When I first started playing, the concept of "squirt" or deflection was not even known or discussed. I guess we all just thought that cue ball curve (now swerve) and throw (now spin induced throw) were all that were involved, and couldn't understand why, if we changed cues, we missed routine shots. Squirt was the missing link. Dave's slow motion video's clearly show these effects and many more.
Many players thought sidespin alone caused the cue ball to swerve, which is not exactly true.
Back hand English was being taught by instructors for cash as a "pool secret". I'm sure they didn't even understand why it might work, or why it didn't work in some cases. Again I thought it was a scam. Although I don't use it, Fred and Colin Colesco are the one's who got me to pay attention to it and realize there is something to this technique if understood and done properly. Watching Colin play with it clearly showed me it was a different technique entirely from what I was using.
I considered fractional aiming systems to be rubbish. Dave collected aiming system info which more or less legitimized the subject. There were enough advocates to make me recognize that these systems can and do help.
Cue ball cling (or just a lot of contact throw) was once considered a necessary evil and sometimes blamed on the stroke itself. Now we know that spin helps reduce or eliminate cling and gives us one more reason to practice playing with English.
In a thread I started a few weeks ago in the 14.1 Forum, I offered that Byrne's Standard Book (1978) might have led me astray by not clearly or accurately addressing cue ball deflection (squirt). Inasmuch as I (rightly or wrongly) considered his book (published pre-pool video age, let alone pre-Internet age) to be the bible, I wondered whether others might have concluded that they, too, missed the aiming boat somewhat due to an understanding of cause and effect that was founded on reading Byrne's Standard Book. There were a few interesting replies, mostly focusing on the question of whether Byrne's teachings might be more accurate in the pre-Simonis era. In any event, here is the link to the thread, followed by my opening post. I'd be interested in any further thoughts on the subject (as it relates to Myths -- not trying to hijack this thread).
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=379764
Perhaps this belongs in the Main Forum, but inasmuch as Byrne's Standard Book of Pool and Billiards is oriented more toward straight pool than other games, I thought I'd post here. I'm also a straight pool guy.
I learned to play in, and, until recently, had played only in, the 1979-1981 time frame, and the first and only book that I read at that time was Byrne's Standard Book. I came away from reading it with the thought that right English would throw the ball to the left, and vice versa. Accordingly, as an example, on a straight in shot where I wanted the cue ball, after contact with the object ball, to travel forward and to the left of the normal line of aim, I figured that I should aim left of center and put high right English on the cue ball. The right English, I thought, would throw the object ball to the left, compensating for the new line of aim which was intended to create some angle and avoid a scratch. I might have subconsciously considered the possibility of some curve to the right, had I been stroking the cue ball slowly. Never did I consider the phenomenon of deflection that I now, in my second, 35 yrs. later return venture into playing pool, have come to understand. Now, when applying high right English, I aim more at the center of the object ball, trusting deflection to cause the cue ball to veer to the left of my line of aim (thus creating angle), and then trusting throw (spin) to put the cue ball back onto a path into the pocket. After recently learning about deflection, I figured that back when I first began to play, I must simply have failed to pick up on this effect of English. I also concluded that my past misses on longer (in terms of distance of cue ball travel prior to impact with the object ball), faster shots with English were now more understandable to me. (By the way, I have always played with a standard maple shaft.)
I recently took one of my son's friends to the pool room that I frequent, and saw that he could benefit from learning some basics about English. I told him that I would find Byrne's book on my shelves and loan it to him. When I pulled it off the shelf, I decided to re-read what he had written about English. I was intrigued to discover that he had emphasized gear effect and curve, and had barely addressed deflection (which he calls "squirt"). In fact, "squirt" isn't directly discussed until one gets to Book Two ("THREE-CUSHION BILLIARDS"). Further, in Book One ("POOL"), there is a page (p. 45, "A frequently missed shot") on which Byrne describes and diagrams a cue ball struck with high right English veering to the right as a result of curve, while never mentioning "squirt." He does say, on p. 43 ("Allowing for curve"), that "On a very hard stroke the cueball has no time to curve at all -- in fact, it may "squirt" in the opposite direction (see p. 264)," but when one reads p. 264 (which is in Book Two on three cushion billiards), one reads that it is a phenomenon that comes into play on "length-of-the-table shots that must be struck hard with maximim English," and he closes by saying that "Many players are unaware of it . . . it is, admittedly, seldom a significant factor." (Ellipses in original). The discussion on p. 85 ("Throwing an object ball at a distance") also makes no mention of deflection, but cautions that the shooter must account for curve.
I must say that I felt a little better about my long-standing ignorance regarding deflection, and the magnitude of its effect as compared to the effect of curve. Byrne's Standard Book didn't really give it enough emphasis, I don't think. Or am I missing something? Ironic, if I can use that word, is Byrne's preface to his largely deflection-devoid section on throw, in which he states, "The following explanation of throw shots is the most complete ever to appear in print. Certain hustlers are going to hate me for spoiling the beans."
Did Byrne discuss deflection more/differently in his "New Standard Book," or other, later writings? Has my observation about his 1978 Standard Book been made by others? Again, am I missing something? From other (web resource) readings, I gather that cue ball deflection is considered to be a more significant consideration than cue ball curve (other than when the cue ball travels at a slow speed), and my own (recent) experience is consistent with these other readings.
I am in no way trying to bash Byrne's 1978 book, which is wonderful in so many ways.
Thanks in advance for anyone's input.
