OK, what's different that is happening at different speeds? And, how is that useful?
His Boy Elroy - Pool Eccentric: An Autobiography
- Thread starter His Boy Elroy
- Start date
OK, what's different that is happening at different speeds? And, how is that useful?
How do you reduce swerve without hitting on the exact horizontal axis?
Typical Rick. Instead of answering the questions, just accuse the person asking them of being a stalker.
You made a statement, I'm asking you to back it up so I and others can learn something. Here's your statement: "CJ's is for the purpose of getting the cue ball to squirt 'off line'
What makes them be different & have different effects is the spin to speed ratio to which the shot is executed.
I think there are far too many that do not understand spin to speed ratio or speed to spin ratio & the different effects that they can have dependent on the actual ratio that exists."
I know the answer to that question, increase the speed. But, technically, you don't reduce the swerve at all, instead, you just run out of distance before it starts. Given enough distance, the swerve will be the same with a softer hit or a harder hit. But, instead of asking me questions that don't pertain to the other question, why not just answer what you were asked, which you stated to start with??
But, since you want to go there, I will ask you another question- What is the difference in swerve from hitting the exact vertical axis to hitting above or below the vertical axis with the same horizontal point...with the same speed ?
Typical Rick. Instead of answering the questions, just accuse the person asking them of being a stalker.
Here's your statement: "CJ's is for the purpose of getting the cue ball to squirt 'off line'
What makes them be different & have different effects is the spin to speed ratio to which the shot is executed.
I think there are far too many that do not understand spin to speed ratio or speed to spin ratio & the different effects that they can have dependent on the actual ratio that exists."
What part of those statements do you not understand?
:thud: Well, you've made it quite clear that you aren't going to answer, or can't answer your own statement. Just keep on dodging, I'll quit asking since you have made it quite clear that your intention with the statement was not to educate, but some other reason.
Just for clarity sake, can you rephrase that question a bit more clearly. I'm fairly sure I can answer it but I'm not sure what you are asking. Just for clarity, let's call the horizontal latitude equator axis the X axis & call the other vercal longitude meridian one the Y axis or better yet give me some clock time locations.
I'm sure you'll have a 'verbal', slur regarding my comprehension of that sentence.
But I'll take it just so that we can be clear.
Last edited:
"You can't simply "think" your way into playing pool better without experimentation"
You can hit the same part of the cue ball and get different levels of spin by lengthening your follow through or by varying your "swing plane" slightly.
This isn't' something that I would recommend analyzing (or you may get a dose of paralysis by analysis), it's more of a "feel," and as I've said many times "pool is a feel game," and processing this feel is done below the level of consciousness.
"You can't "think" your way into playing pool better without experimentation" - CJ Wiley
You can hit the same part of the cue ball and get different levels of spin by lengthening your follow through or by varying your "swing plane" slightly.
This isn't' something that I would recommend analyzing (or you may get a dose of paralysis by analysis), it's more of a "feel," and as I've said many times "pool is a feel game," and processing this feel is done below the level of consciousness.
"You can't "think" your way into playing pool better without experimentation" - CJ Wiley
Thanks for making it clear that you never had any intention of answering it. And, since you always want to make sure you aren't understood, your intentions all along were made very clear with your remark about me making a verbal slur, which I haven't. You made it very clear that that is all you were doing to start with. I'm outa here.
And, you can't play better pool just because you think you can defy physics and the laws of the universe. You are very right in stating that one shouldn't analyze your statement above. Because if one spends even a little thought about it, they realize that it makes no sense whatsoever.
And, you can't play better pool just because you think you can defy physics and the laws of the universe. You are very right in stating that one shouldn't analyze your statement above. Because if one spends even a little thought about it, they realize that it makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not a TOI guy (not saying it is wrong just that I play different) but what he said about English and the stroke does not defy physics. You can not only change the amount of English with different strokes while hitting the cueball at the same spot, but you can also change the transfer of English from the cueball to the object ball with different strokes (that is change the amount of cueball induced throw with different strokes)
If you think you can change the amount of spin by varying the amount of followthrough, you are very, very, mistaken.
I don't advise using an extended follow through when unnecessary
Yes, Hal Mix is the one that showed me this method and why I don't advise using an extended follow through when unnecessary - it will exaggerate the reaction after contact. I shorter "punch" stroke takes the reaction off the cue ball.
Allen Hopkins was the master of this type stroke, however many players use a crisp "punch" stroke. Those that extend the follow through and "pose for the camera" don't "real eyes" that they forecast their weaknesses for all to see. 'The Game is the Teacher'
Yes, Hal Mix is the one that showed me this method and why I don't advise using an extended follow through when unnecessary - it will exaggerate the reaction after contact. I shorter "punch" stroke takes the reaction off the cue ball.
Allen Hopkins was the master of this type stroke, however many players use a crisp "punch" stroke. Those that extend the follow through and "pose for the camera" don't "real eyes" that they forecast their weaknesses for all to see. 'The Game is the Teacher'
The long, softer stroke is different for sure, a weakness, I'm not so sure I'd call it that. There are lots of great players who play that way but I can see how you would see your stroke as being the most reliable since you have played the game perhaps as well as anyone has ever played it.
There is no doubt in my mind though that the stroke can impact the transfer of energy and the way that the balls react. Anyone who believes that a skid can be caused by a "stroke error" has no argument here IMO.
You are 100% correct that a long, soft stroke leaves more action on the cueball. A short punch stroke transfers more energy to the object ball in my opinion. I generally play with a lengthy stroke and if I have a cut shot where I want to hold the cueball I have to short stroke (punch) the ball. This allows me to hit the ob with enough force to send it to the pocket while maintaining little movement from the cueball. If I were to bit the same shot with my normal stroke I would get a reaction quite different, more movement from the cue while the ob might not make it to the pocket. I know the scientific guys are going to assume that this reaction is caused by using side envlish on the short stroke but I'm saying that this will happen with the same cueing on both shots and the same thickness of hit. The stroke is the difference.
Last edited:
Ask Chris Bartram if the two skids he had in one match were caused by a stroke error.
I think Chris is smart enough to know if he put an unwanted stroke on the ball and caused his skid and I think he's honest enough not to blame the balls publicly if he felt he was to blame.
Last edited:
He did (blame the balls ) publicly in this forum and you thanked him for his honesty.
That said, in my experience soft cut shots with center cue seem to allow skids to occur. Is that a stroke error?
That said, in my experience soft cut shots with center cue seem to allow skids to occur. Is that a stroke error?
Are you aware that there can be more than one reason for a skid to occur?
People can subscribe to the belief that a stroke can create a skid and the balls can create a skid too, even with a perfect stroke.
IMO
This thread needs to be moved back to the "Aiming Conversation" category.
Please take no offense, but this was started as (and continues to be) an aiming thread.
I'm going cross-eyed just trying to read this. Surely, that's not good for my aim.
P.S.
Be nice to one another. We all have different aiming methods, and they are all acceptable within our own heads.
-Blake
This thread needs to be moved back to the "Aiming Conversation" category.
Please take no offense, but this was started as (and continues to be) an aiming thread.
I'm going cross-eyed just trying to read this. Surely, that's not good for my aim.
P.S.
Be nice to one another. We all have different aiming methods, and they are all acceptable within our own heads.
-Blake