's what I meant.

I figure I'll try to post this before Derek does since he and I seem to be in complete syncronization here. Maybe we should find a scotch doubles tournament somewhere to enter.

On page 133 of Capelle's 'A Mind for Pool' he lists 19 different definitions for Dead Stroke. I'm not going to enter that list here, not so much for fear of copyright infringement, but because I'm verbose enough without having to use someone else's words.

Of the 19 definitions listed, about 12 of them directly describe the FP style of play when it's going well. The other 7 are ambiguous and could apply to FPs and MPs equally. On page 134 the very first suggestion listed for getting into dead stroke is about as anti-MP and pro-FP as you can get.

Perhaps we could differentiate MPs and FPs like this: An MP is constantly striving to play their best, hoping for Dead Stroke, while an FP is constantly striving for (and expecting) Dead Stroke.

Think about it, you MPs who've experienced Dead Stroke. Did you maintain the same level of intensity, or did you "let go" a little bit and fall into a more FP style of play? I can guarantee that FPs who drop into Dead Stroke don't suddenly start analyzing everything.

Ron Shepard wrote:
> When things are working right, you can maintain mental focus
> for hours at a time. Mental exhaustion is not the main problem.

That's when things are working right, but what about when things aren't going so well? Say you're behind in a match and you know you just HAVE to run out to win. Does that force you to concentrate extra hard - even beyond the level you concentrate at when you're in stroke? I guess that's the scenario I was imagining would be mentally exhausting. Sure you feel great if you pull out the match, but can you jump right into another match with the same intensity? Also, what happens when, despite your best efforts, you fail in one of these pressure situations? That can be a pretty hard blow for the ego to take, having all that responsibility then falling short. How do you rebound from situations like that?

I've tried to play as an MP in the past myself, and maintaining that level of intensity proved to be nearly imposssible for me. Of course I also have the attention span of a three year old at a candy convention.