"Aim Small" on the Cue Ball

Bob Jewett said:
I think this is true. A very good drill for precise low/high positioning is the Wagonwheel Drill which was promoted by Ted Brown. With a short, easy shot almost straight into the side pocket, try to put the cue ball on each diamond you can get to without touching a cushion. Here is Joe Waldron's description of it: http://billiards.colostate.edu/PBReview/CBControl1.htm
Click to expand...

for some reason there is no photo in the link page
i assume its the set up in the video from dr dave and the diagram that you bob so kindly pmed me in the past
 
Excellent thread here with some very good information. Like I've said before to the knockers, "There are a lot of very smart pool people posting on AZ."

Only thing I might tend to disagree with is using a 9-10mm tip for a 2 1/4" cue ball. You might be getting a little too precise if that makes any sense. The extremely narrow tip will also cause you to lose some impact on the cue ball when you need to go through the ball and control it. Yes, you can draw the ball a mile, but you're still grabbing a lot less of the cue ball with your tip. My opinion is that more tip on the cue ball gives you better control overall. I still prefer a 12.5mm tip for best results.

Now for playing snooker, a 9-10mm tip is ideal. You are hitting a 2 1/8" cue ball and you need the narrower tip. Now it's a case of a larger tip (12+mm) grabbing too much of the small cue ball and pushing it around. I know it sounds contradictory but a zillion years of play by top players at both games has been the best test for correct tip size. JMHO as always :wink:
 
Last edited:
Jay:
Only thing I might tend to disagree with is using a 9-10mm tip for a 2 1/4" cue ball. need to go through the ball and control it. Yes, you can draw the ball a mile, but you're still grabbing a lot less of the cue ball with your tip. My opinion is that more tip on the cue ball gives you better control overall. I still prefer a 12.5mm tip for best results.
Click to expand...
I think the contact areas are the same size for all tips.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I think the contact areas are the same size for all tips.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I'll agree to disagree with you my esteemed colleague. :wink:
I'm no scientist like Mr. Jewett but I believe that the tip compresses when it makes contact with the cue ball. Somewhat akin to what happens when a golf club hits a golf ball. A larger tip will compress, with more of it now in contact with the cue ball. A smaller tip will have less overall contact with the cue ball. That's my contention anyway. Sir Jewett is the one who could prove me right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
... I believe that the tip compresses when it makes contact with the cue ball. Somewhat akin to what happens when a golf club hits a golf ball. A larger tip will compress, with more of it now in contact with the cue ball. A smaller tip will have less overall contact with the cue ball. That's my contention anyway. Sir Jewett is the one who could prove me right or wrong.
Click to expand...
A smaller tip is just a larger tip with the outer 1mm or so removed. That outside 1mm doesn't get used except when applying maximum sidespin, so on most shots all tips are effectively the same size.

pj
chgo
 
bbb said:
for some reason there is no photo in the link page
i assume its the set up in the video from dr dave and the diagram that you bob so kindly pmed me in the past
Click to expand...

In case anyone has the same trouble with their browser, here is the setup for the "Wagon Wheel Drill".
CropperCapture[36].jpg
 
jay helfert said:
I'll agree to disagree with you my esteemed colleague. :wink:
I'm no scientist like Mr. Jewett but I believe that the tip compresses when it makes contact with the cue ball. Somewhat akin to what happens when a golf club hits a golf ball. A larger tip will compress, with more of it now in contact with the cue ball. A smaller tip will have less overall contact with the cue ball. That's my contention anyway. Sir Jewett is the one who could prove me right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, as mentioned before, science can prove nothing, it can only disprove misconceptions.

In the case of contact area size, the theory says that the tip compresses and lots of high-speed videos confirm this. But as with many such situations, the expensive equipment is not needed to come to reasonable conclusions. Just chalk your tip and shoot the cue ball directly into an object ball. When the cue ball stops spinning, look at the chalk mark. That was the size of the contact patch. If you have a spare piece of Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk, use it because it sticks to the cue ball like no other chalk I've seen.

My prediction: a soft, small tip will have a larger contact area than a larger, hard tip.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, as mentioned before, science can prove nothing, it can only disprove misconceptions.

In the case of contact area size, the theory says that the tip compresses and lots of high-speed videos confirm this. But as with many such situations, the expensive equipment is not needed to come to reasonable conclusions. Just chalk your tip and shoot the cue ball directly into an object ball. When the cue ball stops spinning, look at the chalk mark. That was the size of the contact patch. If you have a spare piece of Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk, use it because it sticks to the cue ball like no other chalk I've seen.

My prediction: a soft, small tip will have a larger contact area than a larger, hard tip.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The size of the "contact patch" is determined by the tip curvature and hardness (and maybe thickness), and the shot speed, but not the tip diameter.

Regards,
Dave
 
Let me put all of this talk into perspective.

When I played pool in Charlottesville Va. in the late 60's, the best 9 ball player in town was a guy name Bobby Anderson. He could beat the brains out of any you guys posting on this thread. Bobby loved to play for money and went to Richmond a few times to gamble.

Bobby's practice strokes came no where near the cue ball. His tip landed on the felt inches before the object ball. This guy was one hell of a shotmaker, and banker btw.

So to say how much you should be focusing on the spot on the cue ball is ludicrous IMHO. I personally believe in focusing on the object ball for the majority of the time. It is freaking impossible to have your eyes focus properly (i.e. w/o blurring) long distance and then a short distance away, back and forth back and forth. It is my contention that if you focus for too long on the cueball when you do look up at the object ball it WILL BE BLURRED (out of focus).

Now let's see. Are there any of you scientific geniuses who would like to dispute this?
 
I doubt that any genius is required. Try a simple real world test. Focus on a very small spot four feet in front of you for 10 seconds. Now pick up your head (lets make it tough) and find a small spot on the spot eight feet in front of you. How long did it take your eyes to shift focus. My 69 year old tired eyes took about ¼ of a second. It is difficult to assess such short periods but then you get the point.

Second test. Draw a circle about 1/16” in diameter. Draw a second circle about 1/4” in diameter. Place the circles at arm's length. Now use a pencil held at the eraser and try to touch each circle with the tip of the pencil. I think you will find it takes more time and effort to hit the smaller circle. Once you have found where to place your hand and arm to touch this spot, you can do it more quickly the next time.

So if you take the time to find the small spot you can more quickly find it the second time and it only takes a short time period to focus on the more distant spot.


Quiet eye research by Joan Vickers (and others) indicates that once you have found your target on the OB you should be looking at it with sustained attention (a few seconds) before shooting. But we have two targets when playing pool one is on the CB and one is on the OB. Quiet eye research also leads to the idea that you should spend time with each.
 
whitewolf,

I'm no scientific genious, but I fully believe in the amazing abilities of our human bodies & minds. Our human eyes focus at varying distances as fast as the blink of an eye.:wink:

Unless one is shooting at a very small fraction of a second before re-focussing, I'm quite sure that a normal human eye can & will re-focus.

As to your friend, he may have had his cue so low as to not even distract his focus on the spot on the CB that he intended to contact. I use english on nearly every shot & I fine tune my exact spot that I want to contact on the CB right up until just before I pull the trigger & I generally look at the OB last. Only on certain special shots will I look at the CB last while stroking the shot.

I'm not trying to be argumantative, I'm just pointing out different strokes for different folks & the human eye is an amazing organ, especially when connected to the 'mind's eye'.

Best Regards,
 
whitewolf said:
It is freaking impossible to have your eyes focus properly (i.e. w/o blurring) long distance and then a short distance away, back and forth back and forth.

...

Now let's see. Are there any of you scientific geniuses who would like to dispute this?
Click to expand...
Take longer or get younger - your choice.

pj <- sertafide jeenyus
chgo
 
whitewolf said:
Let me put all of this talk into perspective.

When I played pool in Charlottesville Va. in the late 60's, the best 9 ball player in town was a guy name Bobby Anderson. He could beat the brains out of any you guys posting on this thread. Bobby loved to play for money and went to Richmond a few times to gamble.

Bobby's practice strokes came no where near the cue ball. His tip landed on the felt inches before the object ball. This guy was one hell of a shotmaker, and banker btw.

So to say how much you should be focusing on the spot on the cue ball is ludicrous IMHO. I personally believe in focusing on the object ball for the majority of the time. It is freaking impossible to have your eyes focus properly (i.e. w/o blurring) long distance and then a short distance away, back and forth back and forth. It is my contention that if you focus for too long on the cueball when you do look up at the object ball it WILL BE BLURRED (out of focus).

Now let's see. Are there any of you scientific geniuses who would like to dispute this?
Click to expand...

When I'm playing well, I barely notice the CB. Sort your cue action out and you don't need to. I doubt snooker pros give it a second's thought. Talking of which...Stephen Hendry used to flit his eyes between the OB and the pocket, which I think is fairly unique. But I agree flitting your eyes between the CB and OB is poor practice, and an indicator of poor fundamentals.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, as mentioned before, science can prove nothing, it can only disprove misconceptions.

In the case of contact area size, the theory says that the tip compresses and lots of high-speed videos confirm this. But as with many such situations, the expensive equipment is not needed to come to reasonable conclusions. Just chalk your tip and shoot the cue ball directly into an object ball. When the cue ball stops spinning, look at the chalk mark. That was the size of the contact patch. If you have a spare piece of Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk, use it because it sticks to the cue ball like no other chalk I've seen.

My prediction: a soft, small tip will have a larger contact area than a larger, hard tip.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

My theory of snooker cue ball and object ball jumping (kicks) on new cloth is that the chalk on the cue ball, when it comes in contact with the object ball tends to either climb over or elevate the object ball, depending on whether it had follow or draw.

If the small soft snooker tip has a larger contact area, and snooker balls are lighter, this would explain when kicks occur on new snooker cloth but are absent with heavier pool balls.

Should grippy Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk be avoided?
 
See the CB
vizualise the CB
Smell the CB
Take the CB out for dinner
...and so on. Billybullshit if you ask me.

Personally when I get down on a shot ill adjust my bridge for the height I need, BHE to the place I want to hit and then a few practice strokes all whilst staring at the OB and thinking what the Mrs is making for dinner the hit the ball. If you have a consistent, straight and repeatable stroke you shouldn't have to pay more attention to the CB to strike it where you lined up to start with.

And no, you don't need a slow motion camera video taping you when you stroke. When I was a kid my dad made me stand with my chest against a wall and do some practice stokes up against the wall....needless to say it did the trick.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, as mentioned before, science can prove nothing, it can only disprove misconceptions.

In the case of contact area size, the theory says that the tip compresses and lots of high-speed videos confirm this. But as with many such situations, the expensive equipment is not needed to come to reasonable conclusions. Just chalk your tip and shoot the cue ball directly into an object ball. When the cue ball stops spinning, look at the chalk mark. That was the size of the contact patch. If you have a spare piece of Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk, use it because it sticks to the cue ball like no other chalk I've seen.

My prediction: a soft, small tip will have a larger contact area than a larger, hard tip.
Click to expand...

And I say apples are redder for the most part than oranges. :smile:
How about comparing a soft small tip and a soft larger tip? Which one do you think will have a larger contact area?
I also agree that the curvature of the tip affects the contact area as well. All things being equal I believe that a larger tip has more contact with the cue ball than a smaller tip. Your statement above only confirms this.
 
Last edited:
Pidge said:
And no, you don't need a slow motion camera video taping you when you stroke. When I was a kid my dad made me stand with my chest against a wall and do some practice stokes up against the wall....needless to say it did the trick.
Click to expand...

He did WHAT??? :eek:
 
Scaramouche said:
Interesting.

My theory of snooker cue ball and object ball jumping (kicks) on new cloth is that the chalk on the cue ball, when it comes in contact with the object ball tends to either climb over or elevate the object ball, depending on whether it had follow or draw.

If the small soft snooker tip has a larger contact area, and snooker balls are lighter, this would explain when kicks occur on new snooker cloth but are absent with heavier pool balls.

Should grippy Kamui Rev. 0.1 chalk be avoided?
Click to expand...
I don't know of any clear correlation between skids and most conditions. What I've seen with the original Kamui chalk is that if you chalk for every shot, the cue ball ends up with far more than the usual number of chalk spots and you end up with a lot of bad contacts.

I think skids are nearly always due to chalk at the ball-ball contact.

As far as larger/smaller contact area, I suspect the difference is less that a factor of two.

Kicks do occur with pool balls, and not just with new balls and cloth.

(We seem to have wandered away from the OP.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top