myths on Jerry Breiteth's dvd

Try hitting a typical cross side bank. FIrst hit it with 2 tips of follow. Then hit it exactly the same but with 2 tips of draw.

Note the difference of where the object ball ends up.

LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!! LOL!!!!

Think there isn't a difference??????????????

Everyone already knows there is a difference. Beard knows it. Brumback knows it.

Every bank player in the world knows it.

EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

BOB JEWETT KNOWS IT. DR DAVE KNOWS IT.

EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!!!!!!

EVERYONE!!!! EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
He's baaaaack...again...keeps turning up...like a bad penny! LOL Hi Pocket Point!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

AimingTeacher said:
Try hitting a typical cross side bank. FIrst hit it with 2 tips of follow. Then hit it exactly the same but with 2 tips of draw.

Note the difference of where the object ball ends up.

LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!! LOL!!!!

Think there isn't a difference??????????????

Everyone already knows there is a difference. Beard knows it. Brumback knows it.

Every bank player in the world knows it.

EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

BOB JEWETT KNOWS IT. DR DAVE KNOWS IT.

EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!!!!!!

EVERYONE!!!! EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
The question may be whether draw on the cue ball is effectively putting overspin on the object ball, as Jerry would term it. It's true one can put spin on the cue ball, as well as shoot at a speed so that the object ball starts out sliding before it picks up friction from the cloth and starts rolling. Now, if one wants the object ball to start rolling immediately, that is right from the moment of impact, my best guess to achieve this would be to put a little draw and medium speed at best on the cue ball, which is what one instinctively does trying to shoot an object ball "through" another, as e.g. when a pocket is blocked by one of one's opponents balls in 8-Ball, and one is trying to make both balls, his/hers and one's own. But the question remains, can one put draw on the cue ball so that the object ball starts out with overspin (= more forward rotation than if merely starts out rolling immediately due to inertia and the friction from the cloth, instead of sliding for some distance first before picking up friction from the cloth, which is what object balls do on most shots - e.g. bank shots, where the OB usually slides most if not all the way to the cushion, unless hit at a roll speed) right from the moment of impact? I'd love to see a slow-motion video that would prove this can be done, because my gut instinct suggests it's significantly easier to keep the object ball from starting out rolling (= make it slide) than to "transfer" much to it that goes "against" the inertia and friction from the cloth (in other words, transferring side English seems less of a problem). It's no more than an educated guess, but I would not be surprised to learn Jerry is right. And if not, I'd need video proof to believe it.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
Last edited:
kaznj said:
I always believed that if you put draw on the cue ball that it put follow on the object ball. Jerry says this is false. It makes sense to me that if the cue ball is spinning back it would grab the ob and make it start to spin forward.

Dr. Dave and others what do you think.....?
Click to expand...

I think the most common application of this shot is found in eight ball (can't believe someone hasn't mentioned it). It's the shot where your opponent's ball is blocking your pocket so you shoot your ball into his, pocketing your opponent's ball and following your ball in behind it. Or better yet - pocketing the eight ball this way for the win.

I don't know anybody that doesn't use draw on that shot.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Don't freeze the two object balls. An entirely different phenomenon comes into play when the two object balls are frozen. This has been discussed several times under the general heading of making the double spot shot or the "ten times fuller" system.
Click to expand...
So I tried the shot a little last night. Some points:

As mentioned before, don't freeze the two object balls. If you want to test the transferred follow theory, it's best to put them about a ball apart. The reason not to put them within a millimeter or three is that the cue ball has a good chance to hit the object ball a second time. This can happen either because the cue ball is heavy (on a bar table, for example) or because the cue ball jumps up a little and lands on the object ball. If the object ball travels a couple of inches before it hits the second object ball, it is out of the way mostly and any cue ball mischief can more easily be detected.

Some might argue that by putting the balls that far apart the follow on the first object ball will dissipate. Of course that is false. The longer the ball is moving across the cloth, the more follow it will pick up.

If you put chalk on the object ball where the cue ball will hit it and wet the contact point between the two object balls, you will get more effect. The wetting is to prevent the follow on the object ball from being "damped" by the contact with the second object ball.

I think it is hard to drive the object ball two diamonds through a close but not touching ball without something funny in the shot.

The most remarkable transfer of follow I ever saw was in the 1980 World 14.1 Championships. I don't remember who was shooting, but I was the referee. Towards the end of the rack the player had two pesky balls on the end rail. He played perfect position on the combination figuring to have a slight angle on the middle ball after the combo. Then a miracle happened:

CropperCapture[10].png

The mechanism was skid/cling/kick/bad-contact, of which there was a lot in that tournament.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The mechanism was skid/cling/kick/bad-contact, of which there was a lot in that tournament.
Click to expand...

Wow! There must have been quite a speck of chalk on the cue ball… :shocked:

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
Wow! There must have been quite a speck of chalk on the cue ball… :shocked:

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

"I wasted twenty of the best years of my life at billiards. If I had it to do over, I would." – Roger Conti
Click to expand...
Yes, the chalk was sticking to the cue balls a lot in that tournament. Also, the cue balls got a lot of blue scuff marks which were very hard to remove.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Yes, the chalk was sticking to the cue balls a lot in that tournament. Also, the cue balls got a lot of blue scuff marks which were very hard to remove.
Click to expand...

Of course, chalk adds a tremendous amount of friction that has nothing to do with the question itself, which (to me at least) is whether one can – apart from keeping the object ball from sliding, that is, using enough draw so the object ball starts rolling (= picking up friction from the cloth) immediately – effectively transfer "overspin" (= more than the forward rotation/follow action an object ball has naturally once it starts rolling, that is, due to the friction between it and the cloth) with clean balls (= all else being equal). I'm not sure, but doubt it (maybe on new cloth?), and from this perspective understand Jerry's point of view - and I'm pretty sure that is what he meant (I'm a former Briesath disciple myself).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
... the question itself, which (to me at least) is whether one can – apart from keeping the object ball from sliding, that is, using enough draw so the object ball starts rolling (= picking up friction from the cloth) immediately – effectively transfer "overspin" (= more than the forward rotation/follow action an object ball has naturally once it starts rolling, that is, due to the friction between it and the cloth) with clean balls (= all else being equal). ...
Click to expand...
For those who want to look for smooth-rolling balls, they might be interested in the following rule of thumb: if a smooth-rolling ball hits another ball full, the smooth roller will follow through a distance of 1/6 of the distance the struck ball is driven. This rule of thumb allows you to plan for how far the cue ball must follow on soft rolling shots that just barely pocket the object ball.

Obviously, if the struck ball hits a cushion, the ratio of distances changes. The basic concept works on an infinite table with no cushions. The following rule is typical of bank shots: if an object ball is between the side pockets and it is struck full and banked off an end rail to a corner pocket (as at one pocket) and it just barely reaches the intended pocket, a smooth-rolling cue ball will just barely reach the far end rail.
 
Bob Jewett said:
For those who want to look for smooth-rolling balls, they might be interested in the following rule of thumb: if a smooth-rolling ball hits another ball full, the smooth roller will follow through a distance of 1/6 of the distance the struck ball is driven. This rule of thumb allows you to plan for how far the cue ball must follow on soft rolling shots that just barely pocket the object ball.

Obviously, if the struck ball hits a cushion, the ratio of distances changes. The basic concept works on an infinite table with no cushions. The following rule is typical of bank shots: if an object ball is between the side pockets and it is struck full and banked off an end rail to a corner pocket (as at one pocket) and it just barely reaches the intended pocket, a smooth-rolling cue ball will just barely reach the far end rail.
Click to expand...

Thanks, sounds very much like what I'd have visualized intuitively, good rule of thumb then. What about my (the OP's) question, though: is it possible to transfer true "overspin" (= presumably what Jerry meant, follow action beyond "smooth-rolling") to a clean object ball putting draw on a clean cue ball? If so, can anyone provide a slow-motion video to prove this?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
BasementDweller said:
I think the most common application of this shot is found in eight ball (can't believe someone hasn't mentioned it). It's the shot where your opponent's ball is blocking your pocket so you shoot your ball into his, pocketing your opponent's ball and following your ball in behind it. Or better yet - pocketing the eight ball this way for the win.

I don't know anybody that doesn't use draw on that shot.
Click to expand...
I was kind of surprised that this wasn't mentioned either. I play this shot A LOT, so much so I am able to strike the OB a table length away and still have enough top spin on it to follow another ball into the pocket.
KnowledgeSeeker said:
Freddy the Beard taught me that using draw and follow on bank shots cause the object ball to come long and short off the rail.

I practiced this, and I found it to be true.

But it's not just Freddy. John Brumback taught me the same thing.

So should I listen to Jerry, or John and Freddy?

Need a final answer here.
Click to expand...
Adding top English to a bank DOES shorten it, there is no doubt. Adding draw WILL make it play long. Anyone who plays banks knows this all to well and uses it nearly every game.
 
What about hitting a lot of draw to make the OB follow through an impeding ball in front of a pocket? That's not xfering follow?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
KnowledgeSeeker said:
Freddy the Beard taught me that using draw and follow on bank shots cause the object ball to come long and short off the rail.

I practiced this, and I found it to be true.

But it's not just Freddy. John Brumback taught me the same thing.

So should I listen to Jerry, or John and Freddy?

Need a final answer here.
Click to expand...

But Jerry would never deny this, realize? The question is why. There's a huge difference banking an object ball that either a) slides all the way to the rail (most short rail banks 9-Ball players shoot at a crisp pro speed), b) starts picking up friction from the cloth, start rolling and thus have a minor amount of forward rotation when it hits the rail (and thus bends a negligible amount, best seen in slow motion, and demonstrated by Jerry on said DVD set), and c) a ball the rolls from the get-go, as e.g. an object ball hit with draw, or in Jerry's kicking explanations, a cue ball hit invariably above center in one-rail kicks. The question is merely, can one transfer so-called "overspin" (= true follow action, that is, more forward rotation than a ball naturally picks up rolling across the nap of the cloth, that is, due to friction) using clean balls. I'd love to see a slow motion video on that aspect - that, and only that, would answer our question.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
Neil said:
If you are going to talk about Jerry's DVD, you have to be careful of your terms. Jerry repeatedly used the term "overspin" to denote follow, or a rolling cb. You are using it correctly, meaning more rotational spin than a rolling ball would have.

It is a good DVD, just had a couple of points with it. One was what this thread is about, the other I just mentioned above.
Click to expand...

I noticed Jerry has started to use the terms "overspin" and "follow" interchangeably on the DVD set, but he didn't when I took lessons with him two decades ago. I'm not defending his use of terms - I just seem to remember what he's in all likelihood referring to in this particular situation (transfer of overspin to an object ball applying draw onto the cue ball - all else being equal, of course, meaning, the balls are clean etc.). I'm pretty sure what he meant to say is what I've explained above. If I had any doubt, we could have dropped him a mail…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top