why did jose hit the 9 this way?

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you don't swoop all the time because it introduces variables, when do you swoop? I'm open for discussion.

After this, I'm closed for discussion. In order to engage in a back and forth with someone both parties have to be capable of reading and understanding what the other says and then replying in a logical manner.
It appears that this is something you somehow can't comprehend. Every reply you've given to the people questioning your premises (PJ, Bob Jewett and myself) has had nothing to do with what we actually said.
Instead you're off on another tangent, totally unrelated to any points we've attempted to convey.
Case in point is my opening sentence in this post. We'll see if you've listened.
 

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually it's not questionable at all - it's just wrong.

And shouldn't be promoted by an "instructor".

pj
chgo

Yeah, I know pj. Just trying to be a little kind and/or diplomatic. Why, I have no idea. Must be mellowing out in my old age.
Back to the OP. Someone mentioned camera angle on the video. That's a good point because I've seen Jose play many times and if he was using left he'd be addressing the CB on the left. So if it appeared as center ball or slightly right on the video it was probably due to the camera angle.
If nothing else maybe a few people saw Parica for the first time. Not that much quality video of him out there, although there is some. I'd suggest people search it out and take a look. This guy had one of the sweetest strokes you'll ever see.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
By the way, talking about this has made me think of one possible reason that swooping might make squirt compensation seem a little easier, at least at first.

When the player's bridge length is longer than the cue's squirt pivot length (a relatively high squirt cue), then to apply side spin with the cue angled at the correct squirt adjustment angle the bridge must move slightly sideways - or the tip must swoop a little.

I think learning straight-stroke squirt corrections (with the bridge placed as needed) is the right solution, but I can see this one reason swooping might seem to work.

pj
chgo
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Why don't you just answer the question by giving a few pros that are the best examples of swooping strokes?

Many of the pros who learned back in the 80's use that method. I know Earl used to play that way and I think he still does. Tony Robles told me about it in the 80's but I had already learned the technique from Dalton Leong. It was popular among the 9 ball road players of that time.

Even some of the 14.1 players were experimenting with it. If my memory serves me correctly, guys like Ray Martin, Jack Colavita and Pat Fleming all used that technique, at least for some time.

I believe the technique resurfaced again over the last few years. Someone told me about it as if it were a brand new discovery. I laughed.
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
By the way, talking about this has made me think of one possible reason that swooping might make squirt compensation seem a little easier, at least at first.

When the player's bridge length is longer than the cue's squirt pivot length (a relatively high squirt cue), then to apply side spin with the cue angled at the correct squirt adjustment angle the bridge must move slightly sideways - or the tip must swoop a little.

I think learning straight-stroke squirt corrections (with the bridge placed as needed) is the right solution, but I can see this one reason swooping might seem to work.

pj
chgo

That's the first thing I said about swooping. It was believed at the time that it caused less cb squirt.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
That's the first thing I said about swooping. It was believed at the time that it caused less cb squirt.
Yep, that's what it would look like. Without the swoop the cue angle would be too small at contact, undercorrecting for squirt - swooping would angle the cue more correctly for that amount of squirt, making it look like less. The same thing is usually accomplished with a straight stroke angled a little more (by shortening the bridge or moving it a little sideways).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Many of the pros who learned back in the 80's use that method.
I'd expect it to be a fading technique with the trend toward low-squirt shafts - with lower squirt cues (and average bridge lengths) swooping does the opposite of what's needed for squirt correction.

pj
chgo
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
After this, I'm closed for discussion. In order to engage in a back and forth with someone both parties have to be capable of reading and understanding what the other says and then replying in a logical manner.
It appears that this is something you somehow can't comprehend. Every reply you've given to the people questioning your premises (PJ, Bob Jewett and myself) has had nothing to do with what we actually said.
Instead you're off on another tangent, totally unrelated to any points we've attempted to convey.
Case in point is my opening sentence in this post. We'll see if you've listened.

I've replied to you and to all others logically, and patiently. You called an aspect of my teaching "ridiculous" and said above I'm incapable of understanding, and I'm continuing to be logical with you, yet patient.

For example, I did note you said something like "I've swooped 50 years but it introduces variables, so folks shouldn't do it" so my question to you was both respectful and on target. I can rephrase: "Why boast that you've done a technique for decades that you dislike?"
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've replied to you and to all others logically, and patiently. You called an aspect of my teaching "ridiculous" and said above I'm incapable of understanding, and I'm continuing to be logical with you, yet patient.
For example, I did note you said something like "I've swooped 50 years but it introduces variables, so folks shouldn't do it" so my question to you was both respectful and on target. I can rephrase: "Why boast that you've done a technique for decades that you dislike?"
Your logic is impeccable.
Remember, you're in a poolroom. :smile::smile:
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Coincidentally, Dr. Dave just posted a new video called "Top 10 Billiards Myths Debunked" - swoop-enhanced sidespin is #4.

pj <- I swear I didn't put him up to it
chgo

top 10.JPG
 
Last edited:

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, nobody in the top 50 in the world?

Further, while Greenleaf did a fair amount of side-to-side fiddling on his warmups, the side spin shots I've seen in old newsreels on YouTube are pretty straight. Is there some video that shows otherwise?

Also, maybe Efren did something else in the last millennium but lately he seems to address the cue ball where he intends to hit it and comes straight through for side spin shots. Do you have an example video of him doing a swoop on the power stroke?
In '07 at Derby City i made a point of watching ER as much as possible. I noticed two things: on most soft-to-medium spin shots he used a parallel-shift. On some harder/higher-speed spinners he would sometimes use BHE. I never once noticed him swooping in towards the cue-ball. I would say he used parallel-shift 70-75% of the time. Busti plays a lot the same as ER on spinners.
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Coincidentally, Dr. Dave just posted a new video called "Top 10 Billiards Myths Debunked" - swoop-enhanced sidespin is #4.

pj <- I swear I didn't put him up to it
chgo

View attachment 524900

Wow. After shooting just a couple of swoop strokes Dave understands the stroke completely and why so many players may have 'mistakenly' used it for a few decades. That's amazing!

As for that miscue --- I'm not surprised that he brought it up. That's what would happen to someone like Dave who never spent a decent amount of time trying to learn the stroke.

That reminds me of the endless elbow-drop discussions here and all the debunkers who never took the time to actually experiment with it and find out when it helps to use it.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
Coincidentally, Dr. Dave just posted a new video called "Top 10 Billiards Myths Debunked" - swoop-enhanced sidespin is #4.

pj <- I swear I didn't put him up to it
chgo

A good video!

Dr. Dave demonstrated a swoop as "swinging the stroke hand off line". In this thread, I've advocated pronating or supinating the wrist instead (depending on side of english and whether the player is shooting right- or left-handed) to ease the process and all-but-eliminate clumsy miscues. A wrist twist would logically move the tip faster than a hand/arm lateral movement, so that the tip side, not the tip center, makes good cue ball contact.

It's one of those stroke-it-if-you-like it things--for example, some players address follow a bit low than move upwards through the final stroke. Not english but a vertical axis change, but IMHO not every pool stroke needs to be a straight stroke.

I do not condemn swoopers or offsetters. If someone is struggling with one type of stroke, I offer them another type(s).
 
Last edited:

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've replied to you and to all others logically, and patiently. You called an aspect of my teaching "ridiculous" and said above I'm incapable of understanding, and I'm continuing to be logical with you, yet patient.

For example, I did note you said something like "I've swooped 50 years but it introduces variables, so folks shouldn't do it" so my question to you was both respectful and on target. I can rephrase: "Why boast that you've done a technique for decades that you dislike?"

Let's put my post up here so we're clear on what we're talking about.


"After this, I'm closed for discussion. In order to engage in a back and forth with someone both parties have to be capable of reading and understanding what the other says and then replying in a logical manner.
It appears that this is something you somehow can't comprehend."

In the 1st few sentences (above) I basically say that discussion is pointless due to certain factors. I then continue (below) by giving a verifiable reason for my position.

" Every reply you've given to the people questioning your premises (PJ, Bob Jewett and myself) has had nothing to do with what we actually said.
Instead you're off on another tangent, totally unrelated to any points we've attempted to convey.
Case in point is my opening sentence in this post. We'll see if you've listened."

For a very simple, clear cut example I'd refer you to the posts between you and Mr. Jewett. They are good examples primarily because whenever he questions your premises (on this thread and many others) he almost always does so by asking you a direct question which you invariably fail to answer. He then asks the question again, and again you don't answer. And so on.
The latest in this thread is post 37 where he asks (3 specific questions) and you're off on a tangent (carabao, countless pros, top 50) instead of answering his questions.
His questions arise from previous statements you've made so it logically follows that you might want to answer the question as a means of defending your position.

There are beginner and intermediate players reading this stuff who are trying to learn and we should be very careful to give them the best info possible.
This thread has gotten way off topic as many on here tend to and I'm as much to blame as anyone but when I see (IMO) bad advice being given I'm gonna say something.

More examples:
In post #56 you imply that a swoop stroke causes the side of the tip (instead of the center of the tip) to contact the CB. For heavens sake, look at your own diagrams.
Whenever a tip contacts the outer edge of a CB it always strikes it with the edge as opposed to the middle. It has to because the ball is round. How it got to that point is irrelevant.
I'm questioning your statement and giving reasons why. Would you like to reply?

In post #26 ( despite my lame attempt at humor... the figure 8 stroke) I asked one specific question (why do you say parallel english is not true english) which you never answered. In another post you called it false english. Why?
I then gave my opinion on what factors govern the application of english. You had no reply.
I then gave 2 specific reasons why I would not recommend it. I never boasted about anything or said I dislike it. Perhaps the reason I say to avoid it, is just maybe, I've learned something in 50 years.

I didn't call your teaching methods ridiculous. I was referring to your contention that swooping generates more english while also decreasing the chance of miscue.
I still think it's ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of miscues are stroke related, period. It's my position that a poor stroke is much more likely to occur when using a swoop stroke (due to more variables) than during a straight one.

By the way, in case you haven't checked back I asked you direct questions in this https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=496308&page=2 thread also. Hope you get a chance to reply.

My issue is primarily that people ask you direct questions and you never answer them.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
.........................................
 
Last edited:

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
Let's put my post up here so we're clear on what we're talking about.


"After this, I'm closed for discussion. In order to engage in a back and forth with someone both parties have to be capable of reading and understanding what the other says and then replying in a logical manner.
It appears that this is something you somehow can't comprehend."

In the 1st few sentences (above) I basically say that discussion is pointless due to certain factors. I then continue (below) by giving a verifiable reason for my position.

" Every reply you've given to the people questioning your premises (PJ, Bob Jewett and myself) has had nothing to do with what we actually said.
Instead you're off on another tangent, totally unrelated to any points we've attempted to convey.
Case in point is my opening sentence in this post. We'll see if you've listened."

For a very simple, clear cut example I'd refer you to the posts between you and Mr. Jewett. They are good examples primarily because whenever he questions your premises (on this thread and many others) he almost always does so by asking you a direct question which you invariably fail to answer. He then asks the question again, and again you don't answer. And so on.
The latest in this thread is post 37 where he asks (3 specific questions) and you're off on a tangent (carabao, countless pros, top 50) instead of answering his questions.
His questions arise from previous statements you've made so it logically follows that you might want to answer the question as a means of defending your position.

There are beginner and intermediate players reading this stuff who are trying to learn and we should be very careful to give them the best info possible.
This thread has gotten way off topic as many on here tend to and I'm as much to blame as anyone but when I see (IMO) bad advice being given I'm gonna say something.

More examples:
In post #56 you imply that a swoop stroke causes the side of the tip (instead of the center of the tip) to contact the CB. For heavens sake, look at your own diagrams.
Whenever a tip contacts the outer edge of a CB it always strikes it with the edge as opposed to the middle. It has to because the ball is round. How it got to that point is irrelevant.
I'm questioning your statement and giving reasons why. Would you like to reply?

In post #26 ( despite my lame attempt at humor... the figure 8 stroke) I asked one specific question (why do you say parallel english is not true english) which you never answered. In another post you called it false english. Why?
I then gave my opinion on what factors govern the application of english. You had no reply.
I then gave 2 specific reasons why I would not recommend it. I never boasted about anything or said I dislike it. Perhaps the reason I say to avoid it, is just maybe, I've learned something in 50 years.

I didn't call your teaching methods ridiculous. I was referring to your contention that swooping generates more english while also decreasing the chance of miscue.
I still think it's ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of miscues are stroke related, period. It's my position that a poor stroke is much more likely to occur when using a swoop stroke (due to more variables) than during a straight one.

By the way, in case you haven't checked back I asked you direct questions in this https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=496308&page=2 thread also. Hope you get a chance to reply.

My issue is primarily that people ask you direct questions and you never answer them.

I answer some questions and ignore other questions, something I have in common with everyone. Sometimes a direct answer is best, but sometimes answering a question with a question can really help the other person.

There are good threads at AZ regarding "parallel english" and difflection, PJ explains it well, and there are also long discussions at AZ where people pick apart what they think Greenleaf did or didn’t do, but I can’t force someone to see something they don’t want to see.

You wrote, “How it [the cue tip] got to that point is irrelevant.” It is not. Direction of stroke influences the cue ball. For example, a pivot stroke and an offset stroke cause the same section of cue tip to strike the same point on the cue ball, one parallel to the shot line, one diagonal to the shot line, for different cue ball action.

Regarding #56, swoop indeed causes the side of the tip to meet the cue ball, because the cue tip’s center starts pointed at dead center cue ball! But my point was a wrist twist is more efficient than an arm lunge in a swoop when doing so.

I appreciate your concern for newer players, that you feel swoops can cause more miscues—but I school both newer and longtime players who’ve struggled with english for a long time, and I’m good at teaching a swoop stroke. I use an incredibly simple technique to do so.

I checked that other thread yesterday but didn't see your questions. I replied today to them. Thank you for prompting me.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
why do you say parallel english is not true english

There are good threads at AZ regarding "parallel english" and difflection, PJ explains it well
I don't know if this is what Matt means, but there's really no such technique as "parallel english" because you can't make shots with it. For the vast majority of sidespin shots the cue has to be angled across the shot line, not parallel with it, or the shot will miss because of squirt/swerve.

Some people say "parallel english" to mean they just apply sidespin by feel, without thinking about how the cue is angled. To them it might seem like it's parallel, but if they're making shots it mostly isn't.

a pivot stroke and an offset stroke cause the same section of cue tip to strike the same point on the cue ball, one parallel to the shot line, one diagonal to the shot line, for different cue ball action.
Is the bridge hand on the shot line or beside it?

pj
chgo
 
Top