any truth to slight elevation on draw shots?

seymore15074 said:
A sighting problem?
Click to expand...
To put draw on the cue you have to hit below center. In extreme examples, when shooting jacked up (or angled), your eyes may mislead you into thinking you are hitting the cue ball with the TOP part of the tip when you are actually hitting with the middle or bottom part. That is, when sighting, you think you are aiming correctly, but you end up hitting the cue ball with the middle or bottom part of the tip - which will result in less than favorable results. The trick is aiming a little "lower" than you think you should to get draw.

As a technical matter, when viewing the cue ball from a jacked up position, take the plane intersecting the center of the cue ball. Striking the cue ball above this plane should result in using the bottom part of the tip (because both the tip and the cue ball are curved). The closer to the center plane you get, the closer to using the middle of the tip. And in general play, draw is achieved by hitting with the top of the tip's curved surface below the plane.

Below is a crude MS Paint picture with a more typical scenario. As you can see, sighting down an elevated cue can cause you to perceive that you are hitting lower then you really are. In fact, you might think you are contacting the cue ball in the same place as a level cue (red line), but you might actually be one tip or more above the level cue contact point. As a general proposition, shooting level allows you to hit lower on the cue ball. Sorry for the MS Paint rendition ;)

ContactPoints2.bmp
 
Neil said:
Elevating the butt of the cue DOES aid in draw shots. However, not for the reason most think it does. You actually DO want to use a level cue. But that is where the problem lies.

Most people that use a level cue, find that they have trouble with a power draw shot. This is caused by slightly dropping the elbow for more power which in turn raises the tip a little. Now, instead of a low hit level cue, you actually are hitting UP at the cueball. Negating your good draw.

By elevating the butt, they tend to still hit the cueball on a level to a downward stroke, thus still imparting draw. A case of one bad thing partially fixing another bad thing in the stroke.

If you use a level cue, and actually HIT the cueball level, you will get maximum reverse spin.


As far as reducing the friction by the cueball 'hopping' a little. This happens on all shots. Put a dime right in front of the cueball, you won't hit it unless you slow roll.
Click to expand...

What he said...with this additional remark. Given the existence of the rails, a significant percentage of shots must be executed with at least some cue stick elevation for lack of choice.

Therefore, there is much to be said for consistency and that would argue for SLIGHT butt elevation on all draw shots.

I personally am unaware of any rigid scientific test that proves that dead level is better (or worse) than a slight downward angle...BUT I MAY JUST HAVE MISSED SUCH A TEST SO JUST BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN IT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST!!

But again, stroking a given shot the same way every time has merit and therefore, I SLIGHTLY elevate the butt on all draw shots (since I HAVE TO on many of them). I get a full table + on my power draws and can't recall needing that sort of distance in more than 1 or 2 racks per hundred so I think that maximizing draw beyond that distance is more for show than dough.

Regards,
Jim
 
If you use a level cue, and actually HIT the cueball level, you will get maximum reverse spin.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I'm no Nevel,but I can draw the rock pretty well.For me its as level as possible.This gives me the best results.
 
Scott Lee said:
I'm in the 'minimal elevation' side of this issue, and agree with Jude and Bob Jewett. Indeed, MOST players who elevate their cue will get less draw than with a level cue. This is frequently due to stroke errors, as td873 noted. If you can accurately deliver the cuestick through the CB, with a reasonably level cuestick, and actually strike the CB at the maximum low tip position (which is MUCH lower than most players perceive), the cueball will draw significantly, at most any distance, with the appropriate stroke speed. Accuracy will be sacrificed with increased elevation of the cuestick, as well as, imo, how much draw you'll get. Using Massey as an example is not relevant, because of his incredibly powerful stroke...which 99.9% of players (including myself) cannot duplicate. I can, however, power draw two table lengths, with 7-8 feet between CB and OB, using a level cue, the right stroke speed, a light grip, no muscle, and no elbow drop.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

This post nails it. And the artwork of TD873 is a good rendition of exactly what Scott is talking about.
Steve
 
pooltchr said:
This post nails it. And the artwork of TD873 is a good rendition of exactly what Scott is talking about.
Steve
Click to expand...
Of course, using the term "artwork" quite loosely ;)

-td
 
td873 said:
... Below is a crude MS Paint picture with a more typical scenario. As you can see, sighting down an elevated cue can cause you to perceive that you are hitting lower then you really are. ...
Click to expand...
In the drawing, you are hitting slightly farther from center with the elevated stick. That will produce more draw assuming you don't miscue. I suspect that was not the point you were trying to make.

On a full masse draw shot (also called pique), you are hitting above the equator of the ball and getting maximum draw.
 
PKM said:
I've heard a few people say you should elevate your cue slightly on draw shots (I'm thinking specifically of power draw shots, where I have some trouble). Mostly though I've heard to keep the cue as level as possible, obviously it will not be completely level.

What do you think of the advice to have slightly more elevation than strictly necessary for power draw shots? Perhaps it is to give the CB a slight jump to maintain spin? What if it's not quite that much of a power shot where you'd need that? Is it one of those things where good players have a habit that might not be good to teach?

Of course I'm aware of the danger of hitting the CB off-center if you use an elevated cue.
Click to expand...
It won't kill anyone to simply try it. I swear, it won't kill anyone. There's no "danger." There's no "doom."

The advice works wonders for many people. It doesn't work for others. Life is too short to not try it and find out.

Fred
 
td873:
I think your logic might be a little flawed if I understand what you are saying correctly. Are you saying that elevated cue in your diagram is producing less draw because it hits a higher point on the CB? I don't really think that is true, and the reasoning is a little harder to explain...

A good scientific way to measure draw applied to a CB would be to talk about the ratio of rotational velocity to forward velocity. Lets say that a rolling ball has a ratio of 1, a "stun" ball has a ratio of 0, and a ball hit with draw has a negative ratio (because it is spinning "backwards").

I tried to make a quick diagram similar to yours. I am trying to show that the elevated cue will actually put more spin on the CB and impart less force in the forward direction. Notice that dimension "B" is greater than "A". Those represent how much rotational torque is actually applied to the CB. The elevated cue will impart less forward force for the same stroke strength, because some of the force is taken up by driving the ball down into the cloth. So in effect, all stroke characteristics being equal, an elevated cue should result in a more negative spin to velocity ratio.

In addition, if the CB is "hopping" on the table, the spin may not wear off as much during the trip to the OB. I think the reason most people are saying not to use an elevated cue, is that any unintentional sidespin on the CB will have a nasty swerve effect and cause you to miss the ball.

elevated_cue_draw.jpg
ps. these are 13mm tips, dime radius, elevated cue is 10deg elevated
 
If the CB is on or near a rail, it will be necessary to jack up in order to impart draw.

Although, when I elevate the cue, I aim closer to center cue ball....rather than the low part of the cue ball, when using a level cue stroke.
 
Last edited:
jondrums said:
td873:
I think your logic might be a little flawed if I understand what you are saying correctly. Are you saying that elevated cue in your diagram is producing less draw because it hits a higher point on the CB? I don't really think that is true, and the reasoning is a little harder to explain...

A good scientific way to measure draw applied to a CB would be to talk about the ratio of rotational velocity to forward velocity. Lets say that a rolling ball has a ratio of 1, a "stun" ball has a ratio of 0, and a ball hit with draw has a negative ratio (because it is spinning "backwards").

I tried to make a quick diagram similar to yours. I am trying to show that the elevated cue will actually put more spin on the CB and impart less force in the forward direction. Notice that dimension "B" is greater than "A". Those represent how much rotational torque is actually applied to the CB. The elevated cue will impart less forward force for the same stroke strength, because some of the force is taken up by driving the ball down into the cloth. So in effect, all stroke characteristics being equal, an elevated cue should result in a more negative spin to velocity ratio.

In addition, if the CB is "hopping" on the table, the spin may not wear off as much during the trip to the OB. I think the reason most people are saying not to use an elevated cue, is that any unintentional sidespin on the CB will have a nasty swerve effect and cause you to miss the ball.

View attachment 54525
ps. these are 13mm tips, dime radius, elevated cue is 10deg elevated
Click to expand...

The cue-ball is hopping because the force has a forward and downward vectors when the cue is elevated, the higher the cue is elevated the bigger the downward vector and the forward vector decreases. In this case the fiction of the cloth and cue-ball will go against your draw. Good thing the ball does "hop," or the cloth will kill the draw. So it's a lot better trying to slide(can be achieve by a more leveled stroke) the cue-ball on the cloth specially when the distance of the cue-ball and the object-ball is significant.
 
Last edited:
JimS said:
Ya gotta love it! :D
Click to expand...
Yup. And everyone should notice that on the one shot at 1:00 that Landon could actually get his stick nearly level, he was nowhere near level. In fact, he was even more elevated than the other shots. Just like how every decent player shoots that same shot. Mirrors and videos are a wonderful thing.

Fred
 
Bigjohn said:
I don't think he's talking about 45 degrees. More like 2 to 3 inches. I have always done it for severe draws. It only makes sense to raise the butt and hit down on the ball when needing maximum draw. Watch Mike Massey.
Click to expand...

YOu missed my point, you elevate U loose, you minimize that aspect your better off. KIS.
 
Last edited:
jondrums said:
td873:
I think your logic might be a little flawed if I understand what you are saying correctly.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apples to oranges. I am discussing sighting issues, and you are discussing physics properties of imparting rotation to a sphere (albeit somewhat misguidedly). If you re-read my post, you will clearly see:
ME said:
Below is a crude MS Paint picture with a more typical scenario. As you can see, sighting down an elevated cue can cause you to perceive that you are hitting lower then you really are. In fact, you might think you are contacting the cue ball in the same place as a level cue (red line), but you might actually be one tip or more above the level cue contact point. As a general proposition, shooting level allows you to hit lower on the cue ball.
Click to expand...

jondrums said:
I tried to make a quick diagram similar to yours. I am trying to show that the elevated cue will actually put more spin on the CB and impart less force in the forward direction.... Notice that dimension "B" is greater than "A". ...
Click to expand...
Your drawing is a misrepresentation of the system. Put simply, the flaw in your syllogism is that you are starting with the false premise that "B" is longer than "A." Thus, all conclusions reached are in error since your starting position must yield less spin for the level stroke.

A more accurate respresentation would illustrate both "A" and "B" being equal distances, but "B" resulting in more rotational energy (as you suggest). As you have drawn it, you can increase "A" to impart more draw, thus, "A" would be greater than "B." This simple counter example is sufficient to illustrate the flaw in your position. In fact, all things being equal, both "A" and "B" should result in the same rotational energy, no? And as you suggest, the only difference should be horizontal velocity.

Lastly, while a vertical component may result in a hopping cue ball, this vertical component will NOT impart more spin. As stated above, the rotational energy should be identical with equal length "A" and "B." That is, for the same cue, equal tip offset yields equal spin.

I'm sure Mike, Bob, or Ron can illuminate this profound subject (again) ;) But if you want a quick physics proof, go here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-30.pdf
-td
 
Last edited:
Don't elevate. That's the wrong method. Learn to hit lower and follow through properly.
 
td873:
It seemed to me in your original post that you are implying the amount of draw applied is directly related to how low below horizontal the tip contacts the CB. Perhaps I misunderstood you?

I was trying to illustrate (obviously not well:) ) that it is not the contact point's distance below horizontal, but rather the perpendicular offset of the cue from the center of mass of the cueball. A simple way to see this, is imagine a cue elevated to nearly 90deg. There is no way to hit the cue ball below center, but lots of draw can be applied.

So yeah, like you said, it can be tricky to judge how low to hit the ball with an elevated cue. At the same time, the distance below horizontal equinox does not define the amount of spin applied.
 
Last edited:
Jacking up increases the spin-to-speed ratio but reduces RPMs.

To maximize draw on straight shots only RPMs at impact matter, and hitting into the table reduces RPMs, so jacking up actually reduces maximum draw on straight shots.

But spin-to-speed is more important in determining draw angles on cut shots, so jacking up can sharpen them (at the cost of some accuracy).

Hopping or curving the CB are other reasons to jack up.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
very well put patrick! RPM at impact is a much different metric than spin to speed ratio. Both are important metrics for different types of shots, and it is very useful to define these metrics.

I said that an elevated cue will cause a higher spin to speed ratio, which is true, but it is also true that an elevated cue will cause a lower RPM (stroke being of equal strength). So it certainly is a tradeoff!
Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top