I am surprised that some people advocate elevating your cue for a regular draw shot. I am no expert, so I will just say that, if I elevate my cue at all and try to draw the CB with a strong stroke (ex drawing the CB back 6 feet when the OB is already 6 feet away) then I tend to jump the ball more when attempting to hit with maximum draw. Before anyone says that I am just hitting too low, I will say that I have done this with my Rempe ball to be able to look at where my chalk mark is after the shot, and with the chalk mark right at maximum draw, a level cue seems to work more consistently than a slightly elevated one.
any truth to slight elevation on draw shots?
- Thread starter PKM
- Start date
I would look at your stroke if you could not draw 6" with a level cue. Elevating the butt may help, but if you seriously were unable to draw with a level cue (and not just exagerating), then you really should have your stroke looked at. It may help your whole game.
mantis99 said:
It's been looked at and surpisingly it isnt supposed to be bad. But sometimes I can even see that it is totallly crooked. Im hopeless, I dont worry much about it anymore.
On a somewhat separate note- I think you get more miscues with a level stroke on a draw shot also.
The more true statement would be that YOU get more miscues with a level stroke on a draw shot. Folks with accurate and repeatable strokes do not! Put me in the "as level as reasonable for the shot" crowd!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Fragged said:
slight elevation
I haven't read what was said that was ancient history in this thread so I may be repeating other comments. However, there is very little if any more tendency to scoop the cue ball elevating the back of the cue slightly if the shooter remembers the relationship of the cue path to the peach pit or center of the cue ball. When elevating the cue, it is easy to be further out on the cue ball and miscue simply because we can hit further from the center of mass of the cue ball than is possible with a more level stroke. With the rear of the cue elevated we have to hit closer to the horizontal centerline of the cue ball to have the same offset from the center of mass of the cue ball too. This should be obvious but isn't always to people fighting with draw shots. As noted in other posts, raise the cue enough and draw is quite possible hitting above the horizontal centerline of the cue.
Now for the advantage of elevating the rear of the cue slightly on some draw shots. When there is a lot of distance between the object ball and cue ball, particularly on slow cloth, slight elevation reduces friction by bouncing the cue ball off of the table and flying it part way to the object ball although this may be so slight as to be invisible to the eye much like we fly break shots. However the reduced friction with the cloth does result in more spin left on the cue ball when it hits the object ball.
Another thing to consider is that we have to elevate the rear of the cue for many if not most draw shots. The draw being one of the harder shots to get precise control of, it is far easier to learn one elevation for most draw shots than a different elevation for every draw shot.
These are the reasons I fall into the "slightly elevated rear of cue" group. After saying that, you will see me occasionally use a very level cue when I can get the whole cue down parallel to the slate and the cue ball and object ball are close together and there are times I jack the back of the cue a lot. It depends on what is possible and the way I have handled that particular situation a few hundred times in the past.
Hu
I haven't read what was said that was ancient history in this thread so I may be repeating other comments. However, there is very little if any more tendency to scoop the cue ball elevating the back of the cue slightly if the shooter remembers the relationship of the cue path to the peach pit or center of the cue ball. When elevating the cue, it is easy to be further out on the cue ball and miscue simply because we can hit further from the center of mass of the cue ball than is possible with a more level stroke. With the rear of the cue elevated we have to hit closer to the horizontal centerline of the cue ball to have the same offset from the center of mass of the cue ball too. This should be obvious but isn't always to people fighting with draw shots. As noted in other posts, raise the cue enough and draw is quite possible hitting above the horizontal centerline of the cue.
Now for the advantage of elevating the rear of the cue slightly on some draw shots. When there is a lot of distance between the object ball and cue ball, particularly on slow cloth, slight elevation reduces friction by bouncing the cue ball off of the table and flying it part way to the object ball although this may be so slight as to be invisible to the eye much like we fly break shots. However the reduced friction with the cloth does result in more spin left on the cue ball when it hits the object ball.
Another thing to consider is that we have to elevate the rear of the cue for many if not most draw shots. The draw being one of the harder shots to get precise control of, it is far easier to learn one elevation for most draw shots than a different elevation for every draw shot.
These are the reasons I fall into the "slightly elevated rear of cue" group. After saying that, you will see me occasionally use a very level cue when I can get the whole cue down parallel to the slate and the cue ball and object ball are close together and there are times I jack the back of the cue a lot. It depends on what is possible and the way I have handled that particular situation a few hundred times in the past.
Hu
ShootingArts said:
I'm not so sure about this. Hitting down into the table creates more friction at first and more friction on each bounce, which at least partially negates any friction reductions from the CB being airborne. And hitting below center with a more level cue tends to lift the CB anyway, but without the initial increased friction.
Why would you have to learn a different elevation for every draw shot? Butt elevation doesn't vary that frequently or that much.
And also the reason you tend to be less accurate with your draw shots. More power to you, but it's a bad idea.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ, There is a bit more pinch on impact(friction as you say) with the slightly elevated cue doing a better job of putting spin on the cue ball to begin with in my opinion. This is a good thing. The height of the flight above the table isn't enough to cause significant bounce either. Whatever works for a player, however if you examine monster table length draw shots, the cue stick is elevated in every instance. There is really no option since a level cue is impossible for that shot.
Patrick Johnson said:
If you take literally "cue stick as level as possible" as level as possible varies with almost every shot. If you accept one angle, maybe ten degrees of elevation for draw shots, then very many of them are possible with this one elevation. Consistent set-up makes consistent control far easier.
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ, I have to ask just how many of my draw shots have you seen to make that statement?
Hu
Nonsense.
Everybody's less accurate when jacked up.
pj
chgo
You saw sections of rail out?
Bet a thousand? Unless they have a stick with a warp WC Fields wouldn't play with the back of the cue has to be jacked up to clear a rail. The physical design of the table and a cue proves you wrong here.
Everybody is less accurate when jacked up to extremes. However ten degrees isn't an extreme an as I pointed out, doing anything consistently is far more reliable than doing something different every shot.
Hu
Patrick Johnson said:
Bet a thousand? Unless they have a stick with a warp WC Fields wouldn't play with the back of the cue has to be jacked up to clear a rail. The physical design of the table and a cue proves you wrong here.
Everybody is less accurate when jacked up to extremes. However ten degrees isn't an extreme an as I pointed out, doing anything consistently is far more reliable than doing something different every shot.
Hu
Sweet Marissa
www.Bella-Muse.com
Personally, I elevate the cue slightly - emphasis on slightly - and remember to follow through.
I'll bet ten thousand. How do you want to do it?
pj
chgo
i just cannot logically and physically comprehend how elevating will help you get any more draw in the slightest.
the lower the butt is the lower you can hit on the cue ball. why you'd want to drive the ball downwards into the slate is a mystery to me.
the lower the butt is the lower you can hit on the cue ball. why you'd want to drive the ball downwards into the slate is a mystery to me.
I think you're betting on this:Patrick Johnson said:
Hu is right. And I don't think you want to bet 10G's that there is no elevation when the cue stick is elevated over a rail... IMO, I don't think anyone would (or could) argue that you have 0 degree elevation when shooting over a rail. That's a 10G donation, IMO. But if your in the generous mood, I'll take a #1 value meal at Micky D's
And just to clarify Hu's other statement (as I understand it) that:
Your response was "nonsense." But I believe you missed the subtle implication that a table length draw shot implies that the cue ball is about a table away from the object ball. In order to achieve this, you MUST be within 57" of the rail. And if you are, you MUST have some elevation. It's a physical reality based on the cue ball being separated from the object ball. Perhaps you envisioned a situation where the cue ball is really close to the object ball on a diagonal giving you enough room (i.e., more than 57") to place the stick on the table. I don't believe this is the situation Hu posited.
-td
Last edited:
!!!!
ok.. I tried to go through all the reply's and went through a few of them without anyone really hitting the "REALITY FACTOR" on this one.... And if somone did hit this point I apologize for the post....
The reason that you would elevate the cue slightly is to "bounce down the table" What that means is with the slight elevation of the custick with a firm stroke... the cueball will come slightly off the table instead of sliding down the table and the cloth conflicting with the low spin on the cueball.. so when you elevate it bounces with the same backspin without the friction of the cloth to slow down the draw. So when the collision occurs that is when the cueball is on the table and the draw can take effect. And if you don't Realize this happens... do a test with a dime or quarter... even the slightest elevation in the cue WILL bring the cueball off the table.
ok.. I tried to go through all the reply's and went through a few of them without anyone really hitting the "REALITY FACTOR" on this one.... And if somone did hit this point I apologize for the post....
The reason that you would elevate the cue slightly is to "bounce down the table" What that means is with the slight elevation of the custick with a firm stroke... the cueball will come slightly off the table instead of sliding down the table and the cloth conflicting with the low spin on the cueball.. so when you elevate it bounces with the same backspin without the friction of the cloth to slow down the draw. So when the collision occurs that is when the cueball is on the table and the draw can take effect. And if you don't Realize this happens... do a test with a dime or quarter... even the slightest elevation in the cue WILL bring the cueball off the table.
Last edited:
Well, no, I'm betting on what I said I'm betting on (see my post above):
It's a given that shooting jacked up is inherently less accurate - for everybody.
pj
chgo
I agree with this and yet....Patrick Johnson said:
We see a lot of pretty good pool players -- as Fred Agnir has noted -- who seem to jack up more than the rail requires on a lot of shots. I've been looking for a possible explanation for this. Such a search is a little dangerous since some times players may do things simply copying other players -- look at Filipino fundamentals for examples.
Anyway, my theory is that by keeping a fixed angle of elevation on nearly all shots, players have only one amount of swerve to correct for. In the orthodox teaching, each shot should be played with only as much elevation as is required to clear the rail or other obstruction. That means that each kind of shot, say a 3-foot shot with 2-foot-per-second speed and medium left english, must be learned for an infinite variety of elevations. If instead the player uses a minimum elevation of 8 degrees -- with more when very near the cushion -- he can fine-tune his knowledge for that particular elevation and be more consistent over-all.
My next study is going to be on why so many snooker players stand goofy-footed.
My other argument is that it's more natural for a person to swing the cuestick with the but elevated. *Trying* to keep it "as level as possible" might be going against the natural movement of the body. This is another of those biomechanical studies that someone who has the background and the means could give a study.Bob Jewett said:
And along with what you're saying, since almost every shot is elevated already, due to the rail, and slightly moreso due to knuckle bleeding, it also makes sense from a repetitive standpoint to always shoot with approximately the same elevation for "standard" shots. Whatever standard means. Whatever that elevation is, it's not "as level as possible" for majority of players and instructors.
My guess is that the father of snooker fundamentals had a bad back. Probably from playing snooker.
Fred
Last edited: