Do you jack up to get more draw?

[dr_dave]

...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]

The ONLY time I Jack Up to Draw is when close to the Rail.

 

[dr_dave]

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]

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]

Only when the CB is close to the OB

 

[Patrick Johnson]

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]

...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]

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.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

way late to the party!

(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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Good 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]

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]

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"