Top 10 Pool and Billiard Myths Busted and Debunked
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Wait a minute.OMG, I'm famous now! It almost makes up for all those shots I still miss
You miss shots?
I might need to take down your quote.
Regards,
Dave
PS: ...just kidding. :grin-square:
What about this: Two draw shots, same cue stick speed, same off center hit, but one cue stick is more or less level and the other is jacked up at about 30°. Would the jacked up cue stroke produce less draw due to the downward force driving the ob more toward the slate? It seems you'd have to hit the jacked up shot firmer to get the same draw action you'd get using a more level stroke.
You should also add: no cut angle, with straight-back draw.
Bob is right that the amount of spin you can impart to the CB only depends on the speed and tip offset from center. However, with a jacked-up shot, some of that spin is lost as the CB is driven down into the table. So there would be less draw with the jacked-up shot (unless more cue speed is used). For those who don't believe this, it is explained and proven here:
draw show physics-based advice
Regards,
Dave
I’m not focusing on winning. I’m focusing on practical application. For multiple reasons, playing with your cue parallel to the table is preferable to playing jacked up. I’m also not ignoring the huge piece of slate beneath my hand. You can’t practically apply just as much draw to a cueball jacked up, as you can parallel to the table.
If I asked any reasonable human being, pool player or not, to hit low on the cueball, they would imagine that point on the cueball relative to the bed of the table, not relative to the angle of their cue.
I think this is an issue of semantics and perspective. I consider a draw shot and it’s effectiveness based on it’s reaction after contact with the object ball. If I elevate my cue high enough, I’m now talking about masses and not thinking about the term draw shot.
My original point that included the comment about hitting low on the cueball was surrounded by a bunch of other statements based on the perspective of playing the most effective draw shot as judged by the action of the cueball after contact with the object ball. And that is how Dave judged the effectiveness of the draw shot in his video.
I think it's important to point out that while the actual amount of backspin is less due to friction on the cloth, the forward speed of the cue ball is reduced by more so the spin/speed ratio is increased. In effect you have "more draw" buy what you really have is quite a bit less speed. But this is only a significant factor when you are quite a bit higher than most people go when the are jacked up. This is illustrated in the OP video with "quick draw" shots.
That would be interesting if it's sort of common (but unwritten) knowledge for snooker players.
I wonder if that's actively taught or if players just instinctively do it because they're committed to the open bridge,
and felt they needed a different 'band-aid' than the closed bridge.
I press downward a bit with open bridge rail shots, where the CB is near the cushion. It was something I was taught.
Now that my stroke is (in theory) steadier than it was when I learned that trick decades ago,
I wonder if I could/should discontinue it.
Good points Bob.
For straight-back draw, jacking up the cue results in less backspin and less draw (for a given cue speed and tip offset from center). For those who want proof, it is available on the draw shot physics-based advice resource page.
With a cut angle, cue elevation (only above about 20°) can result in draw at a steeper angle. For those interested, this is covered in detail on the quick draw resource page.
Regards,
Dave
Did your change between bridges have anything to do with changing shafts? Like going to an LD shaft from a regular one?
I made the change from an open bridge to a closed bridge when I went to a lower deflection shaft due to power draws, force follow and rail shots to keep control of the bounce and vibrations of the shaft (after cueball contact) under control.
The bouncing and vibration of the shaft after the hit doesn't bother me because I know it is not occurring until the CB is already gone. For visual proof, check out the 2:32 point in part 2 of:
NV B.96 – Grip and bridge technique and advice
Regards,
Dave
Not for me, I've been on LD (Z or Z2) for the last 13 years or even more.
It's surprising how much you can ignore once you know it doesn't matter. It's rare that I even notice any more when my shaft jumps out of my open bridge.
pj
chgo
FYI, Myth 3 resulted in a lot of discussion and debate on YouTube and Facebook, so I decided to do a follow-up video. Check it out:
NV J.26 – Cue Ball Control Subtleties – Pool Myth Follow-up
Enjoy,
Dave
Nice, Dave.
Is it accurate to say that the CB's initial carom direction is always on the tangent determined by the actual contact point, but that contact point can change with spin?
pj
chgo
No, it's that I know that extremely few players ever take lessons. For some, it's because of the cost, but for most, it's simply that improving at pool is not very important to them and that they aren't willing to invest any significant amount of time to it.
To the 1%, and that might even be too high, that are willing to invest a significant amount of time and money to improvement, nearly all of them will manage to correct some, if not all, of their stroke flaws.
Thanks.
Sounds good to me. This is definitely one of the important points of the video.
Regards,
Dave
That is true for balls of perfect elasticity and identical weights and for a cue ball arriving at the same elevation as the object ball. (The airborne cue ball does not actually change the 90-degree rule, but the 90 degrees is partly up in space and the projection back onto the table is less than 90.)
A good example of this effect is demonstrated here:
jump shot over cut effect
This can also cause overcutting of close-range follow shots.
Regards,
Dave