How to Use Pivot Point Knowlege To Increase Error Margins

[Poolplaya9]

Poolplay9, you are extremely wordy sir. I don't think you have any idea what Darren Appleton needs to get better and until you play at his level any advice you can give him is pure speculation not fact, as you seem to imply. I do believe if you tell Darren how to or how not to play pool he would laugh in your face, that is, unless you can play above his level, in which case he might learn something from you.

One of the biggest factors that separates how good people are in most sports including pool is physical skill, which often overcomes superior knowledge. To think that the best performer has all the knowledge or even the most knowledge of any one person is dumb and easily disproved if you just stop and think about it for all of two seconds. To be a professional level player at almost any sport including pool you just have to have a good knowledge coupled with exceptional physical skill.

Tiger Woods doesn't laugh at his coaches who taught and still teach him, yet none were ever near as good as he was. Not even remotely close, but they know a lot more. Tiger just has superior physical skills that far outweigh their knowledge advantage. There are few if any professional football players who are more knowledgeable about the game than their coaches, but chances are the coach was never anywhere close to as good on the field as anyone on his team due to his lack of physical skills. Examples could literally be endless. Guarantee you there are things Darren could learn from me. Also guarantee you there are quite a few people who aren't anywhere close to being at the professional level of play but who are far more knowledgeable about pool than he is--some of whom post on this forum. I can also guarantee you that if he had their knowledge he would be an even better player.

 

[Poolplaya9]

How can you consciously know what the subconscious is doing especially of another person?

The only reason to make this kinda of unproveable statement is in order to support a point that can not be supported any other way.


If someone does not know they are adjusting....are they adjusting?

We know that professional players have very good results. We know that squirt, swerve, throw, bridge length etc all have an effect on how the balls react and what direction they go. We know that their effects are different for nearly every shot and have to be adjusted for from shot to shot.

Since pros have great results, they obviously are accurately adjusting for these things the majority of the time. Now if the pro doesn't even know one of these things exists (I think it was Mike Sigel who didn't really believe in the existence of cut induced throw for one example and there are other similar cases like tons of pros who don't know that bridge length affects squirt etc), or if they don't consciously adjust for the the effects they do know about (lots of pros have said this is the case for them), then their adjustments without a doubt have to be subconscious. I bet some of your adjustments are subconscious too. That is the case with most players.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Nice thread, Colin, but quit giving up these little tidbits for the tool box! :wink:

I bridge with my player at about 11-12 inches. For the long straight ins, I bridge around 15+ inches with a firm stroke. My back hand grips the cue stick with my little finger around the bumper.

This allows for a good stroke and a decent amount of draw, if I need it. I learned this many years ago and straightish pots became a lot easier to cinch. Now, disregard this post and make this thread go away before anybody else learns about this.

Best,
Mike

hmmm... I'll set up a fake account and discredit myself pronto

But seriously, I don't think it's a quick fix for most players, who tend to align poorly and swipe and bridge shift during delivery. Following my directions here could drive them nuts unless they happen upon accurate pre-alignment of the bridge V.

I've long held the view that 90+ percent of potting errors are mainly a result of poor pre-alignment, and not stroking. Unfortunatly, I've little to offer in regard to an easy means of accurate pre-alignment, but I think it can help if a player reduces the effects of stroking errors and hence start focusing on better pre-alignment via better bridge V placement.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[PoolBoy1]

I use a 4" bridge for long and short shots. Play 70-100 racks per week and only give the pocket a casual glance. The mind does make up the necessary computations for successful pocketing of balls. I can't control a long bridge. 1st ten years of pool were just 14.1 pool. I like the Mosconi bridge and stroke. Would have to retrain for Efren's deal. So although this article is far beyond the average intellect it is amusing. If this method were Gospel it would reset pool back to day 1.

 

[PoolBoy1]

Nice thread, Colin, but quit giving up these little tidbits for the tool box! :wink:

I bridge with my player at about 11-12 inches. For the long straight ins, I bridge around 15+ inches with a firm stroke. My back hand grips the cue stick with my little finger around the bumper.

This allows for a good stroke and a decent amount of draw, if I need it. I learned this many years ago and straightish pots became a lot easier to cinch. Now, disregard this post and make this thread go away before anybody else learns about this.

Best,
Mike

This is an interesting thread. My bridge is 4 inches, less for shorter shots. My right hand is 14" up from butt. I say it is easier to control a shorter cue than a long hold. Same as a golf club. Choking down is more accurate and easier to manage. Especially under pressure. Old fashioned BB hitters that hit for good average moved runners, sacrificed well choking the bat. Too much distance from the bridge hand and the other encourages over hitting. Ball slammers are hiding ticks or yips.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I am a feel player and a strong believer in the subconscious working in pool and overthinking is a big reason we miss shots and shape.

And not thinking enough is a big reason we miss shots and shape too. I do agree that over thinking also causes problems at times, although not thinking enough is probably worse. Which causes problems more often or nets out worse is likely dependent on a number of variables and is a debate for another thread though. I think you would agree though that not thinking causes missed shots and shape at times too, and we probably all generally agree that both can cause problems at times.

Threads like this confuse most players, even good players.

You may be right in some cases. Certainly some of the science and physics discussions are beyond some people's understanding. If everyone were capable of understanding physics we would have a ton of physicists and a massive shortage of workers in lots of other occupations out there. But just because some people are confused or don't understand does that mean it shouldn't be discussed? What about the people that can understand it, shouldn't it still be discussed so at least they get the benefit of it? And some of this stuff is actually pretty simple and everyone could get it if they really wanted to. Sometimes it is just a case of being intimidated by science, sometimes it is a closed mind, sometimes it is lazyness/lack of effort, no desire to learn, etc. And this is one of those cases that I think everyone could learn if they had the desire and put a little thought and effort into it, watched the videos and read the pages that were referenced, and did the experiments themselves on a table to visually see the impact that bridge length makes. Once you really actually understand it, how it could be useful is obvious and not even a question. And you still wouldn't have to actually use that knowledge if you didn't want to so it caused no harm.

 

[Colin Colenso]

This is an interesting thread. My bridge is 4 inches, less for shorter shots. My right hand is 14" up from butt. I say it is easier to control a shorter cue than a long hold. Same as a golf club. Choking down is more accurate and easier to manage. Especially under pressure. Old fashioned BB hitters that hit for good average moved runners, sacrificed well choking the bat. Too much distance from the bridge hand and the other encourages over hitting. Ball slammers are hiding ticks or yips.

Could you mean that there is 4 inches from your finger tips to the CB? When measuring bridge lengths, I measure from edge of CB to bridge V.

The only players I've seen shooting with 4 inch bridges are some old 3 cushion players, and I suspect they were copying someone else, because it makes little sense to me. I believe it magnifies stroking errors far more than it aids in hitting the CB accurately. The modern players have longer bridges and higher averages.

 

[Straightpool_99]

One of the biggest factors that separates how good people are in most sports including pool is physical skill, which often overcomes superior knowledge. To think that the best performer has all the knowledge or even the most knowledge of any one person is dumb and easily disproved if you just stop and think about it for all of two seconds. To be a professional level player at almost any sport including pool you just have to have a good knowledge coupled with exceptional physical skill.

Tiger Woods doesn't laugh at his coaches who taught and still teach him, yet none were ever near as good as he was. Not even remotely close, but they know a lot more. Tiger just has superior physical skills that far outweigh their knowledge advantage. There are few if any professional football players who are more knowledgeable about the game than their coaches, but chances are the coach was never anywhere close to as good on the field as anyone on his team due to his lack of physical skills. Examples could literally be endless. Guarantee you there are things Darren could learn from me. Also guarantee you there are quite a few people who aren't anywhere close to being at the professional level of play but who are far more knowledgeable about pool than he is--some of whom post on this forum. I can also guarantee you that if he had their knowledge he would be an even better player.

OH MY...KANYE!
Seriously? The ego of some people, it never seizes to amaze me. I may have said some things on this forum that were stupid and poorly worded. At least I never claimed be be able to make Darren Appleton a better player. I can tell you right now, even if you get the BEST, absolute best coach in the world right now, put a gun to his head and said: "Make this man a better player or you die!" that coaches life would be hanging by a thread! No coach would ever guarantee something like that, and even if you chalk that up to being modest, I don't think there is anyone who could reliably improve the game of a top 5 player every time. That's not how it works. Could he teach him something he doesn't know? Probably. Will that work better than what he is allready doing? Most likely not, but there is a chance, of course.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I'll admit i'm not the brightest bulb but I'm confused here. There are world champions who have a wide variety of strokes, bridge lengths and bridge types.

If the pivot point of a cue is so vital to the game how are these world class players so successful? Are they carefully selecting cues to match their pivot point?

I addressed this earlier on, though perhaps toward the end of a post. It's an important question, and perhaps my answer is a degree speculative, but I'll offer my insights best I can.

Pro players can stroke pretty straight when they try to, so their stroking errors tend to be of an order probably less than, but perhaps a little greater on some shots, than the errors in their bridge placement. Hence, at a certain stage of competency, it becomes hard for them to distinguish between stroking and aiming errors, and in most cases, the margin of error is not great enough to cause them to miss the types of pots they attempt in standard games.

Another aspect of not using pivot stroke cancelling methods is that a lot of players, even pros, use steering as a means of aim adjustment.

In current game formats, it makes little sense to attempt shots that are less than an 80% chance of making and pros will always do their best to minimize the difficulty of positional play.

Should we ask pros to take on harder pots with all nature of spins and their lack of competency would soon be exposed. Surely they're not weak, but they will struggle. On these type of shots, a knowledge of effective pivot points and throw are highly advantageous if a player has developed accurate pre-alignment.

In proposing this method, I did so not so much as to encourage using it, because most players can stroke well enough to achieve the shot if they pre-align well albeit several inches from the stroke error cancellation point. I raised the topic mainly to assist people's understanding of the relationship of bridge V, stroking effects and pivot effects, because a lot of myths surround the topic.

The CB being a mirror of the OB is one, or hitting the CB 1mm off will change where the OB goes etc. The methodology of the shot in the original post in this thread proves these concepts to be 100% wrong in some situations.

Nearly every instructor I've seen or read is either wrong or deliberately vague on these aspects. I can recall none who advise steering, yet have seen none promote this methodology that nullifies its effects. Perhaps steering is preferable. I know I do it deliberately on occasion, when I can't be bothered re-setting my bridge and know I can steer my aim in a controllable way.

Basically, I present the ideas as food for thought, and to advance the thinking of stroke v aiming to a more technically accurate and detailed realm.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

We know that professional players have very good results. We know that squirt, swerve, throw, bridge length etc all have an effect on how the balls react and what direction they go. We know that their effects are different for nearly every shot and have to be adjusted for from shot to shot.

Since pros have great results, they obviously are accurately adjusting for these things the majority of the time. Now if the pro doesn't even know one of these things exists (I think it was Mike Sigel who didn't really believe in the existence of cut induced throw for one example and there are other similar cases like tons of pros who don't know that bridge length affects squirt etc), or if they don't consciously adjust for the the effects they do know about (lots of pros have said this is the case for them), then their adjustments without a doubt have to be subconscious. I bet some of your adjustments are subconscious too. That is the case with most players.

Good points!

But I think we should keep in mind that 98% of shots pros play are shots that most intermediate players are familiar with. They are pros because they execute them more consistently and plan their choice of shots more intelligently.

That said, get them on a practice table for some exhibition shots and we'll see pretty impressive execution on the 2% shots that are basically extra clubs in their golf bag.

Most however will have a domain of advanced shot types they struggle with, but those shots are rarely part of the bag of tricks needed for them to achieve their primary goals.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

OH MY...KANYE!
Seriously? The ego of some people, it never seizes to amaze me. I may have said some things on this forum that were stupid and poorly worded. At least I never claimed be be able to make Darren Appleton a better player. I can tell you right now, even if you get the BEST, absolute best coach in the world right now, put a gun to his head and said: "Make this man a better player or you die!" that coaches life would be hanging by a thread! No coach would ever guarantee something like that, and even if you chalk that up to being modest, I don't think there is anyone who could reliably improve the game of a top 5 player every time. That's not how it works. Could he teach him something he doesn't know? Probably. Will that work better than what he is allready doing? Most likely not, but there is a chance, of course.

A bit of an over-reaction I think Straightpool, did you climb out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

But seriously, you have a point but so does Poolplaya9. You're both smart guys but it's a matter of interpretation or degree of relevance I think.

He's right in that some people here could provide Darren or many other pros with a few insights on particular shots, or educate them with some advanced physics aspects.

Some of those insights might help them make an additional few shots per year, and some of the technical insights may make them miss an additional dozen shots. LOL

Pros have a pretty good grasp of what is important to them achieving their playing goals, and it's rare that a coach or technical thinker makes the difference in them achieving that. The big improvements come with what they gather experientially on the practice table I suspect.

The biggest factor in taking one's opportunities in a match is much more about getting right side of a ball or getting to a good enough angle to hold for good position on a crucial tricky ball than it is about judging squirt or throw. The speed of shot execution alone has prevented more outs than all the lack of physics knowledge created errors combined. But it makes for pretty vague conversation to discuss how one's brain / body combines to hit a ball at the right speed.

 

[Straightpool_99]

A bit of an over-reaction I think Straightpool, did you climb out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

But seriously, you have a point but so does Poolplaya9. You're both smart guys but it's a matter of interpretation or degree of relevance I think.

He's right in that some people here could provide Darren or many other pros with a few insights on particular shots, or educate them with some advanced physics aspects.

Some of those insights might help them make an additional few shots per year, and some of the technical insights may make them miss an additional dozen shots. LOL

Pros have a pretty good grasp of what is important to them achieving their playing goals, and it's rare that a coach or technical thinker makes the difference in them achieving that. The big improvements come with what they gather experientially on the practice table I suspect.

The biggest factor in taking one's opportunities in a match is much more about getting right side of a ball or getting to a good enough angle to hold for good position on a crucial tricky ball than it is about judging squirt or throw. The speed of shot execution alone has prevented more outs than all the lack of physics knowledge created errors combined. But it makes for pretty vague conversation to discuss how one's brain / body combines to hit a ball at the right speed.

You are right, I did overreact and I was unfair to Poolplaya9, for that I apologize. Lately this forum has gotten completely out of control IMO. You have people claiming the pros are playing the game all wrong, that they know how to play the game better etc. There has been the odd outrageous claim in the past, but lately it has been worse than I can ever remember. I cringe when I think that pros might be lurking, reading this nonsense, and I feel embarassed to have played any part of that. But like I said, I may have unfairly taken that frustration out on the wrong person.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You are right, I did overreact and I was unfair to Poolplaya9, for that I apologize. Lately this forum has gotten completely out of control IMO. You have people claiming the pros are playing the game all wrong, that they know how to play the game better etc. There has been the odd outrageous claim in the past, but lately it has been worse than I can ever remember. I cringe when I think that pros might be lurking, reading this nonsense, and I feel embarassed to have played any part of that. But like I said, I may have unfairly taken that frustration out on the wrong person.

I get you mate, humility serves us well. I plan to try it someday

 

[ENGLISH!]

That's not quite correct, Neil. I made this drawing some years back to illustrate what happens. Left and right english do not create swerve. It is the axis running through the cue ball (pretend your cue is an axis passing through the cue ball) that matters -- the "3rd axis." When you elevate the butt of the cue, striking the cue ball causes a small amount of rotation about this axis. So what happens when you hit with right english with a little downward angle is that the cue ball squirts left due to the mass of the tip and then the downward spin from the tip (clockwise spin) causes the ball to curve, or swerve, back to the right.

Would you agree that if the cue ball was struck off the vertical axis but exactly on the horizontal axis AND with a level cue that their would be no swerve?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

I appreciate these sort of discussions about the physics of pool. Physics is the one science I never took.

I think that pool is a game of shot recognition, muscle memory and execution. If you put in the time and see what's happening on shots it's helpful. In the end you have to go out and execute what you know.

Nobody sitting over a shot thinking about swere, rotation, axis, deflection is going to play their best. If you practice correctly and stay in action, playing well is an unconscious execution of skill and not like taking the SATs.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Dan White]

Would you agree that if the cue ball was struck off the vertical axis but exactly on the horizontal axis AND with a level cue that their would be no swerve?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

I believe that is correct. If there is no downward force created when hitting the cue ball, there won't be any spin along that 3rd axis, or cue axis, and therefore no swerve. Of course the opposite extreme is masse, where the elevation of the butt exaggerates the spin around that "cue axis" and creates maximum swerve.

 

[Neil]

You are right, I did overreact and I was unfair to Poolplaya9, for that I apologize. Lately this forum has gotten completely out of control IMO. You have people claiming the pros are playing the game all wrong, that they know how to play the game better etc. There has been the odd outrageous claim in the past, but lately it has been worse than I can ever remember. I cringe when I think that pros might be lurking, reading this nonsense, and I feel embarassed to have played any part of that. But like I said, I may have unfairly taken that frustration out on the wrong person.

I'd like to see just one post of someone saying the pros are playing the game all wrong. I don't believe there is one outside of ones like yours above.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I believe that is correct. If there is no downward force created when hitting the cue ball, there won't be any spin along that 3rd axis, or cue axis, and therefore no swerve. Of course the opposite extreme is masse, where the elevation of the butt exaggerates the spin around that "cue axis" and creates maximum swerve.

A bit off topic, but on directional nap, as used on English game tables in Billiards, Snooker and UK Pool, a level cue stroke with side turns significantly. I've not observed these curves on napless or non-direction nap cloths when no vertical spin component exists.

I believe the cause is that directional fibers bend under the weight of the CB, creating more contact, hence friction, on the down nap side of the ball. Hence balls with right english traveling down nap curve right, as we'd expect, but balls traveling up nap with right english turn left, which astounds many billiardoligists. In addition, balls rolling naturally across the nap turn toward the downward side of the nap, much the same way as a rolling pin with sticky grease on one side will turn toward the greased side when rolled.

Colin

 

[ENGLISH!]

I believe that is correct. If there is no downward force created when hitting the cue ball, there won't be any spin along that 3rd axis, or cue axis, and therefore no swerve. Of course the opposite extreme is masse, where the elevation of the butt exaggerates the spin around that "cue axis" and creates maximum swerve.

Thanks.

It's not that downward force is needed to get swerve from a side hit but it is how the ball ultimately spins. One could hit above the equator with the appropriate downward force & the ball would come out spinning with an upright axis & not swerve

or

one could hit with a level cue (possible on larger tables) but below the equator & the ball would spin on a tilted axis & swerve given the appropriate speed of hit & time allowed before hitting the OB.

Would you agree with that?

 

[ENGLISH!]

A bit off topic, but on directional nap, as used on English game tables in Billiards, Snooker and UK Pool, a level cue stroke with side turns significantly. I've not observed these curves on napless or non-direction nap cloths when no vertical spin component exists.

I believe the cause is that directional fibers bend under the weight of the CB, creating more contact, hence friction, on the down nap side of the ball. Hence balls with right english traveling down nap curve right, as we'd expect, but balls traveling up nap with right english turn left, which astounds many billiardoligists. In addition, balls rolling naturally across the nap turn toward the downward side of the nap, much the same way as a rolling pin with sticky grease on one side will turn toward the greased side when rolled.

Colin

Hi Colin,

In Golf it's called grain & a putt hit 90* to a slope can actually 'roll' uphill for a short distance & amaze an unwitting golfer.

Cheers.