I seriously doubt it. It's easy to test.At impact, the pool cue is directly over the line of the shot.
pj
chgo
I seriously doubt it. It's easy to test.At impact, the pool cue is directly over the line of the shot.
If the tip hits the same CB spot traveling in the same direction at the same speed, everything about the shot will be the same, regardless of the path the tip takes to get there (straight or curved).Would the two different methods result in the same cue ball path?
I seriously doubt it. It's easy to test.
pj
chgo
The cue ball will move nearly in the direction the tip is moving at the moment of contact. For a normal stroke, that is nearly straight forward except for a little cue ball deflection.
One thing the swoop believers have failed to do is precisely describe the path of the cue tip. It would be nice to see a scale drawing of what they imagine the tip's path to be and compare that to the reality of the video of what actually happens on their best swooping stroke.
I will, but I never swoop, so my results might not be the most compelling. And it'll probably have to wait until I return from a trip I'm on.If you can test it, give it a try. I'd be curious to see what you find. I believe you'll be objective about it.
This thread made me think of a potential benefit too:Things that might be of particular interest on the page include:
...
- list of potential benefits of a swoop/swipe stroke
I strongly encourage everyone interested in this thread to read through the entire stroke swoop/swipe resource page. It answers most of the questions in this thread. It also clears up many of the common misconceptions. Things that might be of particular interest on the page include:
- alternatives to using a stroke swoop
- list of potential benefits of a swoop/swipe stroke
- a carefully designed experiment anybody can use to effectively compare swoop and non-swoop strokes.
FYI, I am not an effective stroke swooper, but that is immaterial to the discussion, and it has nothing to do with the conclusions and facts on the resource page. Regardless, Tom Ross, who is mentioned on the page and featured in one of the videos, was a very effective swooper.
I don't want to get involved in the discussion or point out all of the inaccuracies and misconceptions in this thread because I have already participated in countless threads like this in the past. Also, the stroke swoop/swipe resource page already addresses everything in great detail with explanations, illustrations, videos, and articles.
Enjoy,
Dave
I agree. In fact, that is already included on the resource page as the 2nd advantage.This thread made me think of a potential benefit too:
By increasing the squirt correction angle, swooping can "automatically adjust" BHE to work better with a higher-squirt stick.
pj
chgo
Fran,Well if you're going to mention inaccurate information in this thread, then let's mention yours. The reason for the creation of swoop stroke was not to accomplish getting more side spin than with other methods but to accomplish less cue ball squirt, thus enabling the player to aim truer to the shot without having to adjust for significant squirt as with the parallel method of applying side spin, which was the only other method used at that time.
You can get a small amount of spin with perpendicular contact per the info on the resource page, but not as much as you might think.How does a player accomplish the same amount of side spin (or close to it) with the pool cue is aligned perpendicular to the center axis at impact?
A swoop stroke does not affect the incredibly brief ip contact time. The CB is long gone before the follow-through takes place.Does the tip stay on the cb longer due to the change of direction as the cue follows through, since the cb isn't out of the way yet?
It is not. If it were, the CB reaction would be very different (and probably undesirable).Or could the swoop stroke actually be a double hit?
The info on Dave's website has been created and collected over many years - it isn't just his immediate response to this thread. Over those years I've heard many swoopers claim they can get more spin that way - maybe most of them....you address the question that nobody asks which is whether or not you get more side spin.
To understand the dynamics of swooping we need to focus on the tip's direction of movement at impact, not the stick's angle. With the same contact point, direction of tip movement and speed, both techniques produce identical results: same amount of spin, same amount of squirt, etc. One reason we know this is because they must produce the same CB speed and direction or the shot won't work.How does a player accomplish the same amount of side spin (or close to it) with the pool cue is aligned perpendicular to the center axis at impact?
This thread made me think of a potential benefit too:
By increasing the squirt correction angle, swooping can "automatically adjust" BHE to work better with a higher-squirt stick.
Darn, I read that and thought it was similar but not the same - now that I've reread it I see it is the same. Well, it bears repeating...I agree. In fact, that is already included on the resource page as the 2nd advantage.
... The reason for the creation of swoop stroke was not to accomplish getting more side spin than with other methods but to accomplish less cue ball squirt, thus enabling the player to aim truer to the shot without having to adjust for significant squirt as with the parallel method of applying side spin, which was the only other method used at that time. ...
A swoop stroke doesn't produce less cue ball squirt; it simply employs a different (non-straight) stroke to produce the same cue tip direction of movement at impact, correcting for squirt in the same way (by angling the tip's movement across the shot line) while allowing the initial cue alignment to be on the shot line (not angled across it).The reason for the creation of swoop stroke was not to accomplish getting more side spin than with other methods but to accomplish less cue ball squirt, thus enabling the player to aim truer to the shot without having to adjust for significant squirt as with the parallel method of applying side spin, which was the only other method used at that time.
.....
To understand the dynamics of swooping we need to focus on the tip's direction of movement at impact, not the stick's angle. With the same contact point, direction of tip movement and speed, both techniques produce identical results: same amount of spin, same amount of squirt, etc. One reason we know this is because they must produce the same CB speed and direction or the shot won't work.
pj
chgo
I don't know what you mean by this. Any tip direction and speed produced with one kind of stroke can be duplicated with the other....the tip's direction of movement is not the same, nor is the speed of the tip at impact the same.
A swoop stroke doesn't produce less cue ball squirt; it simply employs a different (non-straight) stroke to produce the same cue tip direction of movement at impact, correcting for squirt in the same way (by angling the tip's movement across the shot line) while allowing the initial cue alignment to be on the shot line (not angled across it).
The technique sacrifices (at least some, depending on how good you are with it) stroke consistency/accuracy for the comfort of lining up "straight".
pj
chgo
The use of back-hand english (with no swoop) for applying side spin has been around a long time. Mike Eufemia wrote about it in his unpublished book 40+ years ago. He called it the "swivel system" -- line up on the cue ball with center-axis aim, swivel the stick (move the back hand) to the side-spin position, take several warm-up strokes on that new line, and shoot straight through.