PDA

View Full Version : Do you jack up to get more draw?


dr_dave
05-18-2009, 06:07 AM
As a follow-up to the thread dealing with draw shot cue elevation effects (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142640), I am hoping to get a feel for how many people think jacking up the cue helps create more draw on straight-in shots, even when the cue elevation isn't required (for example, to clear over an obstacle ball).

Thanks,
Dave

CreeDo
05-18-2009, 11:19 AM
haha, so basically... a quiz to see if we read or paid attention to the results post? Will this be on the final exam?

Looks like the forum members here are too smart to jack up. I have heard it repeated often in pool halls and bars though.

dr_dave
05-18-2009, 11:25 AM
haha, so basically... a quiz to see if we read or paid attention to the results post? Will this be on the final exam?

Looks like the forum members here are too smart to jack up. I have heard it repeated often in pool halls and bars though.I've also heard it a lot (for example: "If you jack up on the draw shot, you'll get more snap."). That's why I was hoping some people who believe this would try to suggest possible reasons.

Regards,
Dave

PS: It will be on the exam. ;)

eezbank
05-18-2009, 11:46 AM
I've also heard it a lot (for example: "If you jack up on the draw shot, you'll get more snap."). That's why I was hoping some people who believe this would try to suggest possible reasons.

Regards,
Dave

PS: It will be on the exam. ;)
Jimmy Reid in his no time for negative series says you should jack up slightly. I can't remember what his reason was. My guess would be that a skipping ball will lose less reverse spin at a greater distance. After looking at your poll I'm guessing Jimmy may be wrong:duck:

stormshadow1
05-18-2009, 12:08 PM
Jacking up does not help at all.This is a myth.:thumbup:

Monstermash
05-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Jacking up does not help at all.This is a myth.:thumbup:

Exactly. You want to keep your cue as level as possible whenever you can.

eezbank
05-18-2009, 12:22 PM
Most guys that can draw two lengths or more use a technique similar to Chris in this video. I hope Dr Dave will post another slow motion video with the level cue technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqCPqYJ30zo

9-ball-fever
05-18-2009, 12:41 PM
Yes, Jacking the cue up is a myth if you think you will get more screw back. As leval as possible, and a loose grip you should get heaps of Screw! :)

tjlmbklr
05-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I voted no..but I really lessen my chances of a skip under the CB (miscue) if I do jack up. Of course this is just issues with my stroke not a testament that draw is easier to achiev with a jacked up cue.

Schmohawk
05-18-2009, 12:52 PM
When i first started playing, I paid strict attention to the level cue advice and couldn't draw at all. Then one day this good player told me to raise the butt "'just a little". I did and i finally started drawing the ball. FWIW.

tjlmbklr
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Jimmy Reid in his no time for negative series says you should jack up slightly. I can't remember what his reason was. My guess would be that a skipping ball will lose less reverse spin at a greater distance. After looking at your poll I'm guessing Jimmy may be wrong:duck:

Not sure how old that instructional tape/DVD is but I recall Robert Byrnes saying you want a shaft on you cue as stiff as possible and a very hard tip...things change! ;)

dr_dave
05-18-2009, 01:33 PM
When i first started playing, I paid strict attention to the level cue advice and couldn't draw at all. Then one day this good player told me to raise the butt "'just a little". I did and i finally started drawing the ball. FWIW.Can you or others offer some suggestions as to why this might have helped you? Also, do you still prefer jacking up a little? Do you do this on just draw shots?

Thanks,
Dave

B-Rod
05-18-2009, 01:35 PM
As a follow-up to the thread dealing with draw shot cue elevation effects (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142640), I am hoping to get a feel for how many people think jacking up the cue helps create more draw on straight-in shots, even when the cue elevation isn't required (for example, to clear over an obstacle ball).

Thanks,
Dave

no the purer the stroke with a level cue the better snap you will get

dr_dave
05-18-2009, 01:59 PM
no the purer the stroke with a level cue the better snap you will getI agree, and that's what my analysis showed, but I want to hear what the "other camp" thinks are possible reasons for why a jacked-up cue might help some people get better draw.

Thanks,
Dave

joeboxer
05-18-2009, 02:01 PM
Definately a level cue for drawing the cue ball.

The only times "jacking the cue up" and "draw" go together is on the jump draw shot or if your cue ball is too close to a rail and you have to jack it up.

JXMIKE
05-18-2009, 02:11 PM
Level cue, follow through.

words to live by.

i only jack up when im on the rail and using follow is not an option.

IA8baller
05-18-2009, 02:36 PM
I only jack up a little because I'm married ;) ......... oh wait :confused: ......... nevermind. :o

DogsPlayingPool
05-18-2009, 02:38 PM
Jacking up when drawing the cue ball has one advantage: it will help you miss more shots ;).

TXsouthpaw
05-18-2009, 03:12 PM
depends on what you mean by medium

lee brett
05-18-2009, 03:29 PM
As a follow-up to the thread dealing with draw shot cue elevation effects (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142640), I am hoping to get a feel for how many people think jacking up the cue helps create more draw on straight-in shots, even when the cue elevation isn't required (for example, to clear over an obstacle ball).

Thanks,
Dave

dr dave i am snooker coach from england now living in toronto,
i coach people to have an up to down cue action, this is 1 of the main reasons for having more cue power, i can draw a cueball 30 foot on a snooker table, this technique enables this.

CreeDo
05-18-2009, 04:05 PM
Well, maybe it's true that for mega draw, you can jack up a bit and get the cue ball airborne, so that it doesn't lose as much backspin from sliding across the cloth. This might increase the amount of draw you get if you plan on drawing the cue ball 20 miles (think of a breakshot). But for medium distance shots, the stroke you use isn't forceful enough to pop the cue ball into the air so it's gonna still slide and lose some backspin. So jacking up won't help.

And even in the first example it might not help.. some of the spin you gain from being airborne will be lost by the fact that jacking up and striking downwards a bit will drive the ball into the cloth harder, killing off some of the initial backspin.

dr_dave
05-18-2009, 08:11 PM
depends on what you mean by mediumOK ... replace "medium" with any word you want and explain why you think "jacking up" helps with the draw action.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 05:57 AM
dr dave i am snooker coach from england now living in toronto,
i coach people to have an up to down cue action, this is 1 of the main reasons for having more cue power, i can draw a cueball 30 foot on a snooker table, this technique enables this.Could you describe "up and down cue action" some more? Is the elbow moving up and down much? I know people can generate more power by involving the shoulder, but not everybody can control this well.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 06:03 AM
Well, maybe it's true that for mega draw, you can jack up a bit and get the cue ball airborne, so that it doesn't lose as much backspin from sliding across the cloth. This might increase the amount of draw you get if you plan on drawing the cue ball 20 miles (think of a breakshot).Actually, my analysis suggests that a near-level cue is always better for maximum spin (when elevation is not required to clear a ball or rail or to prevent a double hit), regardless of the shot distance and speed.

But for medium distance shots, the stroke you use isn't forceful enough to pop the cue ball into the air so it's gonna still slide and lose some backspin. So jacking up won't help.Actually, it is quite easy to get the CB airborne with very little elevation. With small elevations, the CB doesn't go very high, but it is leaving the cloth and taking small hops on the way to the OB.

And even in the first example it might not help.. some of the spin you gain from being airborne will be lost by the fact that jacking up and striking downwards a bit will drive the ball into the cloth harder, killing off some of the initial backspin.Exactly!!!

Regards,
Dave

PS: I think you need a little bit more studying before that "exam."

poolfoole
05-19-2009, 06:45 AM
As a follow-up to the thread dealing with draw shot cue elevation effects (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142640), I am hoping to get a feel for how many people think jacking up the cue helps create more draw on straight-in shots, even when the cue elevation isn't required (for example, to clear over an obstacle ball).

Thanks,
Dave

The only shot I can think of where jacking up would actually create more draw would be when the cue ball is frozen on the rail. Then, you'd have to jack up. For every other draw shot, jacking up would be a detriment.

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 07:14 AM
The only shot I can think of where jacking up would actually create more draw would be when the cue ball is frozen on the rail. Then, you'd have to jack up. For every other draw shot, jacking up would be a detriment.... or to clear over an obstacle ball, or to prevent a double hit when the OB is close. However, I am excluding these cases. My question concerns jacking up when you don't need to.

Regards,
Dave

ShootingArts
05-19-2009, 07:27 AM
I agree, and that's what my analysis showed, but I want to hear what the "other camp" thinks are possible reasons for why a jacked-up cue might help some people get better draw.

Thanks,
Dave

Dave,

I haven't read all of this thread, been avoiding posting in it to be honest, no time for long discussions right now. I do jack up my cue sometimes for other reasons than simply blocking balls or a rail behind the cue ball. I'm not sure I want to discuss these reasons, an old dog has to keep a few tricks to himself.

However, a few things should be addressed. "Level cue" means different things to different people. I note many of the older advocates of a "level cue", Ray Martin for example, actually shoot with the rear of their cue jacked up three or four inches higher than it needs to be for clearance in some photo's. Obviously "level" is relative.

To address your question in this post, some people do draw better jacked up for a simple reason, the direction of force applied to the cue ball. They are uneasy getting as far out on the cue ball as needed with a level cue but by hitting slightly closer to the center at an angle they are getting the same effect as hitting further out while remaining in their comfort zone.

There may be a bit of masse effect actually permitting slightly more draw with a downward stroke than you can get with a level cue or there may be different effective coefficients of friction with the different angles of the hit on the cue ball making the level cue or raised cue more effective. I think that maximum draw effect will be very close to equal with either one until masse does come into play but I'm not interested in testing something that I suspect boils down to splitting hairs. The truth is that I very rarely have need for monster draw. I'm an old school "draw for show, follow for dough" kind of guy.

Hu

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 07:41 AM
I do jack up my cue sometimes for other reasons than simply blocking balls or a rail behind the cue ball. I'm not sure I want to discuss these reasons, an old dog has to keep a few tricks to himself. Actually, one reasons is to get "quick draw" when there is a cut angle (see my June '09 article for more info and examples ... it should be out soon); but with a straight shot, I can't think of any examples where it is advisable to jack up when jacking up is not required.

some people do draw better jacked up for a simple reason, the direction of force applied to the cue ball. They are uneasy getting as far out on the cue ball as needed with a level cue but by hitting slightly closer to the center at an angle they are getting the same effect as hitting further out while remaining in their comfort zone.That's a good point. I actually have an illustration showing this in my July '09 article, which I'm working on now.

There may be a bit of masse effect actually permitting slightly more draw with a downward stroke than you can get with a level cue or there may be different effective coefficients of friction with the different angles of the hit on the cue ball making the level cue or raised cue more effective. I think that maximum draw effect will be very close to equal with either one until masse does come into playCheck out:

HSV B.44 - cloth compression and cue ball trajectory for draw shots of various elevations (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-44.htm)

I don't think there is any masse "trapping" effect with modest jacking.

The truth is that I very rarely have need for monster draw. I'm an old school "draw for show, follow for dough" kind of guy.I'm with you on this one.

Regards,
Dave

Patrick Johnson
05-19-2009, 07:54 AM
Dave:
...with a straight shot, I can't think of any examples where it is advisable to jack up when jacking up is not required [to bridge over an obstruction].

I can think of two kinds of shots:

1. when OB travel must be minimized, as in some safety plays or 1 pocket shots.
2. when the CB must travel sideways after straight-on contact (after-collision masse).

pj
chgo

ShootingArts
05-19-2009, 07:55 AM
(1) Actually, one reasons is to get "quick draw" when there is a cut angle (see my June '09 article for more info and examples ... it should be out soon); but with a straight shot, I can't think of any examples where it is advisable to jack up when jacking up is not required.


(2) I don't think there is any masse "trapping" effect with modest jacking.

(3) I'm with you on this one.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

Testing numbering sections to see if it maintains clarity with less work than working with quotes the way I usually do.

(1) I find another reason for jacking up on straight in shots that has nothing to do with maximum draw.

(2) I simply don't have an answer to this. It seems there has to be some, enough to have any practical effect is what I don't have the answer to.

(3) We are rarely in disagreement on things.

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 08:04 AM
I can think of two kinds of shots:

1. when OB travel must be minimized, as in some safety plays or 1 pocket shots.
2. when the CB must travel sideways after straight-on contact (after-collision masse).Good examples! Another example for your category "1." is to increase the effective "size" of the pocket by having less OB speed.

If people want to see good examples of after-collision masse shots, I have links to some video demos here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/masse.html#after

Regards,
Dave

PS: My intent was to limit the question and discussion to a plain draw shot, where your only concern is to bring the CB straight back a certain distance with the least effort and most control. But thank you for mentioning the other interesting examples.

ShootingArts
05-19-2009, 08:11 AM
I can think of two kinds of shots:

1. when OB travel must be minimized, as in some safety plays or 1 pocket shots.
2. when the CB must travel sideways after straight-on contact (after-collision masse).

pj
chgo

pj,

Touch,(controlling cue ball forward speed) and getting the cue ball spinning as soon as possible are two reasons I jack up sometimes. Another reason is that sometimes I like the view better from up there! :D

Hu

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 08:14 AM
...getting the cue ball spinning as soon as possible...Could you give an example where this is important? Do mean avoiding a double hit when there is a small gap between the CB and OB?

Thanks,
Dave

Patrick Johnson
05-19-2009, 08:20 AM
Good examples! Another example for your category "1." is to increase the effective "size" of the pocket by having less OB speed.

And yet a third category is when you need the CB to hop, such as when you're trying to hop the OB. Obscure, but true.

If people want to see good examples of after-collision masse shots, I have links to some video demos here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/masse.html#after

You never come empty-handed...

Regards,
Dave

PS: My intent was to limit the question and discussion to a plain draw shot, where your only concern is to bring the CB straight back a certain distance with the least effort and most control. But thank you for mentioning the other interesting examples.

Sorry for the digression, but I have to take my opportunities for spreading info wherever I find them. As a fellow info-spreader, I was sure you'd understand (and participate).

pj
chgo

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 08:26 AM
And yet a third category is when you need the CB to hop, such as when you're trying to hop the OB. Obscure, but true.HSV B.4 - object ball jump shot (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-4.htm) ;)

Sorry for the digression, but I have to take my opportunities for spreading info wherever I find them. As a fellow info-spreader, I was sure you'd understand (and participate).No worries. I was just trying to keep things simple and to the point so the "jack up for more snap" camp could explain their rationale for getting more straight-back draw by elevating.

Regards,
Dave

jay helfert
05-19-2009, 08:29 AM
For more draw, hit lower on the cue ball, and aim for center ball. A nice firm LEVEL stroke will achieve the best results. You'd be surprised how low you can contact the cue ball, as long as you aim for the center axis. The lower you go, the more you will draw the ball. It's that simple.

Patrick Johnson
05-19-2009, 08:37 AM
I can think of two kinds of shots:

1. when OB travel must be minimized, as in some safety plays or 1 pocket shots.
2. when the CB must travel sideways after straight-on contact (after-collision masse).

pj
chgo

pj,

Touch,(controlling cue ball forward speed) and getting the cue ball spinning as soon as possible are two reasons I jack up sometimes. Another reason is that sometimes I like the view better from up there!

Hu

I was hoping some examples would make you spill the beans. :)

I also jack up sometimes when the CB is close to the OB and there's a danger of a double hit if I stroke forward. Seems to be no end of examples... [but none "to get more draw"].

pj
chgo

Richardson
05-19-2009, 08:39 AM
Jacking up is a good way to lose control of where the ball is going, or simply miss because you are not lined up right.

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 08:44 AM
For more draw, hit lower on the cue ball, and aim for center ball. A nice firm LEVEL stroke will achieve the best results. You'd be surprised how low you can contact the cue ball, as long as you aim for the center axis.Sounds good to me.

The lower you go, the more you will draw the ball. It's that simple.This is true in general, but not for long power-draw shots (see item 3 here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/draw.html#physics)). Also, people don't want to go so low that they risk miscuing.

Also, the more speed the cue has at impact (for a given tip offset below center), the more you will draw the ball. That's always true.

Regards,
Dave

td873
05-19-2009, 09:06 AM
HSV B.4 - object ball jump shot (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-4.htm) ;)

No worries. I was just trying to keep things simple and to the point so the "jack up for more snap" camp could explain their rationale for getting more straight-back draw by elevating.

Regards,
Dave
Mathematics and computer programs aside, for me in actual application, a slightly elevated cue (very slight, but definitely not level) produces the best results for power draw (i.e., sheer distance). For my stroke, this is also true even when using a little left or right english (again, for power draw). For precision draw, level has more predictable results.

Also, in reality, I find that most people have a slightly elevated cue despite their belief they are level.

One point to ponder: although your calculations indicate some loss of velocity due to the cue ball contacting the table when skipping, isn't it possible to have a net increase in spin/speed ratio if you can contact the object ball before the cue ball's second table contact (when the cue ball is on a downward trajectory). Thus, where spin reduction due to tip offset is negligible, there can be (substantial?) gains in relative spin loss since there is no loss due to drag.

Here is an experiment that everyone can try to verify if they actually shoot level AND if level is actually better for them:

1) put the cue ball 2 diamond from the pocket.
2) put the cue ball by the side pocket (around 3 diamonds away).
3) both balls are close to the side rail that facilitates draw for your shooting hand (right/left)
4) shoot a number of level power draw shots (say 5 or 10). Go for a record distance, like 15 diamonds of straight draw. Keep track of your results.
5) put a few dimes on the table in line with the shot (2 or 3 or 10) - but put the first one about 9-12 inches away from the cue ball.
6) shoot the same shot again - still going for a draw record.
7a) you should hit the first dime EVERY TIME if you shoot level. [you might launch the cue ball over the rail, so don't shoot towards a window]
7b) if you don't hit the dime - you actually have some angle on your cue.
8a) if you do hit the first dime, elevate ever-so-slightly so you avoid hitting any of the dimes. The key is getting the lowest elevation that allows you to "skip" the dimes.
9) note your results.
[you may surprise yourself and skip all the dimes - every time]

For me, I net between an extra diamond or 2 [sometimes a bit more] with the slight elevation. Again, we're not talking light draw shots, but super whammy shots.

Even more enlightening for my students is missing the first dime when they thought you were shooting level.

-td

http://CueTable.com/P/?@2AWXS3PVgj3qSUIAbout_3_Diamonds&ZZ3raOQDimes&.__.___.___.____.____.__&&ZZ@

Android
05-19-2009, 09:10 AM
In the other thread about draw it was stated that the max draw occurs with an 80% tip offset (with 100% being a miscue).
My theory is that by jacking up people are more comfortable or concentrate more on where they are striking the ball and getting closer to that 80%.
What we would need to see is someone who can draw the ball well with a jacked up cue and poorly with a level cue to determine where they are hitting the ball in each instance. My bet is that they do not hit the ball where they think they are with a level cue.


Andy

td873
05-19-2009, 09:15 AM
Do you jack up to get more draw?
2 other things that I failed to previously note:
1) The term "jacking up" actually connotes something different than intended (i.e., substantial angle vs. slight elevation). It is possible, and often required (see #2), to elevate the WITHOUT being jacked up.
2) Due to the physical constraints, there are only a few shots on the table where a level cue is even possible.

-td

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 09:34 AM
I find that most people have a slightly elevated cue despite their belief they are level.By "level cue," I think most people mean "as level as possible" or "near level" or "no added elevation." Are you saying "most people" add unnecessary cue elevation without being aware of it? I have certainly seen this with novice players, especially with draw shots.

One point to ponder: although your calculations indicate some loss of velocity due to the cue ball contacting the table when skipping, isn't it possible to have a net increase in spin/speed ratio if you can contact the object ball before the cue ball's second table contact (when the cue ball is on a downward trajectory). Thus, where spin reduction due to tip offset is negligible, there can be (substantial?) gains in relative spin loss since there is no loss due to drag.You make a good point. The amount of spin is affected by each bounce, so depending on whether or not the CB takes its last bounce just before the OB does make a difference (see the example numbers at the bottom of page 6 in TP B.10 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_B-10.pdf) if you are interested); but even with this effect taken into consideration, a near-level cue (with no CB hopping) still comes out on top (based on the physics).

Here is an experiment that everyone can try to verify if they actually shoot level AND if level is actually better for them:

1) put the cue ball 2 diamond from the pocket.
2) put the cue ball by the side pocket (around 3 diamonds away).
3) both balls are close to the side rail that facilitates draw for your shooting hand (right/left)
4) shoot a number of level power draw shots (say 5 or 10). Go for a record distance, like 15 diamonds of straight draw. Keep track of your results.
5) put a few dimes on the table in line with the shot (2 or 3 or 10) - but put the first one about 9-12 inches away from the cue ball.
6) shoot the same shot again - still going for a draw record.
7a) you should hit the first dime EVERY TIME if you shoot level. [you might launch the cue ball over the rail, so don't shoot towards a window]
7b) if you don't hit the dime - you actually have some angle on your cue.
8a) if you do hit the first dime, elevate ever-so-slightly so you avoid hitting any of the dimes. The key is getting the lowest elevation that allows you to "skip" the dimes.
9) note your results.
[you may surprise yourself and skip all the dimes - every time]That's a good experiment. I hope people try it out. I will. FYI, I have a super-slow-motion clip of coin skipping here:

HSV B.13 - level cue follow shot hop over stacks of coins (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-13.htm)

The effect can be even more surprising with a follow shot, where the cue can be more level.

For me, I net between an extra diamond or 2 [sometimes a bit more] with the slight elevation. Again, we're not talking light draw shots, but super whammy shots.I think it is important to use a marked ball (e.g., a Jim Rempe ball or a striped ball), and to tilt the ball with cue elevation so the chalk mark will indicate the actual tip offset for each shot. It is also important to look at the chalk mark after each shot to see exactly where you hit the ball. Some people might be getting a slightly different tip offset when they elevate slightly (without knowing it). Also, some people might be generating more cue speed when they elevate, but it is difficult to tell without a radar gun or high-speed camera.

Thank you for your ideas and experiment,
Dave

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 09:37 AM
In the other thread about draw it was stated that the max draw occurs with an 80% tip offset (with 100% being a miscue).
My theory is that by jacking up people are more comfortable or concentrate more on where they are striking the ball and getting closer to that 80%.
What we would need to see is someone who can draw the ball well with a jacked up cue and poorly with a level cue to determine where they are hitting the ball in each instance. My bet is that they do not hit the ball where they think they are with a level cue.You make some excellent points!

Thanks,
Dave

td873
05-19-2009, 09:45 AM
By "level cue," I think most people mean "as level as possible" or "near level" or "no added elevation." Are you saying "most people" add unnecessary cue elevation without being aware of it? I have certainly seen this with novice players, especially with draw shots.

Thank you for your ideas and experiment,
Dave
Added elevation may actually be the KEY to super-extreme draw. By added, maybe 3-5 degrees. This appears to be the difference between getting normal draw vs extreme draw.

To illustrate my point, the draw guru uses ADDED elevation (a few inches higher than the rail) when executing his super-extreme draw shots. Although he is the exception and not the rule, perhaps the extra angle is the missing link the "collective" has written off?

-td

Me shooting Cory's super draw shot:
96691

From Mike's Youtube "how to":
96687

96688

96689

96690

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 09:47 AM
2 other things that I failed to previously note:
1) The term "jacking up" actually connotes something different than intended (i.e., substantial angle vs. slight elevation). It is possible, and often required (see #2), to elevate the WITHOUT being jacked up.
2) Due to the physical constraints, there are only a few shots on the table where a level cue is even possible.Good points. A purely "level" (perfectly horizontal) cue is not possible with most pool shots. A level cue is even tougher with a draw shot, because the tip is lower than with a follow or center-ball shot.

However, the point is whether or not a player is adding extra elevation (beyond what is required), and whether or not the extra elevation helps or hurts, and why.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 10:03 AM
Thank you for posting those great photos. I think there might be several plausible reasons why elevating might help some people achieve better power draw. Some explanations have been suggested already. Also, some people might be able to generate more power with a slightly more upright stance and slight cue elevation. Also, the elevation might help some people create a safer amount of clearance for the grip hand over a rail or the table (especially with people that drop their elbow significantly with a power draw ... like Mike Massey). There could also be other reasons for other people.

The physics analysis and results are useful (and sometimes enlightening), but they don't always tell the whole story. That's why I like posting stuff here. The more perspectives, the better.

Regards,
Dave

Added elevation may actually be the KEY to super-extreme draw. By added, maybe 3-5 degrees. This appears to be the difference between getting normal draw vs extreme draw.

To illustrate my point, the draw guru uses ADDED elevation (a few inches higher than the rail) when executing his super-extreme draw shots. Although he is the exception and not the rule, perhaps the extra angle is the missing link the "collective" has written off?

-td

Me shooting Cory's super draw shot:
96691

From Mike's Youtube "how to":
96687

96688

96689

96690

td873
05-19-2009, 10:08 AM
a near-level cue (with no CB hopping) still comes out on top (based on the physics).
Dave
What about a cue ball that does not skip at all, but hits the object ball "on the fly?" ;)

Seriously, a substantially level cue (with a few degrees of elevation may actually result in a "floating" cue ball that is not in full contact with the cloth, thus reducing the rate of spin loss. That is, the ball may be slightly hovering above the cloth apparently in contact with it, but only slightly so - and imperceptible to the eye. Thus, there would be less reduction in rotation since the entire mass of the cue ball would not be pressing on the cloth the entire time, but it would appear to be. Just another thougth to ponder.

With this in mind, perhaps there are still a few variables that can affect the maximum draw result that haven't been taken into account.

I'm sure you understand that my comments are only intended to facilitate a broader discussion on this topic. And, as always, your efforts in this field are greatly appreciated!

-td

td873
05-19-2009, 10:24 AM
With this in mind, perhaps there are still a few variables that can affect the maximum draw result that haven't been taken into account.

I just had another thought:

Watch a bunch of super draw videos (Mike, Cory, Efren, ChrisCapp, etc) and you will notice a very peculiar thing - they all use a very similar angle for super-draw: which equals the natural angle the stick would have at about 2 diamonds out from the end rail. That is, if you put the cue ball about 2 diamonds out from the end rail the stick will have a particular angle. This (or close to it) is the preferred angle for mega-draw shots, even when the cue ball is more than 2 diamonds from the rail.

Maybe this is the starting point for further analysis: comparing actual angles used by the super draw gurus and then determining why their experience dictates that angle. Perhaps there is a direct correlation between that angle and the desired results.

Just another thought.

-td

dr_dave
05-19-2009, 10:39 AM
What about a cue ball that does not skip at all, but hits the object ball "on the fly?" ;)Actually, this is possible after the first hop resulting from the tip driving the CB ball down initially; but, again, the amount of spin lost on the bounce outweighs the amount that would be lost with less elevation (and multiple "delicate" bounces or just sliding).

It could be possible to have no bounce at all with a typical "near-level" cue elevation and a really "squirty" (large CB deflection) cue, but this is just being silly. ;)

Seriously, a substantially level cue (with a few degrees of elevation may actually result in a "floating" cue ball that is not in full contact with the cloth, thus reducing the rate of spin loss. That is, the ball may be slightly hovering above the cloth apparently in contact with it, but only slightly so - and imperceptible to the eye. Thus, there would be less reduction in rotation since the entire mass of the cue ball would not be pressing on the cloth the entire time, but it would appear to be. Just another thougth to ponder.FYI, my analysis does cover all cases from pure sliding to delicate skipping, to hard bouncing. The conclusion is still: for maximum straight-back draw, the less elevation ... the better, assuming the cue speed and tip offset are the same in all comparisons.

With this in mind, perhaps there are still a few variables that can affect the maximum draw result that haven't been taken into account.There are certainly some physical effects I haven't taken into account (e.g., how the ball-cloth friction coefficient might change with speed and angle of impact, how aerodynamic drag and "ground effects" might affect shots at very high speeds, etc.), but I doubt these effects would change the main conclusions (although I could be wrong). Also, as I have written, a physics analysis doesn't always tell the "whole story" ... things like stroke biomechanics, human perception, and individual preference/comfort might be important factors.

I'm sure you understand that my comments are only intended to facilitate a broader discussion on this topic. And, as always, your efforts in this field are greatly appreciated!Understood. I appreciate your comments and ideas. You have certainly helped me (and I bet others) think about things more.

Thanks,
Dave

Cornerman
05-19-2009, 11:03 AM
Can you or others offer some suggestions as to why this might have helped you? Also, do you still prefer jacking up a little? Do you do this on just draw shots?

Thanks,
DaveI think I've answered this about 5 or 6 dozen times. Unfortunately, readers get confused by the term "slight elevation," and then mock the rest of the post by only considering "extreme jackup." And so it goes, and so it will go.

I think your study is 100% correct if we only consider the mechanical engineering concepts of the collision.

However, the study of "draw" isn't strictly confined by the forces and force diagram at collision. The entire stroke has to be looked at. And the reality is, the butt being elevated slightly is more natural than trying to keep it level. It's ergonomics and biomechanics. You can use statics (and dynamics) at the collision to explain the physics of draw. But you must be willing to allow others to use ergonomics and biomechanics to explain why better players can draw better with (seemingly) less effort.

Yes, we know that "good draw" only requires X speed and Y offset. But if that's the end of the statement, the you're far behind the proverbial 8-ball. You must ask "what is the easiest, most repeatable way to get to X speed and Y offset." For the unbelievably high majority, there's going to be some elevation. It's no coincidence that the best power drawers in the world have quite a bit of elevation (Nevel, Massey, Louie Roberts, to name a few). It's also no coincidence the immediate results people get when they're told to slightly elevate.

It's not hopping or lessening of friction or anything like that like I used to theorize. It's simply that a person can swing the stick in a more natural fashion to get the cuestick to a desired speed and offset. "Trying" to keep it level goes against the body's mechanics.

Fred

Cornerman
05-19-2009, 11:11 AM
Good points. A purely "level" (perfectly horizontal) cue is not possible with most pool shots. A level cue is even tougher with a draw shot, because the tip is lower than with a follow or center-ball shot.

However, the point is whether or not a player is adding extra elevation (beyond what is required), and whether or not the extra elevation helps or hurts, and why.

Thanks,
Dave
Well, Dave I think your posts are confusing then. I'd like for you to exclaim without a shadow of a doubt that elevation is better than level. Which is what I and many people have been saying all along. This whole "adding more than what is necessary" is a bit of a false point. The "elevation" that all of us are and have been talking about is exactly the elevation to bring that cue to an angle that allows the players to stroke the cue effectively, efficiently, and comfortably.

Everyone who keeps saying "as level as possible" apparently has their own definition. Wouldn't it be best to admit to "slight elevation" and be done with it???

Fred

Patrick Johnson
05-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Well, Dave I think your posts are confusing then. I'd like for you to exclaim without a shadow of a doubt that elevation is better than level. Which is what I and many people have been saying all along. This whole "adding more than what is necessary" is a bit of a false point.

How so? Dave's point is that adding elevation doesn't by itself add effectiveness. You don't seem to dispute that.

The "elevation" that all of us are and have been talking about is exactly the elevation to bring that cue to an angle that allows the players to stroke the cue effectively, efficiently, and comfortably.

Yes, and Dave acknowledges that may be an explanation for the success that many feel they have by adding elevation on draw shots.

Everyone who keeps saying "as level as possible" apparently has their own definition.

I don't think so, but so what? It seems that, no matter what slight elevation is natural for you, adding elevation doesn't help the ball/table mechanics of draw.

OK, that doesn't take into account "biomechanics", but so what? It's still good and useful information - now we know that any benefit probably comes entirely from biomechanics.

Wouldn't it be best to admit to "slight elevation" and be done with it???

Has anybody denied it?

pj
chgo

NewStroke
05-19-2009, 01:00 PM
I used to think that, till I learned how to actually stroke the ball :)

Cornerman
05-19-2009, 01:14 PM
How so? Dave's point is that adding elevation doesn't by itself add effectiveness. You don't seem to dispute that.


Which point do you want me to address? Every half vague one?

One would "add whatever he needs to be more consistent, reliable, and repeatable." Obviously, "adding more than what is necessary" is a false argument.

Fred

Patrick Johnson
05-19-2009, 01:43 PM
Obviously, "adding more than what is necessary" is a false argument.

Are you saying nobody ever adds more than is necessary?

pj
chgo

Cornerman
05-19-2009, 01:46 PM
delete...

My apologies Pat for being snippy.

Fred

lee brett
05-19-2009, 07:16 PM
Could you describe "up and down cue action" some more? Is the elbow moving up and down much? I know people can generate more power by involving the shoulder, but not everybody can control this well.

Thanks,
Dave

yes u drop the elbow through the shot its what ronnie o sullivan was taught to do, once you learn to control this its a massive difference in cue power, you have a high elbow, with the cue on a up slope and drive the elbow down through the shot, hope you understand this and it helps

thefonz
05-19-2009, 08:07 PM
you don't want to "jack up" but you do want to be cueing down on the ball a little, otherwise your not pinching the ball at all if you're too level. i find that you can get a lot of cheese on the ball with a slip stroke too. for most players who can't draw the ball well, they usually shoot way too hard and don't accellerate smoothly enough, you have to remember that the harder you shoot the tougher it is for the spin to get the cueball going backwards. i find that if i want extreme draw, i usually use a slip-stroke and i can get that "double backspin" (where the cueball draws back slowly - because it has so much spin it's not catching on the cloth - and then hits another gear once the spin really catches) going pretty good.

thefonz
05-19-2009, 08:14 PM
yes u drop the elbow through the shot its what ronnie o sullivan was taught to do, once you learn to control this its a massive difference in cue power, you have a high elbow, with the cue on a up slope and drive the elbow down through the shot, hope you understand this and it helps

yeah ronnie!!! i think there's a video of him teaching two kids where he claims that "shooting from the elbow" is the most accurate way to cue. pretty good advice from arguably the greatest cueist of our time. (please nobody argue that it's stephen hendry - I don't think he's a better cueist than ronnie, but he has more bottle and NOBODY digs deeper than hendry!)

dr_dave
05-20-2009, 06:11 AM
...I think your study is 100% correct if we only consider the mechanical engineering concepts of the collision.I agree. But for the record, I am considering a lot more than that (e.g., the tip impact on the CB and the losses associated with that, the impacts between the CB and table during any bounces, drag between the CB and the cloth, etc.).

However, the study of "draw" isn't strictly confined by the forces and force diagram at collision. The entire stroke has to be looked at. And the reality is, the butt being elevated slightly is more natural than trying to keep it level. It's ergonomics and biomechanics. You can use statics (and dynamics) at the collision to explain the physics of draw. But you must be willing to allow others to use ergonomics and biomechanics to explain why better players can draw better with (seemingly) less effort.I agree again. The tip, ball, and table physics doesn't tell the whole story, as I have also pointed out several times. And I agree the butt must be elevated slightly based on geometry and maybe biomechanics (which can vary a lot from one person to the next). To get good power draw, you must get fast cue speed and hit the CB where you want (e.g., at 80% tip offset). If a player can get more cue speed and maintain accuracy by elevating the cue more than what they would for normal shots, then that is what they should do.

Regards,
Dave

CocoboloCowboy
05-20-2009, 06:18 AM
The ONLY time I Jack Up to Draw is when close to the Rail.

dr_dave
05-20-2009, 06:24 AM
A purely "level" (perfectly horizontal) cue is not possible with most pool shots. A level cue is even tougher with a draw shot, because the tip is lower than with a follow or center-ball shot.

However, the point is whether or not a player is adding extra elevation (beyond what is required), and whether or not the extra elevation helps or hurts, and why.Well, Dave I think your posts are confusing then. I'd like for you to exclaim without a shadow of a doubt that elevation is better than level. Which is what I and many people have been saying all along. This whole "adding more than what is necessary" is a bit of a false point. The "elevation" that all of us are and have been talking about is exactly the elevation to bring that cue to an angle that allows the players to stroke the cue effectively, efficiently, and comfortably.

Everyone who keeps saying "as level as possible" apparently has their own definition. Wouldn't it be best to admit to "slight elevation" and be done with it???Per your request, I will now "exclaim without a shadow of a doubt:" A slightly elevated cue is better than level, because level is not possible on most pool shots. Now, beyond "near level" or as "level as possible" a player can elevate the cue a little more (by elevating 1-5 degrees more than "near level") or a lot more (by really "jacking up") or by any amount between a "little more" and "really jacked up." The point of the physics analysis was to show that as you add more and more cue elevation, and with a given cue speed and tip offset, you will lose more and more CB spin at the OB and therefore get less draw action (although, spin-to-speed ratio does increase at higher elevations, and several examples have been discussed in the thread explaining where the resulting "quick draw" action can be useful).

Also, for most people, accuracy and consistency will also degrade as the elevation is increased more and more.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
05-20-2009, 06:29 AM
Well, Dave I think your posts are confusing then. I'd like for you to exclaim without a shadow of a doubt that elevation is better than level. Which is what I and many people have been saying all along. This whole "adding more than what is necessary" is a bit of a false point.How so? Dave's point is that adding elevation doesn't by itself add effectiveness. You don't seem to dispute that.

The "elevation" that all of us are and have been talking about is exactly the elevation to bring that cue to an angle that allows the players to stroke the cue effectively, efficiently, and comfortably.Yes, and Dave acknowledges that may be an explanation for the success that many feel they have by adding elevation on draw shots.

Everyone who keeps saying "as level as possible" apparently has their own definition.I don't think so, but so what? It seems that, no matter what slight elevation is natural for you, adding elevation doesn't help the ball/table mechanics of draw.

OK, that doesn't take into account "biomechanics", but so what? It's still good and useful information - now we know that any benefit probably comes entirely from biomechanics.

Wouldn't it be best to admit to "slight elevation" and be done with it???Has anybody denied it?Thanks PJ. Excellent summary.

Regards,
Dave

Roger Illinois
05-20-2009, 07:31 AM
Only when the CB is close to the OB

Patrick Johnson
05-20-2009, 11:02 AM
delete...

My apologies Pat for being snippy.

Fred

I think you must have deleted the snippiness before I saw it, Fred, so no apology necessary.

Thanks anyway.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
05-20-2009, 11:12 AM
...you do want to be cueing down on the ball a little, otherwise your not pinching the ball at all if you're too level.

I disagree with this. And what does "pinching the ball" mean?


i find that you can get a lot of cheese on the ball with a slip stroke too.

What do you mean by "slip stroke" (there are multiple definitions) and what do you think it adds?

...you have to remember that the harder you shoot the tougher it is for the spin to get the cueball going backwards.

This isn't true. The OB stops the CB but doesn't remove any spin, so shooting harder just means the CB will have more spin and will draw farther after it's stopped by the OB. For cut shots the CB will go wider if hit harder, but will still draw back the same distance (going wider is the same effect as "spinning out" on the cloth with a straight shot).

i find that if i want extreme draw, i usually use a slip-stroke and i can get that "double backspin" (where the cueball draws back slowly - because it has so much spin it's not catching on the cloth - and then hits another gear once the spin really catches) going pretty good.

It doesn't really matter whether the spin "catches" right away (on stickier cloth) or after the CB spins for awhile (on slipperier cloth) - the draw distance is the same either way.

pj
chgo

dr_dave
05-20-2009, 08:17 PM
It doesn't really matter whether the spin "catches" right away (on stickier cloth) or after the CB spins for awhile (on slipperier cloth) - the draw distance is the same either way.Actually, this isn't exactly true. The final speed will be the same with each, but the skid distance will be longer with the slicker cloth. Also, slicker cloths are also often faster, so the roll distance might also be longer. For more info, see Diagram 2 and the surrounding text in my April '09 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2009/april09.pdf).

Regards,
Dave

ShootingArts
05-21-2009, 01:51 PM
(started this post the other morning when we were talking, just getting back to it. Been that kind of a month so far!)


Dave,

Sometimes I want to hit the object ball very gently but still need to move the cue ball back the other direction a moderate distance. This is usually when playing the safety game playing eight ball. The other player's ball is near the pocket and I have other messes to resolve on the table so I need to slow them down by jamming a ball against theirs between it and the pocket while I solve other problems. This does start getting to be a borderline masse shot and sometimes I use a masse shot to accomplish much the same thing. Worked with a fairly soft milk dud. Either lost skill or the tip, I have a much harder time making it work with the Moori medium I use now. After a fling with layered tips I am going back to milk duds on all shafts except for a break shaft and a jump shaft if I ever get around to making one.

I do shoot far fewer draw shots than most players in the pool rooms seem to today and probably 90% or more of them I shoot without jacking up more than slightly. I don't jack up a lot to gain more draw than I think I can get very slightly jacked up. There are times I feel like jacking up though and I do what feels right. I do think I can get more spin with less forward motion on the cue ball when a soft shot is needed by jacking up.
Hu

Cornerman
05-21-2009, 02:10 PM
If a player can get more cue speed and maintain accuracy by elevating the cue more than what they would for normal shots, then that is what they should do.


Can we then do a study on why someone could possibly maintain more accuracy or get more cue speed when elevating? (And by "we" I obviously mean you since you're the brains of the outfit.)

Also, for most people, accuracy and consistency will also degrade as the elevation is increased more and more. Want to take a hip shot as to advanced players vs. beginners? I think accuracy will degrade for both, but not as great of a difference with the advanced players, but that's hand-waving. I'm pretty convinced however that consistency doesn't decrease in the hands of better players. That's hand-waving, too.

Fred

Fred

Patrick Johnson
05-21-2009, 03:44 PM
Me:
It doesn't really matter whether the spin "catches" right away (on stickier cloth) or after the CB spins for awhile (on slipperier cloth) - the draw distance is the same either way.
Dave:
Actually, this isn't exactly true. The final speed will be the same with each, but the skid distance will be longer with the slicker cloth.

Oh, OK. Thanks. It seems that the combination of these effects could make a significant difference.

pj
chgo

dr_dave
05-22-2009, 08:16 AM
(started this post the other morning when we were talking, just getting back to it. Been that kind of a month so far!)


Dave,

Sometimes I want to hit the object ball very gently but still need to move the cue ball back the other direction a moderate distance. This is usually when playing the safety game playing eight ball. The other player's ball is near the pocket and I have other messes to resolve on the table so I need to slow them down by jamming a ball against theirs between it and the pocket while I solve other problems. This does start getting to be a borderline masse shot and sometimes I use a masse shot to accomplish much the same thing.Thank you for responding with an example, despite your hectic month.

I do think I can get more spin with less forward motion on the cue ball when a soft shot is needed by jacking up.There is no doubt about this, as shown by the analysis and experience.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
05-22-2009, 08:35 AM
If a player can get more cue speed and maintain accuracy by elevating the cue more than what they would for normal shots, then that is what they should do.Can we then do a study on why someone could possibly maintain more accuracy or get more cue speed when elevating? (And by "we" I obviously mean you since you're the brains of the outfit.)I think such a study would require lots of subjects of various abilities with lots of trials of lots of carefully controlled shots. I would like to see the results of such a study, but I'm not so excited about taking on the project just for fun. :(

Also, for most people, accuracy and consistency will also degrade as the elevation is increased more and more.Want to take a hip shot as to advanced players vs. beginners? I think accuracy will degrade for both, but not as great of a difference with the advanced players, but that's hand-waving. I'm pretty convinced however that consistency doesn't decrease in the hands of better players. That's hand-waving, too.Fred, that sure is a lot of hand waving. :wave2: :happydance: :wave: :wave3: :nanner: :welcome:

I agree that accuracy probably does not degrade with elevation as much with better players (especially at modest elevations), but I would expect it to degrade (due to more difficult visual alignment, and more swerve with non-perfect hits), especially at higher elevations. Wouldn't you?

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
05-22-2009, 08:44 AM
It doesn't really matter whether the spin "catches" right away (on stickier cloth) or after the CB spins for awhile (on slipperier cloth) - the draw distance is the same either way.Actually, this isn't exactly true. The final speed will be the same with each, but the skid distance will be longer with the slicker cloth.Thanks. It seems that the combination of these effects could make a significant difference.Most definitely. A good experiment is to hit some draw shots on a table with "sticky" and "slow" cloth, and then spray and wipe the CB with some Silicone spray to simulate "slick" conditions. The difference in draw action is quite dramatic, mostly because of less drag (especially for longer shots), but also because of the longer post-impact skid zone.

Regards,
Dave

Cornerman
05-22-2009, 09:09 AM
I agree that accuracy probably does not degrade with elevation as much with better players (especially at modest elevations), but I would expect it to degrade (due to more difficult visual alignment, and more swerve with non-perfect hits), especially at higher elevations. Wouldn't you?

Regards,
Dave
At a certain elevation, there's got be a drastic point of negative return, for sure. Especially if you go into it thinking everyone is so far off center on their hits that clearly increased elevation increases inaccuracy. But, I'm really more thinking in terms of repeatability coupled with the idea that the better players are already more accurate.

I'm thinking of elevations that would be, in your terms, a few degrees higher than what would be deemed necessary (clearance-wise). In my demented mind, there's a good case to say that it could be more repeatable at X elevation, but not necessarily more accurate.

I think I'm corellating this from the idea that people are more accurate and repeatable with a firm stroke vs. a babied stroke or a hard stroke. The babied stroke should be "all that is necessary" to hit the ball straight, but the lack of inertia or momentum or the fight against the body's mechanics makes a babied stroke less accurate and repeatable for many people. Likewise, too hard of a stroke also loses accuracy, so there's a range of stroke speeds that's neither slow nor fast that is just right for the arm/wrist/elbow mechanism.

Likewise, I think there's some good range of elevation that's not too high but not too low that is within the sweetspot of repeatability for the arm/wrist/elbow draw stroke.

I suppose I could come up with a believable argument that says that it's easier to sight down and stroke with an elevated cue (a range of elevations) which would lend itself to increased accuracy.


Fred <~~~ hands just a waving away

dr_dave
05-22-2009, 09:19 AM
At a certain elevation, there's got be a drastic point of negative return, for sure. Especially if you go into it thinking everyone is so far off center on their hits that clearly increased elevation increases inaccuracy. But, I'm really more thinking in terms of repeatability coupled with the idea that the better players are already more accurate.

I'm thinking of elevations that would be, in your terms, a few degrees higher than what would be deemed necessary (clearance-wise). In my demented mind, there's a good case to say that it could be more repeatable at X elevation, but not necessarily more accurate.

I think I'm corellating this from the idea that people are more accurate and repeatable with a firm stroke vs. a babied stroke or a hard stroke. The babied stroke should be "all that is necessary" to hit the ball straight, but the lack of inertia or momentum or the fight against the body's mechanics makes a babied stroke less accurate and repeatable for many people. Likewise, too hard of a stroke also loses accuracy, so there's a range of stroke speeds that's neither slow nor fast that is just right for the arm/wrist/elbow mechanism.

Likewise, I think there's some good range of elevation that's not too high but not too low that is within the sweetspot of repeatability for the arm/wrist/elbow draw stroke.

I suppose I could come up with a believable argument that says that it's easier to sight down and stroke with an elevated cue (a range of elevations) which would lend itself to increased accuracy.


Fred <~~~ hands just a waving awayGood points. Sounds good to me. Although, we should probably be more specific when we talk about an "elevated" cue and a "range of elevations." Some people might interpret this as "really jacking up," which I know you don't intend. I like that you added: "a few degrees higher than what would be deemed necessary."

Regards,
Dave

Cornerman
05-22-2009, 09:20 AM
I think such a study would require lots of subjects of various abilities with lots of trials of lots of carefully controlled shots. I would like to see the results of such a study, but I'm not so excited about taking on the project just for fun. :(

Maybe we (same we) can approach that Science of Sports show and convince them the importance of this study using all of their measurement techniques and equipment.

Fred

dr_dave
05-22-2009, 09:25 AM
Maybe we (same we) can approach that Science of Sports show and convince them the importance of this study using all of their measurement techniques and equipment.Good luck with that. By "we," you didn't mean "me" again ... did "we" (you)? :grin-square:

Regards,
"me"