Really? Ok, i would move both bridge hand and cue over parallel to original shot line. I call that a parallel shift. Jeez. I'm done with this nonsense. Bye.OK. I'm still not sure what you mean by "parallel", but moving along...
pj
chgo
Really? Ok, i would move both bridge hand and cue over parallel to original shot line. I call that a parallel shift. Jeez. I'm done with this nonsense. Bye.OK. I'm still not sure what you mean by "parallel", but moving along...
pj
chgo
OK, but it can't work except on very specific shots where swerve perfectly counteracts squirt - or unless you make an angle change too.Really? Ok, i would move both bridge hand and cue over parallel to original shot line. I call that a parallel shift.
You could be dead-on. I just know it 'felt' like a parallel shift 'cause i moved both my bridge and cue over. Could'a been some angle involve but wasn't too into hyper examining what was going on. I just just adjusted my aiming point and shifted over. Whatever this may be called i made a s%^tload of ball with it.OK, but it can't work except on very specific shots where swerve perfectly counteracts squirt - or unless you make an angle change too.
In fact, I think when most people use the "parallel" term they mean they're just adjusting their stick's angle "by feel" (not using BHE or FHE or a "measured" combination of the two). They may even be unaware they're doing it, and that's why I don't like the term - it disguises what's really happening.
pj
chgo
Yes, I think that's how most interpret it. Whatever works, of course - I just wish the terminology was more reflective of the reality so noobs aren't misled (unless they want to be, of course).You could be dead-on. I just know it 'felt' like a parallel shift 'cause i moved both my bridge and cue over. Could'a been some angle involve but wasn't too into hyper examining what was going on. I just just adjusted my aiming point and shifted over. Whatever this may be called i made a s%^tload of ball with it.
For those interested, both the standard definition and the most common misinterpretation of the phrase are explained in detail on the parallel english resource page, along with links to supporting resources.What’s “parallel English”?
What’s “parallel English”?
pj
chgo
I don't believe there's any amount of sidespin that doesn't generate some squirt. It may be offset exactly by swerve at some distances/speeds/elevations/conditions, but that's a variable, not something that's "automatic" for small amounts of sidespin.
If "parallel english" means "cue parallel to the shot line", I think it's an unrealistic and misleading term - because it's so rarely true, it obscures the physical facts of squirt and how we compensate for it, and it encourages habitual practices that limit our games.
pj
chgo
PJ is of course playing games. He is well aware of what is referred to as parallel english. He has also maintained for decades that the angle the cue stick hits the cue ball doesn't matter, only the location. After thirty years most have given up on trying to change his firmly held opinions although it is easy to demonstrate the lack of truth by exaggerating the angle.
The location of contact one tip to the side of centerline can be a very commonly and successfully used shot, or by moving the bridge and exaggerating the angle it can be an impossible to shoot successfully miscue. Yet PJ's claim has always been that the angle doesn't matter, only the location.
Having ran this rabbit many times before with PJ I'll sit this one out other than saying you are absolutely right about lines of force. Hitting exactly the same spot with backhand english, fronthand english and parallel offset english will each give different results. It is also possible to combine multiple forms of english in one shot with good results sometimes.
I never tried front hand english until after using either parallel or back hand english for many years. Seems odd and I never used it long enough for it to become natural but because the angle is less severe it seems superior to back hand english. I usually use parallel english, just a matter of what I am most comfortable with.
All three work, combinations of English work. Poking another sacred cow but something your post makes obvious you will understand, each form of english lets you hit a different distance out from centerline before a miscue occurs when the target line is used as reference.
Since the lines of force are different and the force that can be applied without a miscue remain the same I have suspected that the angle the cue ball is hit and the distance that the cue ball can be hit without miscueing can only apply the same amount of force through the true vertical line of the cue ball from top center to contact patch, the amount of spin possible on the cue ball remains the same.
I have never seen this physically proven by testing with a robot to eliminate the human factor and have long wanted to see it proven if any of the three types of english or any combination can gain a slight advantage. I think not but that remains unproven as far as I know. I don't wholly trust mathematical proof of such things as I have seen the formulas of similar calculations leave out small variables that affect real world outcomes enough to render the calculations false.
Hu
I'm still unsure what point you're trying to make. If you want to to discuss pool physics, then you are not presenting anything that Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Mike Page, and Ron Shepard have not already talked about for years/decades.There is a problem in perception because the ghost ball line, not the paralleling line through the center, has been used as the reference. Using that as the perspective has all perceived lines of english radiating from or paralleling the ghost ball line. Using those diverging lines the game has missed a whole range of angles with side, not currently used in play. The implications are huge.
Can we knight these people as The Four Horsemen of Pool Physics? You heard it from me first....Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Mike Page, and Ron Shepard...
I'm still unsure what point you're trying to make. If you want to to discuss pool physics, then you are not presenting anything that Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Mike Page, and Ron Shepard have not already talked about for years/decades.
If you're attempting to propose that a better understanding of the physics of side spin will help the average pool player, as it seems from the quote above, then I disagree. None of this stuff will help the average pool player.
Um, aren't you forgetting about spin induced throw?And misses all shots except those where swerve (a variable depending on distance, speed, conditions, butt elevation, etc.) happens to exactly counteract squirt, right?
I read this paragraph four times and I still don't understand what you're describing.Now to the new. I mentioned moving off the target line and then pointing the cue line back towards center. Imagine moving the cue line back towards center but not all the way. So imagine moving the width of two dimes away from center then pointing the cue line back half that distance, the width of one dime. Notice where the cue is pointing in relation to the original cue line, it now crosses onto the opposite side of the original cue line. NONE of the present parallel english, FHE or BHE methods of applying side converge back towards the shot line, they ALL diverge. So two new labels enter the conversation, divergent and convergent english. Here is the blasphemy, I’m using the ghost ball line as the reference line, because it is the aim line understood by a majority of players. Even Dr. Dave with his SAWS program uses the deflection adjusted ghost ball line as a reference then following that with a distance/pace adjusted combination of BHE and from the new back hand position a sweep with the front hand to a pre-calculated ratio final position. He recognizes the ingrained, although incorrect perception, of using the ghost ball line. He uses a known reference as a starting point. In that spirit, the terms divergent and convergent are cue line relationship terms relative to an adjusted ghost ball aim line.
Every spin shot has a combination of squirt and swerve to account for. The particular combination that results in cueing parallel to the shot line is no more likely to happen than any other cueing angle - a small fraction of all possible cueing angles, like any other single angle. Naming it as if it's a category or technique unto itself just misstates and confuses the actual dynamics IMO.Um, aren't you forgetting about spin induced throw?
So I agree, parallel english misses "all shots"...except for some shots, and these shots, and maybe those shots, and don't forget these shots over here.
It's like complaining about the term "ghost ball" because the exact geometrically-determined ghost ball location is almost never the exact location it should be to pocket the shot because of friction.
Both parallel english and ghost ball are still very useful terms. Just know their limitations.
Im a bit confused.
Is the Imac007 post saying that at a certain distance right or left of center, with a cue (or stroking) line that is parallel to the ghost ball/vertical center cue (or stroking) line, the CB will travel in the direction of the stroke line because the squirt and the friction (with the cue tip) forces are offsetting? I’m thinking that this isn’t the proper translation, because if the OB is spinning, there will be some amount of swerve, even if inconsequential due to the speed and length of the shot.
Is the BC21 post saying something similar but slightly different: that at just the right (small) amount of tip offset, again using a “parallel” stroke line, the squirt and swerve will cancel each other out? I’m thinking that this is the proper translation, but that the conclusion doesn’t hold up UNLESS the CB is hit softly enough, and has enough travel time to swerve, prior to contact with the OB.
......
.....There needs to be a method of applying consistent amounts of side regardless of distance. That will be part of another post, a geometric solution.
Just so you won't feel too bad, I'll admit that I have the same problem.I read this paragraph four times and I still don't understand what you're describing.
I read this paragraph four times and I still don't understand what you're describing.