A proof without words: Why elevating a cue slightly may increase draw:

Bob:
One probably wants to invoke Newton rather than Einstein to keep things simple.

Yeah, Einstein always wanted to drag everybody's relatives into everything - like he thought Newton couldn't appreciate the real gravity of the situation or something. On the other hand, he had a better chance than Newton of explaining how a cue might go through a rail.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Philthepockets:
does this mean according to these theories it does not matter what type of shaft, wood, butt or tip used you would not get any greater CB reaction?

Dave gave you the complete answer. I'll give you the short one: yes, that's what it means (as long as your tip doesn't slip).

pj
chgo
 
OTOH it's maybe a little counterproductive to provide no explanation and just put forth a claim like "elevation increases draw". I can see a D player thinking it's okay to shoot with the ass end of his cue in the air because he saw the fancy math-laden diagram... when in fact it's hurting his game to shoot like that.

Would it have been easier for you to understand if I had used "might" instead of "may" in the title of my original post?
 
This is the reason I love this forum.

Threads like this are the reason I love this forum.
 
But if you have a certain style of antiquish table with net/web pockets, you can sometimes play a draw shot with a level stick shooting from the pocket. This situation can also let you hit up on the cue ball, which gets some interesting action.

You are an evil man Bob Jewett. I might have to make a trip to a local place with some old balke collanders and give that a try. I'm not sure how I would make a bridge, might have to improvise. I would never have thought of that.
 
This is a great thread. Thanks Dr. Dave for coming in on this one.

I have to say this though. This threat was going great with ideas, theories, debates, proofs, references, etc. Then people have to attack someones post or personally and it ruins the thread. Start a separate thread if you wanna bicker of stupid crap that has nothing to do with the original post.

Thanks and BTW, level cue is the best draw unless the situation dictates you elevate the cue. Thanks for the references Dr. Dave.

C
 
Philthepockets said:
Dr Dave, so this ad is misleading? :grin:
I don't even have to look to know it's the one about a Predator putting more spin on the CB.

Yes, it's misleading - some might even say it's untrue.
Actually, a low-squirt (AKA "low CB deflection") shaft can result in slightly more spin, but certainly not as much as some people think, and not always for the reasons some people think. For more info, see:

Regards,
Dave
 
This is a great thread. Thanks Dr. Dave for coming in on this one.

I have to say this though. This threat was going great with ideas, theories, debates, proofs, references, etc. Then people have to attack someones post or personally and it ruins the thread. Start a separate thread if you wanna bicker of stupid crap that has nothing to do with the original post.

Thanks and BTW, level cue is the best draw unless the situation dictates you elevate the cue. Thanks for the references Dr. Dave.
Thank you for your message. You're welcome.

I hope your unit has enjoyed and benefited from VEPS, and I hope you guys get to return home soon.

Regards,
Dave
 
IMO, [jacking up to get draw] is not very good advice. For reasons why, see (and read) my July '09 BD article.

Regards,
Dave
The article discusses the fact that the cue ball is in the air as it is bouncing down the table towards the object ball and while it is in the air, it is not losing draw. (On a table where 9 ball is played, you can often see the "break track" of cue ball bounces on the way to the rack. From the spacing of the bounces, it's clear that the cue ball often bounces several times in that distance.)

I think that if the cue ball is rising when it hits the object ball, it will have less draw than a flat-stroked ball on a similar shot, but if it is descending, it will have more draw. This suggests that the amount of draw will be partly determined by whether the cue ball is rising or falling when it hits the object ball. I think most players can't control their bounces that well.

But all this does not explain why many top pool players routinely use more than the required elevation on draw shots. (I think you will not find the same stance among top snooker players.)
 
Its about acceleration, conservation of energy and momentum not follow through

That's a big if. The same bridge length doesn't guaranty the same tip speed. Maybe longer followthrough is causing you to hit harder.

A more likely reason is that a longer followthrough causes you to stroke straighter, which helps you hit the CB lower.

There are spring loaded cue sticks that can be used to hit CBs with very short followthrough (Dr. Dave has one). They can easily show that plenty of spin can be put on the CB without much followthrough.

pj
chgo


Your spot on in regards to spin and follow through, follow through has nothing to do with the shot it is an after effect of a correctly delivered shot, that will occur everytime said shot is correctly delivered.

But just because someone follows through does not mean they completed their stroke!

Follow through does not affect spin or the degree of the rotation on the CB. Following through is the after effect of a stroke that is accelerating in a positive manner.

Every stroke shot from the instant the forward delivery is made should be accelerating in a consistent manner. If the stroking arm and cue are accelerating consistently then the stroke is automatically going to follow past the CB.....WHY because the momentum of the cue is due forward and the grip hand is only there for the ride THUS the cue will continue past the CB after contact and go to its relative finish spot for that particular player.

The idea is sound but applied incorrectly.

Its not the follow through ITS THE MOMENTUM THAT EFFECTS SPIN

(the momentum of the cuestick combined with cueing angle and english used are what quantify the CB spin and its differing aspects)

That is why those spring loaded cuesticks previously mentioned work to create just as much spin as the same shot with a longer follow through. The spring is not like you it can't choose how it accelerates nor can it start to accelerate and choose to decelerate its expansion prior to being fully expanded to its limit. The spring also has its own finish spot that doesn't change, it will always move to expand itself completely to that "finish spot"

Being that the spring goes from compressed to expanded (or vice versa depending on the design mechanics) or an even better way to put it THE SPRING ALWAYS GOES FROM AN EXCITED STATE TO A UNEXCITED STATE IN A SMOOTH AND HIGHLY EFFICIENT MANNER.

Precision transfer and conservation of energy of momentum from one object to another will best be acheived by an efficient machine.

As humans we are obviously not machines with repeatable SET parameters like the aforementioned spring, you can control what goes on...you can control and cause an incremental rate of acceleration towards contact and you can also cause the cue to decelerate towards contact.

Many many players use what is referred to as a "Bunt" stroke when shooting. After the initiation of the forward delivers The shooter goes about attaining the desired effects on CB speed and momentum by starting the stroke with more acceleration/forward momentum than is needed, and prior to CB/TIP contact the shooter uses the muscles in the grip arm to TONE DOWN or DECELERATE the cuestick to its desired quantity needed to drive the CB at the desired speed and distance.

The decelerating of the stroke to attain the desired cue speed upon contact is a very inefficient machine. Its inefficiency causes a loss of energy conserved toward the delivery of the cue to the CB. Because this method causes poor transfer of energy it is fact that the shooter will have to apply more initial power/speed to the shot to attain the same effects that a constantly accelerating stroke can produce.

The delivery of stroke can be broken down into 4 parts:

Part 1 - Initiates at the point where the grip hand is extended to on the backswing b/f forward delivery has begun. Part 1 of the stroke is where the foundation for the quantity of momentum and acceleration you chose to deliver are set/created. I like to refer to this part as the First 1/3 of the completed stroke b/c Part 1 ends b/f the center or bottom of the pendulum (which is where the hand should be optimally upon CB/tip contact ) At the end of this phase, stroke speed will no longer increase in speed/momentum it will peak and stay constant untill tip contact with the CB.

Part 2- This is the part of your stroke where the rubber meets the road. All of the acceleration and momentum of the cue have maxed out for the given shot and BECOME CONSTANT prior to tip impact with the CB. Optimally Part 2 of the stroke delivery will end at the bottom center of the pendulum and make tip to CB contact at the same time.

Part 3- Occurs immideatly after CB contact with the tip of the cue stick. If deceleration is present in Part 2 then Part 3 of the stroke will be adversely affected, the stroke will stop short of a full completion (BUNTING). If the initial 2 phases of the stroke are performed properly then the mass (grip arms forearm & cue) will swing on its pivot point at the elbow creating a type of mechanical lever that now creates its momentum from the mass present in the machine which is the stroking arm and cue. Initially in Phase 1 of the stroke the momentum is solely initiated by acceleration of the grip hand with the mass not affecting the delivery until the delivery has already been started.

Once the stroke hits its peak acceleration and momentum leading into phase 2 the combined mass of the stroking arm (only the parts of it that move) and the cue stick are what maintain the speed of the cue as acceleration is no longer created by the stroking arm, the stroking arm only rides the momentum of the cue during this period, it does not affect it. This places all the momentum in the cue stick with the grip only guiding its path.

Because the energy of momentum is concentrated in the cuestick it can deliver its energy efficiently to the CB which was initially formed by acceleration of the grip hand. With the built up energy now passed on from the cue stick to the CB, the grip and cue's mass in tandem with the machine lever that is the elbow create centrifungal force that provides the momentum needed to get to the 4th and final phase of the stroke.

Part 4- "THE FINISH SPOT"

Your stroke is now 3/4 of the way complete, momentum continues to be carried along the pendulum shaped route by the mechanical lever (elbow). The stroke must never want to stop on its own accord, nor should it stop by yours. The stroke being an applied mechanical function of the body should only to be stopped by a mechanical stop. The "mechanical stop" here would be the chest. As the grip hand and cue swing along the pendulum the grip hand will continue forward untill the pendulums route runs the hand into the chest which automatically stops/ends the momentum of the cue and completes/finishes the stroke.

Using the body as an automatic stop is advantageous b/c it removes the bad habit of letting the muscles in the arm stop the stroke. Any time you stop the stroke manually with your muscles you must decelerate. Since deceleration of the stroke is degrading to the quality of the output of the stroke, the muscles should never be called upon to stop the stroke as it can form a habit. By using the automatic stop which is the finish spot most commonly found on the side of the lower chest there is no bad habit to potentially form.

take a sip of that,
-Grey Ghost-
 
I think that if the cue ball is rising when it hits the object ball, it will have less draw than a flat-stroked ball on a similar shot, but if it is descending, it will have more draw.

Because if it's rising the OB won't completely stop its forward motion and if it's descending it will carom back off the OB?

pj
chgo
 
This may (or may not) improve the discussion through simple visualization. Afterall, why jack up to near 90* to masse the ball? It's all about getting out as far as possible on the CB AND imparting as little forward motion as possible.

If you look a little harder at the following diagram, you'll notice the same impact point can have substantially different results on torque on the CB as well as force applied along the line of motion.

elevateddraw.png
 
an often ignored factor

This may (or may not) improve the discussion through simple visualization. Afterall, why jack up to near 90* to masse the ball? It's all about getting out as far as possible on the CB AND imparting as little forward motion as possible.

If you look a little harder at the following diagram, you'll notice the same impact point can have substantially different results on torque on the CB as well as force applied along the line of motion.

elevateddraw.png

Direction of force is very important. Maintaining that as long as the speed and contact point are the same we will get the same results is an error. A more common example is parallel and back hand english. We have to hit a little further out on the cue ball to get the same result with parallel english because the direction of force is different. The same applies to draw but we do add in the other factors such as increased friction and cue ball bounce on the table. Increased friction can be a red herring because in most cases increased friction is easily overcame by increased force of the stroke but we can't always get the same result with increased force and the shorter moment arm.

One thing about raising the cue butt instead of relying entirely on stroke speed to control the amount of draw, it seems easier to control the amount of draw with stick angle than with speed and sometimes we want draw without much speed requiring increased stick angle.

My opinions of course.

Hu
 
It's great how much intelligent discussion this thread has engendered. I think our sport lags a great deal behind most others in scientific understanding/technology. Truly understanding draw is a very complicated process. When a cue is elevated, there is, as so well illustrated by mosconiac, a longer lever arm, which means greater torque, but also means more normal force and increased friction. That could be good or bad, and experimental data is needed. It could mean a longer contact time. It could mean less spin. Or both. That's only one small aspect. The accuracy issue brought up by others here is a concern, but doesn't bother me because it's certainly less that that which exists in jump shots, which we seem to handle well.

A full scientific understanding of any stroke/shot involves not just math/physics, but also biomechanics, which has been vastly neglected in our sport.

I'm just a math guy who thinks of mechanical engineering as a hobby. If David Alciatore says he's looked into all possible effects, and says a level stroke is best, then I'd have to say he's right. He's a practicing mechanical engineer/instructor/author, and a very valuable asset to these forums.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be interesting to watch several of the top pros drawing the cb in super slow motion. I suspect that they elevate the butt because they are adding power to the shot, and tend to drop the elbow before contact with the cb. Dropping the elbow before contact, they have to aim lower than normal because the tip will rise before contact. Elevating the butt solves that problem by starting with the tip lower than what the contact point will be.

Sorry I'm not your "top pro" Neil but here it is anyway :)
We all know it is not possible to have a level cue on most shots simply because of the rail. In my draw shot demo seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrHQZkXr_Zo
I try to keep the cue the same as a normal shot as I also like to try and keep the cue on my hand through out the stroke. One reason for not elevating is that if the cue ball bounces on the return it loses grip, not so much of an issue over this distance (6x12) but on shorter shots.
I only drop my elbow slightly at the end of the stroke because of the momentum.
 
The article discusses the fact that the cue ball is in the air as it is bouncing down the table towards the object ball and while it is in the air, it is not losing draw. (On a table where 9 ball is played, you can often see the "break track" of cue ball bounces on the way to the rack. From the spacing of the bounces, it's clear that the cue ball often bounces several times in that distance.)

I think that if the cue ball is rising when it hits the object ball, it will have less draw than a flat-stroked ball on a similar shot, but if it is descending, it will have more draw. This suggests that the amount of draw will be partly determined by whether the cue ball is rising or falling when it hits the object ball. I think most players can't control their bounces that well.
Good points. FYI, I did take this in consideration in my analysis.

But all this does not explain why many top pool players routinely use more than the required elevation on draw shots. (I think you will not find the same stance among top snooker players.
As you know, more elevation can help quicken the draw with cut shots, but my analysis shows no benefit to elevating on a straight draw shot, unless you want to have less OB speed for the same amount of draw (e.g., as with shots like the examples in Diagram 2 of my July '09 article).

Regards,
Dave
 
I think it would be interesting to watch several of the top pros drawing the cb in super slow motion. I suspect that they elevate the butt because they are adding power to the shot, and tend to drop the elbow before contact with the cb. Dropping the elbow before contact, they have to aim lower than normal because the tip will rise before contact. Elevating the butt solves that problem by starting with the tip lower than what the contact point will be.
Good idea Neil. This is one possible explanation. Also, some people (especially elbow droppers) might tend to elevate slightly more on power shots to limit the risk of knuckle bashing when the grip hand is close to a rail.

Regards,
Dave
 
Back
Top