Sometimes, the science is too literal.
For instance.
Dr. Dave has a spectacular image of the draw shot at various distances.
This really basically covers everything about the draw shot. So does his link to physics based advice.
But at the same time, i am compelled to point out something that a pool player might know, that doesn't seem to be explained in this image or in the link.
i.e., manipulation of the friction that works to slow down the ball and reduces spin over distance, by CHEATING.
How does one cheat for instance?
Example.
2 power draw shots identical starting points, identical distance to the object ball, identical impact speed on the cueball.
1st one is done with the person's best draw stroke.
2nd one is done with a semi jacked up draw stroke.
Which one draws the ball better?
Answer, the jacked up one.
Why you ask? Because when you strike the cueball at a semi jacked up position, you are causing it to jump, and therefore, for it's slightly airborne journey, it's bypassing that whole friction thing, and retaining MORE draw on the cueball as a result, so that when it impacts the object ball, it SNAPS back.
As a matter of fact, you can hit the slightly jacked up shot, SLOWER then the regular power draw stroke, and get more draw sometimes, because you are cheating friction. (BLASPHEMY!!!!!
)
I'm positive that there could also be some application for shooting shots with an upwards follow stroke as well that might cause the cueball to leave the surface temporarily and cause some goofy effects. Who knows.
But the point is, how i just explained it will suffice.
I don't think any scientific explanation can explain it any better then i just did.
And plenty of pool players know what i just said, works.
Yet it isn't really covered in the scientific explanation for a power draw.
It's not in Dr. Dave's link at all. (and that does not mean that Dr Dave gives bad info)
But it just goes to show you, that despite the various legitimate scientific explanations for pool phenomena, sometimes, people miss something that is so obvious.
And sometimes, layman's terms aren't good at explaining a situation where one is "cheating" and skirting the physics rules, and i think this is where some of these threads really go haywire.
Cause it's easy to see what one is doing on the table when it's demonstrated.
It's a lot harder to see what someone is doing, when they are limited to a scientific explanations on paper or in forums, that assume that people aren't manipulating factors that they haven't accounted for.
