Story of my life...
Sorry to confuse things - what does parallel mean in your description?
pj
chgo
Low deflection stroke
- Thread starter VarmintKong
- Start date
Sorry to confuse things - what does parallel mean in your description?
pj
chgo
No, but with lots of practice (and consistent ball/table conditions) I think you can get pretty good at producing the right combinations of offset/elevation/speed.
pj
chgo
phreaticus
Well-known member
Not quite clear what you are saying. I think you are saying that a person with a well developed stroke (how they got such a stroke is immaterial to the core question) - can balance the squirt/swerve ratio (all sub variables included) to effectively create a “low defection stroke”. Yes or no?
I’m not challenging, or criticizing - I’m seeking clarification on your question/point that you posed to Hu, and pursuant to the OP’s question, as to whether JJ actually means a similar thing or not.
Thx
Last edited:
Story of my life...
Sorry to confuse things - what does parallel mean in your description?
pj
chgo
pj,
you have asked this question over and over. It means a parallel offset The buttcap and tip are moved over an equal amount from the location of a shot with no sidespin. Like every other method of applying spin slight adjustments from a shot with no spin have to be made.
The cue stick is much closer to inline with the path a shot without spin would take than using backhand to apply spin and still a bit more inline than using fronthand to apply spin.
While all methods of sidespin will work I think parallel offset might be best in the long term. Unlike other forms of applying spin you are looking roughly down the line of the cue stick and the general direction of the shot. Front hand english moves the stick over with less angle than back hand english leaving backhand english the type of english where the cue stick is furthest out of line with the shot.
If you are using back hand english you might try front hand english for forty or fifty hours of play. You may find you like it better.
Hu
He once posted online that he sometimes wondered why the tangent line was defined by the stun shot instead of being defined by the rolling cueball considering the majority of shots by beginners was a rolling cueball. From a teaching perspective I could absolutely understand what he meant. From a geometry perspective I wanted to laugh and pat him on the head.
As long as we acknowledge that balancing the variables is done by the brain as usual, adjusting the normal stroke elements (tip placement, angle, speed) - sure, call it what you want.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
So "parallel" is how the cue movement starts, but not how the cue ends up (angled as usual to compensate for deflection). I think that's what I'd call "adjusting by feel" - I do it a similar way, except I make the slight adjustments while getting down on the shot without placing the cue on the shot line first.
The word parallel implied to me that's how the cue ends up.
pj
chgo
phreaticus
Well-known member
Ok, but for some weird reason you seem to be waffling on the core question, and you are usually very opinionated and precise on such things. I'm not calling it anything I want, inventing any new pool variables or arguing that the players brain isn't where this is all calculated (where else would it be?). I'm simply exploring the OP's question about JJ's statement about a low deflection stroke - at direct face value.
I understand the core question to be - can a player have a stroke that essentially negates (or reduces) deflection when using side spin? In other words, can one player pick up a high deflection (say non LD traditional maple) shaft and get negligible deflection out it when loading the CB up with lots of side spin, where another will see a good bit of deflection - when shooting the same exact shot with the same exact equipment?
I ask this very specifically, since there is another recent thread where the OP was mentioning essentially the same exact thing. A cue maker had advised him that experienced players have a "push through" element to their stroke that negates deflection, and demonstrated it by doing the well known deflection test shot - but getting little to no deflection out of the CB (ie hitting where aimed when loading CB up with max side spin), whereas when when the OP shot the same test shot with the same cue he was getting 1/2-3/4 balls worth of deflection.
I've wondered about this for a while, and posted my own experience with the issue in this post in that other thread. No one responded to that, and this thread here seems to perhaps be a better place to discuss it.
Cheers
Last edited:
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
tap your shaft and see for yourself. All 3 of my players have one. The author of that book I found that tidbit in musta seen it in enough cues himself to include it. Maybe there is no true node that is totally unmoving, but there sure is a point that moves a helluva lot less than all the others.
Last edited:
I don't believe there are any special stroke techniques that aren't some combination of tip placement, cue angle and speed, chosen as needed by the player. "Push through" sounds like the common myth that stroke technique can significantly increase tip/ball contact time - it's not an unreasonable thought, just wrong.
pj
chgo
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Wow. Okay, now we are getting somewhere. If this cuemaker story is legit and a smoother accelerating stroke does indeed get less deflection, I think we have at least identified what JJ was referring to. It should be noted that other than the smoothly accelerating pro stroke technique, grip pressure and loop vs open bridge will likely have an effect on deflection as mentioned above by others.
I posed this question before to the 'u don't accelerate through contact' guys, but IS IT POSSIBLE that the smooth stroke as described by the cue maker, and I'm sure felt by others, would continue accelerating past the point of contact IF contact didn't occur? So the feel is to accelerate through. This is no different than measuring golf swing speeds. Sure everyone can see impact happen and all the forces involved in that make peak speed at the ball, BUT without impace, when swinging the same swing at air, top speed is achieved over a foot past the ball. I suspect this is the case for good strokes in pool as well.
phreaticus
Well-known member
Interesting. Ok, so now you are raising an new issue. But first, without postulating the how/why of it, and nitpicking the phrasing, can you just first answer the core question? I can't rephrase it any simpler. Thanks
No, he can only produce swerve to offset deflection. And there's nothing special about the stroke that does that, just another combination of the usual stroke elements.
pj
chgo
phreaticus
Well-known member
Ok, finally an crisp answer. Which is yes, a player can have a low deflection stroke. Now, you are hypothesizing that this is strictly due to balancing the squirt/swerve ratio, which mostly makes sense to me. But you also apparently believe that duration of contact creating a "push through" effect on the CB - is not a viable concept. Can you expand on why you believe this to be true? Again, I'm not challenging or criticizing your (new) point, but it is not intuitive to me, as it seems that certainly a person's stroke and minor differences in tip type could introduce a variable element of "duration" of actual tip contact on the CB during which force is exerted up it. Is there some well known reference that disproves this concept, beyond just your assertive statement that its a myth? Thx
Last edited:
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
I lean this way as well bc I have an awesome stroke and it deflects
. But here is the real backup to PJ's point.... I don't know how I aim. I have no system. Yet, when I need to hit low left spin on a half ball hit down table, beep boop beep, brain computer spits out a line of sight and the ball somehow gets there. Bring the CB 2 feet closer and shoot at half the speed and now all the variables of squirt and swerve are up in the air again. No worries....beep boop beep....shot made. I do none of these calculations/considerations consciously nor would I even know how to start. My stroke def produces deflection but due to experience with the same cue doing the same things, it doesn't matter. Subconscious mind figures it out.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
we dove into this in another thread like a month or two ago. dr dave had a slow mo vid and acceleration graphs of strokes hitting balls at high speed. I remain unconvinced by the procedure as pointed out earlier. Regular speed shots, not just max power should be viewed, as well as strokes without contact to see if the stroke would accelerate through contact if contact did not occur. My stroke def appears to keep accelerating and feels like it. It has what Steve Davis refers to as a 'positive finish' which he described as accelerating through until it slams to a halt. He was comentating on Feijen's stroke at the time....or was it Earl's? Still. I think a good stroke would continue accelerating through contact without contact forces slowing everything down. Honestly can't believe they didn't 'waste' a single shot on this just to shut up doubters like me.
I'd say a player can produce a shot with low "net deflection" using a normal stroke.
What's a "push through" effect?
pj
chgo
Problem is the stroke's connected to the cue by the soft flesh of the grip hand, which gives on contact. Robot grips are sometimes cushioned for realism.
pj
chgo
There may be tapers and joint configurations that have coincident nodes for some different modes, but the cues I've seen in slow motion don't, especially for the first hundredth of a second or so. The higher modes (more wiggles in the length of the cue) will tend to disappear faster than the main mode which certainly does have two nodes not far from each end.
Here is a video demonstrating the transverse waves (bending like a violin string) and the longitudinal waves (along the length) in a rod. In cues it is the longitudinal waves that put energy into the ball and the transverse waves that show the stiffness. The demo shows only the main transverse mode which has two nodes where there is no motion -- where the lecturer hold the rod.
Note especially how much higher frequency the longitudinal mode has compared to the transverse.
Last edited:
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Yes, I understand that, but what I'm getting at is that a stroke will be different in feel and possibly effect since the conditions at contact are somewhat different if still accelerating into it (and would be through it). I don't think most amateur strokes accelerate and many decel so they get no action on the ball. A smooth accelerating stroke will be way faster at contact than what seems possible as it starts out so the ball does all sorts of things with seemingly very little effort. It is more about timing. This late acceleration can create the feel of a push through...
This topic just brought up a buried memory for me of a guy I played who got a lesson from Corey Deuel on some spin shots. Back then Corey was just a kid in his early 20s but man could he spin it. Anyway, I was amazed by how slowly this guy seemed to come into the ball but he had this late acceleration as if...u guessed it...pushing through the ball. That ball danced like crazy. Larry Nevel probably had the best draw stroke I ever saw and he has a similar looking pushy delivery which doesn't look too hard or fast but he has that push through look if you can find a vid closer to table height.