Distance between bridge hand and cue ball

[cazmac1]

I've been watching video's on you tube to see if I can find anyone who plays in a similar way. I found two players that play with quite a large bend in the bridge arm and at the same time shorten the cue by not holding the cue at the end whilst keeping the over hang short for most shots. Now you’re going to be surprised and most probably won't believe me when I say that Steve Davis and Alex Higgins both have this in common.
The thing with Alex is that as with every thing he did, he did to extreme so he holds the cue right up the butt and on some shots the bridge overhang is really short. These are two of the best players ever to pick up a cue and I think there is a lot that can be learned from these two. Now this might seem outrageous but I am contemplating modelling my self on Higgins. Not because I want to copy his style but because I think I already have elements of his style in my game. It's when I ignore my natural game and try to play a more orthodox that my game goes out the window. I think the reality is I will most likely settle on my own style with some elements of Davis and Higgins combined. Now there a combination that you never thought you’d see anyone suggest. One thing for sure is that it has to be more fun trying to play like Higgins even if I do lose (no change there then)
Look forward to your comments.

[old school]

On a 6 x 3 or 7 x 4 table,English pool, do you really need a long bridge.Due to the compact nature of the game owing to the fact that early in a frame there may not be a lot of space on the table between the balls,a long bridge may not be possible.A chinese snooker will not allow a long bridge.I do not think that a long bridge on an "english" table is essential either,power is not essential if the bed or table is only 6 or 7 ft.Precision and position,without too much power, due to the "cluttered" nature of a small bed is more important to me.My bridge on an open table rarely exceeds 7".

[cazmac1]

I think you got me wrong here. I only play snooker and only on a full size table. By your reply I think the purpose of the post has been lost on you.
I posted on this thread as due to the subject matter and was not aware that is was aimed at the pool player.

[cazmac1]

Just read the original post and can see no mention of pool

[nrage]

So in effect you are saying that any other cue sports players other than those playing snooker are technically superior than professional snooker players? Get a grip!

This is why I said between 9 and 12 inches for the majority of shots, it will depend on the type of shot you are playing. A slow rolled pot or anything just requiring the minimum of power and you can shorten the length to 8-9 inches, the follow through doesn't have to go through so far. However most shots on a snooker table require medium paced shots, including any stun, screw or top spin shots. This requires a slightly longer bridge and follow through, any coach will tell you this, including myself!

You maybe confusing the different types of techniques players use as well. Some players like to pull their cue right back to the 'v' on their bridge hand, Mark Selby is a good example of this, O'Sullivan too pulls the cue quite far back before release. This is down to the individual, there is no right or wrong but there are pros and cons to a short and long bridge as I mentioned earlier.

IMO you're both right. It all depends how you look at it, and where you draw the line of cause and effect.

A long bridge by itself wont get the cue tip further through the white than a short bridge, it's not physically possible. The distance between your grip hand and chest is the maximum amount you can extend your cue, and therefore the maximum amount you can get through the white. A longer bridge can in fact shorten this distance, think of a shot where you're stretching; your bridge is huge and your grip hand is closer to your chest.

What a long bridge gives you is a longer distance to accelerate the cue (assuming you pull it back all the way), meaning a higher top speed, meaning that even if you pull/snatch/jab the shot (instead of driving into your chest) you are likely to get further through the white before doing so (because you literally cannot stop the cue as quickly when it's going faster). So, the end result may be that you get a small amount further through the white, but the real cause of that is the speed of the cue action. You can argue the longer bridge causes the speed, but that makes it an indirect cause (thus my comment about where you draw the line of cause/effect earlier).

You can generate screw with 2 things, tip speed and getting through the white. They both add to screw and the maximum amount you can generate is based on the best you can do in these two departments at the same time. So, a really fast shot which does not go very far through the white will generate the same screw as a softer shot which goes further through the white. Of course it's more complex than that when you take into account the distance between the balls and how backspin degrades over distance due to friction etc but the basic idea that they both add to screw is still correct.

So, if by lengthening your cue action you get more screw, then you may be getting a fraction further through the white, but the tip speed is probably having more effect. A real test of your cueing is to generate the same screw (over short distances) with softer shots. If you can do that then you can be sure you're getting well through the white.

Try this.. shorten your bridge (without moving your grip hand from it's normal position) and play a softer shot, really concentrate on driving the hand to the chest.. you should in fact generate more screw.. and the reason for this is the shorter bridge, it results in your grip hand at address position being further from your chest (backward of vertical - if your normal address position has a vertical forearm), lengthening the amount of extension you have, and giving you more cue through the white.

[Terry Davidson]

I think it's time for a little theory on this one. The standard taught length of cue from the 'V' of the bridge to the cueball (for the 'ideal' technique) is 9" to 12" or 22.5cm to 30cm.

This length can be adjusted for shots where the object ball is close to the cueball or (of course) playing off the cushion.

The reasoning is this...a player will use for aiming purposes the length of cue from the 'V' to the cueball as that's in his peripheral vision when he is looking at the cueball and just barely in his peripheral vision when looking at the object ball.

Much like the difference between a piston and a rifle, the longer length of bridge assists is aiming, especially for long pots however it detracts from cue control in that any sideways movement in the butt of the cue would mean greater movement of the tip sideways in a player who has 14" hanging out there.

It also has to do with player height and arm length and perhaps even vision will come into it a bit. I recommend an ALMOST straight bridge arm which takes 10% of the body weight on the left elbow and this entails having a cue length from the bridge 'V' of somewhere between 9" to 12" and for most players it's right around 10"-11".

For a short person with shorter arms it would be closer to 9".

When the object ball is close to the cueball however it might be only 5" or 6" and I've also found when in the balls and trying to play very precise position choking up on the cue and shorting that cue length also helps for better control, especially on new cloths which have a 'slippery' feel

Terry

[old school]

Hi Caz,the purpose of the post has not been lost on me.Bridge length varies so much between players and even body proportions affect it.I am 5ft 10.5 " but my wingspan is over 6 ft.I play with a straight ( or near straight) bridge arm.I play with cues of 52" (bridge at 6.5") right up to 59.25" (bridge at 9").I have played snooker,billiards,bar billiards,American and English pool.At the moment I am concentrating on English pool but bridge length to me is about what is "comfortable" and appropriate for the given circumstances on the table.I believe that Terry Davidson had a thread connected to bridge length and others have contributed as regards anatomical measurements and data related to bridge length and arm shape and position.Personally I say,go with what is comfortable and works for you.Tery must have been typing at the same time as myself,psychic or what.

[cazmac1]

Terry and old school thanks for both of your replys. I just got back from the club and have been putting into practice what I've mentioned I did not set the table on fire but had a good game, and had a 55, 48 and a 57 which should have been a lot more only I over ran my positional shot on the pink and had to take a long blue which rattled. I think I can take a lot of positives from todays game and will continue to work on this for now.
What I did to get the correct place to grip the cue was put a white sticker on the cue 9inch from the tip I then got down as if to play a shot holding the end of my cue but with no balls on the table, I then move the cue backwards until the white sticker was in the v of my bridge hand. I was surprised actually how far up I have to grip the cue in order to maintain the correct body shape to keep the cue on the line of aim and have only 9inch overhang.
I now I have the standard grip for most shots I can now juggle it around a bit and see what works best.

[old school]

Hegeland I personally would agree with your proposition with regards to a shorter bridge, in certain circumstances. A snooker ball is 2 1/16" an English pool ball is 1 7/8".A snooker ball has more mass and therefore may require a different approach than for pool.A 6x3 table is roughly 1/4 the size of a 12x6 snooker table.A lighter ball and a smaller playing surface should mean precision and accuracy instead of power and "forcing" either angles or pots.A shorter bridge should be an advantage in these circumstances, cueing of the cue ball is more accurate. I understand a slightly longer bridge is useful on a snooker table,but as 9" is ,to me, a long bridge,the idea of 14" past your bridge is alien to me.You have to be more careful with accurate striking of the cueball with a long bridge,because of unwanted side movement of the tip.I think a bridge and playing stance that you can instantly relax into without thinking and that you are comfortable with,as long as that is consistent will make you a better player.Play and pot,dont overthink for the sake of it,it will drive you mad.

[cazmac1]

Hegeland I personally would agree with your proposition with regards to a shorter bridge, in certain circumstances. A snooker ball is 2 1/16" an English pool ball is 1 7/8".A snooker ball has more mass and therefore may require a different approach than for pool.A 6x3 table is roughly 1/4 the size of a 12x6 snooker table.A lighter ball and a smaller playing surface should mean precision and accuracy instead of power and "forcing" either angles or pots.A shorter bridge should be an advantage in these circumstances, cueing of the cue ball is more accurate. I understand a slightly longer bridge is useful on a snooker table,but as 9" is ,to me, a long bridge,the idea of 14" past your bridge is alien to me.You have to be more careful with accurate striking of the cueball with a long bridge,because of unwanted side movement of the tip.I think a bridge and playing stance that you can instantly relax into without thinking and that you are comfortable with,as long as that is consistent will make you a better player.Play and pot,dont overthink for the sake of it,it will drive you mad.

I agree with every thing the you've said and agree that comfort is very importent above all else, which is what I'm trying to achive but my thinking was flawed in that I thought I had to have a long bridge in order to achive this, now I can see that I was wrong and am convince once this becomes second nature that my potting will become more consistent. I think part of my problem was that when I played my best snooker I was only 20, I think at that age you can get away with being slightly technically flawed, but as age sets in you can't aford these luxuries and have to give yourself every opertunity to play good snooker.

[nrage]

I agree with every thing the you've said and agree that comfort is very importent above all else, which is what I'm trying to achive but my thinking was flawed in that I thought I had to have a long bridge in order to achive this, now I can see that I was wrong and am convince once this becomes second nature that my potting will become more consistent. I think part of my problem was that when I played my best snooker I was only 20, I think at that age you can get away with being slightly technically flawed, but as age sets in you can't aford these luxuries and have to give yourself every opertunity to play good snooker.

Yep, as Terry frequently mentions; some younger players 'get away with' a cue action that relies on perfect timing to get the tip back on line during a stroke. And they do have that timing, now .. but when they get older they may start to lose that timing. Ultimately, if you can develop a cue action that does not rely on timing to get the cue tip on line, then you're better off - no matter how old you are. In fact, it's better to learn it from the start if you can.

Comfort is definitely important, if you're not comfortable then you're probably putting some part of your body under stress, which means you're constantly pushing it into that position and it is constantly pushing back. Basically you're in a balancing act, and any imbalance in forces results in movement.

[Timbo]

I would say if you were playing this sort of shot, bridging over... about 3 inches for me, but the closer the better... for more accuracy in the pot!