Question about intentional swerve

[ENGLISH!]

The reason you were advised to ignore me is because you can't debate worth a lick. And I tend to reply to the nonsense you put on here. You can't handle it, so you always go crying to the mods that I'm attacking you. They got tired of your reporting me, so told you to ignore me. Basically, you couldn't handle the fights you start on here, and always go crying for help.

I've never reported you. But that is just one more thing in the extremely high number of things that your 'omniscient mind' has been incorrect.

You can not debate worth a crap. You have no idea of what that word actually means.

All you really know how to do is rant out irrational & illogical based opinions & call them fact or proof & then try to proceed from there & also 'attack' your 'opposition'. That is not how a debate works.

I will give you a compliment though. You're an excellent troller that knows how to play within the forum rules & you know how to insight those with whom you wish to do so.

I guess since you have been repeatedly warned to stop stalking & trolling CJ, you've turned attentions to me.

Again, May God Help You, Neil.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Up until now, I haven't addressed the issue of those talking about using an "up stroke", and how effective it is. Earlier, AtLarge posed a question that went ignored. His question was very relevant to the discussion.

I just checked something on my table, which is a Valley. Laying the butt of the cue on the rail, and the cue extending out on the table, I wanted to check how high the tip was off the table with a level cue. Level being a straight line down the center of the cue. Center of butt to center of tip.

I placed a striped ball at the tip, and checked where the tip contacts the ob with a level cue. As level as it can be since it stopped by the rail from going any lower. With a level cue, the bottom portion of the tip, which is what will contact the ob, is a little above the miscue limit (the stripe) on the ob.

Therefore, unless one has the butt of the cue out on the table, which would result in a very long reach, (cue has to have the butt at least 4" out on the bed to be able to stroke it), one can not even shoot with a level cue, let alone with the tip raised to create an upstroke. And, even if one could, it would result in a massive miscue.

Just because some pro says something works, doesn't mean that one should automatically believe it. especially when it is so easily checked and proven to be false. There are a ton of myths out there that have no basis in reality.

So, on a pool table, you can't use an upstroke. On a billiard table, I don't know. It has larger balls, and I don't know the height of the rails on those.

If you think YOUR 'test' or 'experiment' is accurate & your conclusion valid, you are once again incorrect.

A cue is typically 56 to 58" long. There are many shots, especially on a 9' table where the tip can hit the ball while moving in an upward direction AND the cue does NOT have to be angled up at the start to do so. Not everyone plays on your 7' bar box.

You set up a 'bad' test with incomplete parameters & then imply YOUR conclusions to be 'proof'. I could be wrong but I'd surmise that you probably assumed one would be using a pendulum type stroke or even a straight piston type stroke & not one where the bridge hand varies in height & the cue rocks.

Also, many coin tables still have the oversized cue ball but I would agree that would & should be considered as an outlier, but it would still make your 'definitive' statement false.

May God not only Bless You but also Help You, Neil.

PS You should not have used the center line of the cue but the bottom line instead.

 

[ENGLISH!]

And then there's going to the table and shooting balls to find out more about reality than listening to the self styled experts who constantly bash pros without testing the information firsthand.

The upstroke bashing here makes the idea look like it's a large, uncontrolled spasm that couldn't happen without a miscue. It simply is a small tip movement that is almost imperceptible, even in person.

I know and can use the stroke when needed, but can't see the difference in my own stroke other than the resulting cue ball action. It's that small. And the reason for its use was touched on here by 3kushn before it turned into a "swoop" thread.

The reason for avoiding the collision in his billiard link was partially the upstroke (God help me for saying it!). The reverse spin moved the ball forward, but the principle of the upstroke wasn't understood enough to be added to the discussion.

Jimmy White explained why side (spin) was a task with an above center stroke in his book. The idea of cueing above center with spin or not is why using the "upstroke" factors into one's game.

The upstroke is a Pinoy staple and learned by SVB in recent years. I investigated it after having many, many discussions about it with Gerry Kanov. It is a fact, but not theater for a trick shot artist. These are two completely different techniques and the reason this thread has moved off topic into "swoop world". The cue is almost never level, so let's get past this flat Earth mentality. We should either learn how the stroke is done and what it can be used for or sit in our self imposed mindset of not accepting new (old) ideas into our way of thinking.

Best,
Mike

:thumbup2: Good Post, Mike.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If you are controlling the tip then you have your answer...

Tip to cueball contact is not about solid colissions but a compression rebound cycle that has time and distance.. it's about milliseconds but that still allows time for a change in tip elevation thru contact....

Even if it were solid object collision there would be an ascending force vector in the impact equation which has to be considered...

To think the cueing plane is always downward or level is disregarding that the tip moves opposite to the butt end of the cue.. if the butt is dropping thru the stroke the tip has to be rising.....

:thumbup2: Another good post, Chris.

 

[Mikjary]

Mike, do you believe the Pinoy's use the pump handle stroke to accomplish this? What I do is move my grip back till uncomfortable which creates a rocking up/down motion. I suppose more of an arm stroke would work but would I think it would require a dropping the elbow. Kinda in-between Pump and Pendulum.

Yes, but I haven't found this approach to be possible in my own game. I subscribe to a more conservative game using a piston or pendulum stroke, as needed.

They cue much lower as a baseline than traditional players do. This is all related to digging into the cue ball, a term I learned from billiard players years ago. CJ, among others, calls it pinning the cue ball due to the high pitched noise from the tip contact on the cue ball.

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

Ummmm... actually no... you are dealing with a lever and fulcrum... as such the tip motion can be ascending....

The force vectors are still downward. All you are accomplishing is changing how high on the cb you hit.

 

[Neil]

If you think YOUR 'test' or 'experiment' is accurate & your conclusion valid, you are once again incorrect.

A cue is typically 56 to 58" long. There are many shots, especially on a 9' table where the tip can hit the ball while moving in an upward direction AND the cue does NOT have to be angled up at the start to do so. Not everyone plays on your 7' bar box.

You set up a 'bad' test with incomplete parameters & then imply YOUR conclusions to be 'proof'. I could be wrong but I'd surmise that you probably assumed one would be using a pendulum type stroke or even a straight piston type stroke & not one where the bridge hand varies in height & the cue rocks.

Also, many coin tables still have the oversized cue ball but I would agree that would & should be considered as an outlier, but it would still make your 'definitive' statement false.

May God not only Bless You but also Help You, Neil.

PS You should not have used the center line of the cue but the bottom line instead.

You provide nothing but insults to try and discredit what I stated. You provide no proof of anything, only your words to back up your statements. In fact, some of your statements only showcase that you have no clue what you are even talking about. All I did is show that for most shots, one can not even have a level cue. And then asked how one can get an upstroke with a downward pointing cue. And that caused you to go off on another one of your rants. And you say I can't discuss anything. wow!

 

[Mikjary]

Even if you can get enough side-swipe speed to make a difference (as compared to the forward speed of the cue), the resulting shot is equivalent to a straight stroke at a certain contact point (which would be further out on the ball, if the swipe speed is significant). Here's an illustration Jal posted a while back that illustrates the concept:

The real advantage of the stroke swoop (for some) is the ability to aim center-ball with no squirt correction and create the tip offset (and squirt correction) during the stroke. Beside that, there really is no benefit to using a swooping stroke. BHE before the stroke (or placing the cue along the necessary line of aim intuitively w/o swoop or BHE, like most top players do) will result in a much more consistent and accurate hit. For those interested, the stroke swoop resource page explains both the advantages and disadvantages of stroke swoop, and includes some useful video demonstrations to help make the points. Here's one of my favorites:

NV B.33 - Back-hand swoop and twist ball-turn techniques

Enjoy,
Dave

This diagram of JAL's, courtesy of the Doctor, is almost correct if used as a side view. The cue shaft should have a slight downward trajectory and not appear to be level with the playing surface.

Cueing, by stroking through the cue ball above center, will cause a small hop and loss of grip with the table causing it to move farther along the tangent line before it regains friction with the table cloth. The upstroke is used to lessen the effects of the ball leaving the playing surface by not exerting as much force directed into the table, but rather more parallel with it by directing the force closer to the same plane as the table bed.

There are several plusses besides the obvious one of lessening the cue ball deflection, when needed, in tight traffic. I find predicting the cue ball path because of this limited movement a personal advantage, as I'm sure others would agree.

The faster cloth requires better speed control with pocket speed on many shots a premium. Friction and cut induced throw is a problem when the cue ball can't travel long distances for position. The up stroke helps this by eliminating the cling from a rolling cue ball due to the small increase in top spin. You can cut the balls slightly thinner and hit the ball softer avoiding a portion of the CIT.

You don't approach forward roll with the cue ball until you cut the ball, is a gauge I use. At first I thought the extra forward spin from my stroke would move the cue ball forward even farther than slow rolling it. With a slightly thicker hit on the object ball, I offset the spin and get a slower moving cue ball.

If this makes sense, there's more.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... you are dealing with a lever and fulcrum... as such the tip motion can be ascending....

The tip motion can be ascending in relation to the cue's starting centerline, which isn't necessarily ascending in relation to horizontal. In fact, the tip starts out moving downward in relation to horizontal and then curves gradually upward - the tip's highest point is likely an inch or less higher than its lowest point. Meanwhile, the cue's forward motion is several inches, so the upward tilt of the tip's movement as it strikes the cue ball is probably miniscule.

In other words, I think the upward angle of the tip's movement as it contacts the cue ball (and therefore this stroke's effectiveness) is probably way overestimated.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Up until now, I haven't addressed the issue of those talking about using an "up stroke", and how effective it is. Earlier, AtLarge posed a question that went ignored. His question was very relevant to the discussion.

I just checked something on my table, which is a Valley. Laying the butt of the cue on the rail, and the cue extending out on the table, I wanted to check how high the tip was off the table with a level cue. Level being a straight line down the center of the cue. Center of butt to center of tip.

I placed a striped ball at the tip, and checked where the tip contacts the ob with a level cue. As level as it can be since it stopped by the rail from going any lower. With a level cue, the bottom portion of the tip, which is what will contact the ob, is a little above the miscue limit (the stripe) on the ob.

Therefore, unless one has the butt of the cue out on the table, which would result in a very long reach, (cue has to have the butt at least 4" out on the bed to be able to stroke it), one can not even shoot with a level cue, let alone with the tip raised to create an upstroke. And, even if one could, it would result in a massive miscue.

Just because some pro says something works, doesn't mean that one should automatically believe it. especially when it is so easily checked and proven to be false. There are a ton of myths out there that have no basis in reality.

So, on a pool table, you can't use an upstroke. On a billiard table, I don't know. It has larger balls, and I don't know the height of the rails on those.

Where's your proof for the statement above that I've highlighted?

 

[ENGLISH!]

This diagram of JAL's, courtesy of the Doctor, is almost correct. The cue shaft should have a slight downward trajectory and not appear to be level with the playing surface.

Cueing, by stroking through the cue ball above center, will cause a small hop and loss of grip with the table causing it to move farther along the tangent line before it regains friction with the table cloth. The upstroke is used to lessen the effects of the ball leaving the playing surface by not exerting as much force directed into the table, but rather more parallel with it by directing the force closer to the same plane as the table bed.

There are several plusses besides the obvious one of lessening the cue ball deflection, when needed, in tight traffic. I find predicting the cue ball path because of this limited movement a personal advantage, as I'm sure others would agree.

The faster cloth requires better speed control with pocket speed on many shots a premium. Friction and cut induced throw is a problem when the cue ball can't travel long distances for position. The up stroke helps this by eliminating the cling from a rolling cue ball due to the small increase in top spin. You can cut the balls slightly thinner and hit the ball softer avoiding a portion of the CIT.

You don't approach forward roll with the cue ball until you cut the ball, is a gauge I use. At first I thought the extra forward spin from my stroke would move the cue ball forward even farther than slow rolling it. With a slightly thicker hit on the object ball, I offset the spin and get a slower moving cue ball.

If this makes sense, there's more.

Best,
Mike

Good post Mike. But, I could be wrong, but I thought that Jal's diagram was for a side swipe & not an 'upstroke'.

I just thought that perhaps that should be clarified do to the severity of the angled cue that might cause some to be confused.

But, like I said, I could be wrong here.

Best, Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

The tip motion can be ascending in relation to the cue's starting centerline, which isn't necessarily ascending in relation to horizontal. In fact, the tip starts out moving downward in relation to horizontal and then curves gradually upward - the tip's highest point is likely an inch or less higher than its lowest point. Meanwhile, the cue's forward motion is several inches, so the upward tilt of the tip's movement as it strikes the cue ball is probably miniscule.

In other words, I think the upward angle of the tip's movement as it contacts the cue ball (and therefore this stroke's effectiveness) is probably way overestimated.

pj
chgo

Patrick,

The smallest of differences can be the difference between a successful shot & a failed attempt.

Best,
Rick

 

[CJ Wiley]

the acceleration must be EXACTLY at the moment of contact, with little followthrough

Yes, but I haven't found this approach to be possible in my own game. I subscribe to a more conservative game using a piston or pendulum stroke, as needed.

They cue much lower as a baseline than traditional players do. This is all related to digging into the cue ball, a term I learned from billiard players years ago. CJ, among others, calls it pinning the cue ball due to the high pitched noise from the tip contact on the cue ball.

Best,
Mike

Better not mention "pinning," it's a bit advanced, like aiming a masse' shot.

When you have a ball in the way of your shot, you can actually aim at the ball as if the other one's not there. Then, gauge your stoke so that it goes around the ball and makes the shot {as if the first ball wasn't even there}.

To accomplish this type shot, the acceleration must be EXACTLY at the moment of contact, with little, or no follow-through (you wouldn't want to rip the cloth anyway).

 

[Mikjary]

Good post Mike. But, I could be wrong, but I thought that Jal's diagram was for a side swipe & not an 'upstroke'.

I just thought that perhaps that should be clarified do to the severity of the angled cue that might cause some to be confused.

But, like I said, I could be wrong here.

Best, Rick

Hey Rick,

It is. I was addressing it as a side view instead of an overhead view. That's why I mentioned the angle of the cue stick should be angled more towards the table instead of appearing level with the table. Sorry, if I was unclear about that. I edited the other post to show this.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

Better not mention "pinning," it's a bit advanced, like aiming a masse' shot.

When you have a ball in the way of your shot, you can actually aim at the ball as if the other one's not there. Then, gauge your stoke so that it goes around the ball and makes the shot {as if the first ball wasn't even there}.

To accomplish this type shot, the acceleration must be EXACTLY at the moment of contact, with little, or no follow-through (you wouldn't want to rip the cloth anyway).

Change is slow around here. Swiping at the cue ball was taboo a few years ago. Look how far we've come. We can talk about it without throwing things at each other! :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

 

[Ron Swanson]

Lol

americans!!

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hey Rick,

It is. I was addressing it as a side view instead of an overhead view. That's why I mentioned the angle of the cue stick should be angled more towards the table instead of appearing level with the table. Sorry, if I was unclear about that. I edited the other post to show this.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

I understood. I just thought it better to be more clear.

Thanks & Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Change is slow around here. Swiping at the cue ball was taboo a few years ago. Look how far we've come. We can talk about it without throwing things at each other! :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

Well...some of us can.:wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

this forum has improved drastically (in this respect) the last couple of years

Change is slow around here. Swiping at the cue ball was taboo a few years ago. Look how far we've come. We can talk about it without throwing things at each other! :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

That's for sure, this forum has improved drastically (in this respect) the last couple of years hasn't it?

By this time next year "Pinning" may even be understood and discussed without bias. 'The Game will still be the Teacher'

 

[Neil]

Where's your proof for the statement above that I've highlighted?

Really, you want to play that stupid game again? Think about it first Rick. You really want be to tear your post apart? Not that I need to, you did a fine job of it yourself when you posted it. What happened to you wanting to be civil and discuss things? All you are doing now is trolling.