Top 10 Pool and Billiard Myths Busted and Debunked

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
DynoDan said:
Many things done instinctively are the result of unconscious observations gained through experience. When players who are comfortable with an open bridge then switch to a closed one when massive draw is required, usually have a better result, for whatever reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't get better draw when I use a closed bridge, for any amount of draw.

The only open-bridge people I have seen get better draw results with a closed bridge are the people who have stroke flaws that would tend to lift the cue during the stroke with an open bridge.


DynoDan said:
Others are truly fallacious, such as ‘swiping’ to gain more english (the subconscious mind adds 2 plus 2, and gets 5). More tip surface contact area = more spin. More contact target time = more spin. Thus, swiping = more spin. WRONG! The unconscious mind often makes unwarranted assumptions, regardless of resulting experience.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised how many people out there still think a swoop/swipe stroke can impart more spin. For those who still believe this, lots of explanation and evidence proving it wrong can be found here:

swoop or swipe stroke resource page

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Not the point, Dave.

There's theory and practice. In practice, extremely few players will ever do what it takes to get their fundamentals in strong working order. The vast majority of players have a huge problem keeping the cue straight when they hit the cue ball hard with an open bridge. These players need, to use your term, the "crutch" that a closed bridge offers.

I agree that the open bridge can be as effective for draw in theory, but this just doesn't hold up in practice for the vast majority of players, and the idea that more than a very small percentage of players with stroke flaws will do something about it can be added to your list of myths.
Click to expand...
Again, good points, and I do understand them.

When working with students, I will sometimes offer the advice to use a closed bridge if an open bridge is limiting, but I will usually attempt to help the students resolve their stroke issues first.

sjm said:
All of that said, Dave, great job on your ten myths list and accompanying video.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I appreciate the positive feedback, even if you don't agree with everything in the video.

Regards,
Dave
 
K

KMRUNOUT

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
I don't get better draw when I use a closed bridge, for any amount of draw.

The only open-bridge people I have seen get better draw results with a closed bridge are the people who have stroke flaws that would tend to lift the cue during the stroke with an open bridge.
Click to expand...


Dave,

How would you address the following situation: early on learning the game, I wanted to develop a lot of power in my stroke, and I did. Unfortunately, my standards for what constitutes a quality stroke were not as educated then as they are now. These days I'm striving for a Chris Melling like stroke, with a good pause and smooth cue delivery. While I can generate as much draw as I'm likely to every need using this technique, if I really want to swing for the fences, I can simply get MORE draw with a less "correct" stroke. If I get rid of the pause, the hinge action in my wrist provides more velocity at impact. Sure, maybe I could alter my technique to achieve the same result more "correctly". However right this moment, I can't do it. Even with my crappy power technique, I am quite reliable and accurate. And on occasion it really comes in handy to get the angle I want by drawing 8 feel back to the end rail and another 5 feet out for a ball on the opposite side rail, for example. With my "bad" style stroke, I have very little cue tip control with an open bridge. So for those monster draw shots, I really require a closed bridge. In MOST cases this is no issue, because those huge draw shots only come up rarely.

I guess my point is that I could either give up the super draw shots and just do other things for now, and use my "textbook" stroke technique 100% of the time, and still achieve probably 75% of the stroke power. In this situation the open or closed bridge idea doesn't matter so much. OR, I could continue to have the big stroke on tap, knowing I'm using poor technique, but requiring a closed bridge.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,

KMRUNOUT
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
KMRUNOUT said:
Dave,

How would you address the following situation: early on learning the game, I wanted to develop a lot of power in my stroke, and I did. Unfortunately, my standards for what constitutes a quality stroke were not as educated then as they are now. These days I'm striving for a Chris Melling like stroke, with a good pause and smooth cue delivery. While I can generate as much draw as I'm likely to every need using this technique, if I really want to swing for the fences, I can simply get MORE draw with a less "correct" stroke. If I get rid of the pause, the hinge action in my wrist provides more velocity at impact. Sure, maybe I could alter my technique to achieve the same result more "correctly". However right this moment, I can't do it. Even with my crappy power technique, I am quite reliable and accurate. And on occasion it really comes in handy to get the angle I want by drawing 8 feel back to the end rail and another 5 feet out for a ball on the opposite side rail, for example. With my "bad" style stroke, I have very little cue tip control with an open bridge. So for those monster draw shots, I really require a closed bridge. In MOST cases this is no issue, because those huge draw shots only come up rarely.

I guess my point is that I could either give up the super draw shots and just do other things for now, and use my "textbook" stroke technique 100% of the time, and still achieve probably 75% of the stroke power. In this situation the open or closed bridge idea doesn't matter so much. OR, I could continue to have the big stroke on tap, knowing I'm using poor technique, but requiring a closed bridge.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...
Nothing trumps success. If it works for you consistently and accurately, keep doing it.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
I just posted a new YouTube video that demonstrates and debunks the following Top 10 common pool and billiard myths and misconceptions:

1 - If you elevate the cue, you get more draw.
2 - A closed bridge is better for draw shots.
3 - Sidespin affects the path the CB takes off the OB.
4 - A swooping or swiping stroke can apply more sidespin.
5 - LD shafts allow you to put more spin on the ball.
6 - Throw is not important in pool.
7 - Spin transfer is not important in pool.
8 - More spin creates more SIT.
9 - The stroke “type” changes the shot action.
10 - Finding your “dominant eye” is important.

Check it out. Here it is:

NV J.25 – Top 10 Pool and Billiard Myths Busted and Debunked

It is part of my recent Top 10 series.

Enjoy,
Dave
Click to expand...
Besides the closed bridge for draw, does anybody disagree with any of the other myth busting in the video?

Thanks,
Dave
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You can drive a car with or without doors just the same.

However, if you make a fast turn you may fall out the door.

The same goes for a closed bridge on power draw shots. You don't necessarily need one, but it is a "safety" factor. It keeps your cue from flying "up/around" should you do something wrong when you are delivering your stroke.
 
K

KMRUNOUT

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
Besides the closed bridge for draw, does anybody disagree with any of the other myth busting in the video?

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

I'd say I agree with all the other ones. However, I do think that LD cues allow you to maintain shot accuracy for a larger amount of spin. It certainly doesn't produce more, but if making the ball is the minimum standard, it lets me more reliably spin the ball a LOT.

I'd argue that if there is spin induced throw on the object ball, then there MUST be a corresponding alteration in the path of the cueball. Conservation of energy and all...

I'd argue that elevating the cue can potentially produce "more draw" in so much as that alteration may result in a cueball that is airborne for a greater amount of the distance to the object ball, thus alleviating the spin reducing effect of friction.

I'd argue that finding one's vision center is vitally important, and I believe that one's vision center is a function of which eye is dominant and the degree of that dominance. As such I'd argue that "finding one's dominant eye" and "finding one's vision center" are functionally equivalent.

As my 11th grade history teacher loved to say: "Thoughts? Questions? Pithy remarks?"

KMRUNOUT
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
KMRUNOUT said:
I'd argue that if there is spin induced throw on the object ball, then there MUST be a corresponding alteration in the path of the cueball. Conservation of energy and all...
Click to expand...
You’re right to look for the equal opposite reaction, but you find it in the CB’s changed speed, not a changed carom angle.

I'd argue that elevating the cue can potentially produce "more draw" in so much as that alteration may result in a cueball that is airborne for a greater amount of the distance to the object ball, thus alleviating the spin reducing effect of friction.
Click to expand...
I believe that’s cancelled by the added vertical force of each CB impact with the table’s surface.

pj
chgo
 
AF pool guy

AF pool guy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned on the closed vs open bridge for draw is that it is easier to establish a very low bridge with a closed bridge.

With the closed bridge I can place my thumb right on the felt and bridge as low as the thickness of my thumb but with an open bridge I’m over the meaty part of my palm. I’d say the difference is at least a half an inch. Which enables me to keep the cue as flat as the rail allows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Shuddy

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
KMRUNOUT said:
I'd say I agree with all the other ones. However, I do think that LD cues allow you to maintain shot accuracy for a larger amount of spin. It certainly doesn't produce more, but if making the ball is the minimum standard, it lets me more reliably spin the ball a LOT.

I'd argue that if there is spin induced throw on the object ball, then there MUST be a corresponding alteration in the path of the cueball. Conservation of energy and all...

I'd argue that elevating the cue can potentially produce "more draw" in so much as that alteration may result in a cueball that is airborne for a greater amount of the distance to the object ball, thus alleviating the spin reducing effect of friction.

I'd argue that finding one's vision center is vitally important, and I believe that one's vision center is a function of which eye is dominant and the degree of that dominance. As such I'd argue that "finding one's dominant eye" and "finding one's vision center" are functionally equivalent.

As my 11th grade history teacher loved to say: "Thoughts? Questions? Pithy remarks?"

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

“Potentially produce more draw...”. I guess there’s a certain amount of practicality we have to take into account. There’s no way any player is choosing to elevate their cue for a full length of the table draw shot :) Reduced follow though means less power. Elevation means less sighting accuracy. Etc. You’re also not able to hit as low on the cueball when you elevate.
 
Shuddy

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
sjm said:
Not the point, Dave.

There's theory and practice. In practice, extremely few players will ever do what it takes to get their fundamentals in strong working order. The vast majority of players have a huge problem keeping the cue straight when they hit the cue ball hard with an open bridge. These players need, to use your term, the "crutch" that a closed bridge offers.

I agree that the open bridge can be as effective for draw in theory, but this just doesn't hold up in practice for the vast majority of players, and the idea that more than a very small percentage of players with stroke flaws will do something about it can be added to your list of myths.

All of that said, Dave, great job on your ten myths list and accompanying video.
Click to expand...

Does a closed bridge actually stop the cue from moving around? Obviously it can stop the cue from lifting up, but it surely doesn’t do anything for side to side. It’s still a single pivot point. And lifting up after contact isn’t necessarily detrimental to the stroke, particularly in the case of power draw. You see a lot of snooker players lifting the cue up on the their follow through on full length of the table screw shots, particularly when getting the cue ball back to balk is more important than accuracy.
 
Shuddy

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
I just posted a new YouTube video that demonstrates and debunks the following Top 10 common pool and billiard myths and misconceptions:

1 - If you elevate the cue, you get more draw.
2 - A closed bridge is better for draw shots.
3 - Sidespin affects the path the CB takes off the OB.
4 - A swooping or swiping stroke can apply more sidespin.
5 - LD shafts allow you to put more spin on the ball.
6 - Throw is not important in pool.
7 - Spin transfer is not important in pool.
8 - More spin creates more SIT.
9 - The stroke “type” changes the shot action.
10 - Finding your “dominant eye” is important.

Check it out. Here it is:

NV J.25 – Top 10 Pool and Billiard Myths Busted and Debunked

It is part of my recent Top 10 series.

Enjoy,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I’ve played quite a lot of English billiards with world class billiards players, and something very common is using side to affect the path of the cueball when playing losing hazards. For example, if playing a half ball in-off but the natural angle would swing the cueball wide of the pocket, check side (inside English) will narrow the angle of the cueball to make the in-off. The check side version of these shots is usually played fairly slowly, which allows the nap of the cloth to grab the cueball, but the running side version to swing the ball wider can be played with a fair bit of pace. I’m not sure that nap can account for this,

Any thoughts? Oh, this is in regard to point 3 obviously.

EDIT: Further thoughts: When I think about doing this on a snooker table, (I don’t have access to one in the country I currently live) it doesn’t make any difference playing a stun shot, which is how you demonstrated it in the video. This makes sense because the cueball is basically rotating horizontally when playing stun with side, so the cueball is not actually gripping the cloth to be pulled in any direction. Playing with top and side however, which is how one of the above mentioned shots would be played, particularly to swing the ball wider, results in more vertical rotation of the cueball, allowing the cueball to grip the cloth and be pulled in a different direction.

EDIT 2: I guess you’re still correct in that it might not affect the initial rebound direction. But if the practical application of using side does result in a different cue ball path over an extended distance, is it worth debunking the myth?

I have a similar thought regarding stroke affecting action. I think there are numerous benefits to having a smooth stroke with a nice follow through and appropriate acceleration of the cue at point of impact with the cueball. Barry Stark has a neat video on this demonstrating an increased tip contact with the cueball of 250 microsecond when the player self reported timing a shot well, which is also related to follow through, etc.

His video alone perhaps proves that stroke type can affect action on the ball, but I would never encourage anyone to have a short jabby stroke and wonder if it’s worth debunking if that is a side effect.
 
Last edited:
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
You can drive a car with or without doors just the same.

However, if you make a fast turn you may fall out the door.

The same goes for a closed bridge on power draw shots. You don't necessarily need one, but it is a "safety" factor. It keeps your cue from flying "up/around" should you do something wrong when you are delivering your stroke.
Click to expand...
Good analogy and point.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
KMRUNOUT said:
I'd say I agree with all the other ones. However, I do think that LD cues allow you to maintain shot accuracy for a larger amount of spin. It certainly doesn't produce more, but if making the ball is the minimum standard, it lets me more reliably spin the ball a LOT.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is one potential advantage of an LD shaft.

KMRUNOUT said:
I'd argue that if there is spin induced throw on the object ball, then there MUST be a corresponding alteration in the path of the cueball. Conservation of energy and all...
Click to expand...
That is true. Sidespin affects the OB path; but for a given ghost-ball position, it doesn't affect the CB's tangent-line direction. For more info and illustrations, see:

CB path sidespin effects

KMRUNOUT said:
I'd argue that elevating the cue can potentially produce "more draw" in so much as that alteration may result in a cueball that is airborne for a greater amount of the distance to the object ball, thus alleviating the spin reducing effect of friction.
Click to expand...
It is true that no backspin is lost when the CB is airborne; however, much more spin is lost when the CB is driven down into the table off the tip. For more info, see the physics link here:

draw shot cue elevation effects

KMRUNOUT said:
I'd argue that finding one's vision center is vitally important, and I believe that one's vision center is a function of which eye is dominant and the degree of that dominance. As such I'd argue that "finding one's dominant eye" and "finding one's vision center" are functionally equivalent.
Click to expand...
For many people (including myself), the "vision center" position has nothing to do with which eye is dominant or not. For example, my right eye is clearly dominant (based on the standard dominant eye tests), but my vision center position is with the cue directly between my eyes.

KMRUNOUT said:
As my 11th grade history teacher loved to say: "Thoughts? Questions? Pithy remarks?"
Click to expand...
Thank you for questioning some of my ideas. My 11th grade teacher always said how important this is.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
AF pool guy said:
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned on the closed vs open bridge for draw is that it is easier to establish a very low bridge with a closed bridge.

With the closed bridge I can place my thumb right on the felt and bridge as low as the thickness of my thumb but with an open bridge I’m over the meaty part of my palm. I’d say the difference is at least a half an inch. Which enables me to keep the cue as flat as the rail allows.
Click to expand...
Good point. This can be the case for some people. Although, for people who have the middle finger under the cue with a closed bridge, an open bridge will typically allow the cue to be lower. That is the case for me.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Shuddy said:
You’re also not able to hit as low on the cueball when you elevate.
Click to expand...
You can actually get the same effective offset from center with any cue elevation.

Some people who are afraid to aim low on the ball might actually get more spin when they elevate. For more info, see the following illustration from the cue elevation effects resource page.

tip_offset.jpg

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Shuddy said:
Does a closed bridge actually stop the cue from moving around? Obviously it can stop the cue from lifting up, but it surely doesn’t do anything for side to side. It’s still a single pivot point. And lifting up after contact isn’t necessarily detrimental to the stroke, particularly in the case of power draw. You see a lot of snooker players lifting the cue up on the their follow through on full length of the table screw shots, particularly when getting the cue ball back to balk is more important than accuracy.
Click to expand...
Good points. It doesn't really matter what happens to the cue after the CB is already gone.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Shuddy said:
Dave, I’ve played quite a lot of English billiards with world class billiards players, and something very common is using side to affect the path of the cueball when playing losing hazards. For example, if playing a half ball in-off but the natural angle would swing the cueball wide of the pocket, check side (inside English) will narrow the angle of the cueball to make the in-off. The check side version of these shots is usually played fairly slowly, which allows the nap of the cloth to grab the cueball, but the running side version to swing the ball wider can be played with a fair bit of pace. I’m not sure that nap can account for this,

Any thoughts? Oh, this is in regard to point 3 obviously.

EDIT: Further thoughts: When I think about doing this on a snooker table, (I don’t have access to one in the country I currently live) it doesn’t make any difference playing a stun shot, which is how you demonstrated it in the video. This makes sense because the cueball is basically rotating horizontally when playing stun with side, so the cueball is not actually gripping the cloth to be pulled in any direction. Playing with top and side however, which is how one of the above mentioned shots would be played, particularly to swing the ball wider, results in more vertical rotation of the cueball, allowing the cueball to grip the cloth and be pulled in a different direction.

EDIT 2: I guess you’re still correct in that it might not affect the initial rebound direction. But if the practical application of using side does result in a different cue ball path over an extended distance, is it worth debunking the myth?
Click to expand...
Good points. Sidespin can affect the CB path (for a given ghost-ball contact position), but not by as much as some people might think, and not for the reasons they might think. For more info and illustrations, see:

effects of sidespin on CB trajectory


Shuddy said:
I have a similar thought regarding stroke affecting action. I think there are numerous benefits to having a smooth stroke with a nice follow through and appropriate acceleration of the cue at point of impact with the cueball.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Shuddy said:
Barry Stark has a neat video on this demonstrating an increased tip contact with the cueball of 250 microsecond when the player self reported timing a shot well, which is also related to follow through, etc.
Click to expand...
Accelerating into the ball can have a small effect on tip contact time, but the increase in contact time has very little or no effect on the shot. For more info, see the cue tip contact time resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top