any truth to slight elevation on draw shots?

[Patrick Johnson]

Bob:
...he can fine-tune his knowledge for that particular elevation and be more consistent over-all.

This was Hu's point, and I understand the idea, but controlling one variable (elevation) out of several (speed, distance, tip offset, ball/cloth conditions) in exchange for harder aiming and greater tip placement sensitivity doesn't sound like a net positive to me.

Also, the argument that "pros do it better" is irrelevant to the general principle that jacked up is worse. They shoot better with the proverbial broomstick too, but that doesn't mean they shoot just as well with anything (or with any elevation).

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Fred:
... 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.

I don't get this at all. Do you have more detail to offer?

pj
chgo

 

[Cornerman]

I don't get this at all. Do you have more detail to offer?

pj
chgo

For the modern player, we tend to get down on the ball. Generally, the left shoulder gets lower than the right shoulder (for a right hander). As the head goes down in stance, I think most players right shoulder and elbow wants to stay up. If not, the body has to really square up to the table, which isn't the common stance for a pool player.

Very tall players with long arms may not be subject to this.

In the past, more erect stances I think would have more level cues.

Fred

 

[ShootingArts]

Ok

I'll bet ten thousand. How do you want to do it?

pj
chgo

OK PJ,

The bet is now ten thousand cash. As is plain in my post that you wanted to get cute about, the bet is that nobody shot a table length "monster" draw shot without elevating the rear of their cue. This is assuming a standard cue and table.

I can have cash in hand in the morning as soon as my bank opens. How about you?

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

Ahhh!

This is why you BCA instructors get the big bucks. I'll cut you in for 10% of Patrick's 10K right after I get it!

I had to cut parts all day and missed out on what could have been some fun.

I think you're betting on this:

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

 

[td873]

This is why you BCA instructors get the big bucks.

Reserve instructors get bupkis. Which is only slightly less than the active ones.



-td

 

[ShootingArts]

This was Hu's point, and I understand the idea, but controlling one variable (elevation) out of several (speed, distance, tip offset, ball/cloth conditions) in exchange for harder aiming and greater tip placement sensitivity doesn't sound like a net positive to me.
pj
chgo

PJ,

The majority of my draw shots are shot with the same cue elevation and same tip offset from center. The variable is speed. Getting things down to one variable makes life far easier. Ball and cloth conditions are dealt with by adjusting speed. You are overcomplicating things.

Of course I am old school and don't first look for a draw shot to play every shot. KISS pool has let me beat some of the best on a given night.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

As is plain in my post that you wanted to get cute about, the bet is that nobody shot a table length "monster" draw shot without elevating the rear of their cue.

If anybody's "getting cute", Hu, it's you. Where did I ever say anything about how anybody shoots monster draw shots?

Here's your direct quote offering the bet. It is very clear what it's about:

Me:
Everybody's less accurate when jacked up.

Hu:
Bet a thousand?

That's all I said in my post and all you quoted in your post offering to bet. Who's getting cute?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The majority of my draw shots are shot with the same cue elevation and same tip offset from center.

So you keep both butt elevation and tip offset the same for most draw shots? That would be too limiting for me.

Ball and cloth conditions are dealt with by adjusting speed.

I guess you adjust for distance between the CB and OB with speed too? What if you need one speed to adjust for all these variables and a different speed for shape?

You are overcomplicating things.

You're oversimplifying.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

pat you are lying

If anybody's "getting cute", Hu, it's you. Where did I ever say anything about how anybody shoots monster draw shots?

Post #109 of this thread with your direct reply to my statement.

Here's your direct quote offering the bet. It is very clear what it's about:

(here Pat inserted his edit, not a quote from me!!!)

That's all I said in my post and all you quoted in your post offering to bet. Who's getting cute?

pj
chgo

Pat,

What you just posted is a flat lie. That isn't my quote, that is your edit.

Here is my post in reply to your claim it was nonsense that table length draw shots weren't shot with a level cue. Post #110

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

The first paragraph makes it very clear what the bet was about. The second paragraph shows that I agree with Pat's basic claim that jacked up shots are less accurate than level shots. No real question what the bet was and Pat has bumped it to 10K in funds of my choice. My choice is cash. Mine is available within the time it takes me to go to the bank and back during banking ours. Pat has let an alligator mouth overload a hummingbird butt so I'll be waiting for his response.

Anyone else with any questions what this is about only has to refer back to the posts on the last page if Pat has the guts to not edit them after this post.

Hu

 

[av84fun]

OK PJ,

The bet is now ten thousand cash. As is plain in my post that you wanted to get cute about, the bet is that nobody shot a table length "monster" draw shot without elevating the rear of their cue. This is assuming a standard cue and table.

I can have cash in hand in the morning as soon as my bank opens. How about you?

Hu

Be careful to define the bet precisely. As worded, it could mean either:

1. A "table length draw" means that the cb and ob must be a table length apart. Without extraordinarily deep shelves, that would be impossible and you would lose the bet.

2. "Table length draw" means that from whatever position the balls are in, you must draw the cb 9 feet. Given that definition, you would lose as well since the ob can be placed near the jaws of a corner pocket and when the shooter gets down on such a shot, the butt would come nowhere near the rails so the cue can be kept level.

Please know I am not arguing with you but rather, trying to be helpful.

Regards,
Jim

 

[ShootingArts]

explaining the basics

So you keep both butt elevation and tip offset the same for most draw shots? That would be too limiting for me.

You're oversimplifying.

pj
chgo

Actually I am not oversimplifying, just simplifying. I don't try to make draw shots do anything and everything, I use the shot that is best for the situation. My pool game is a simple game. As a matter of fact, the simpler I keep it the better I play.

I guess you adjust for distance between the CB and OB with speed too? What if you need one speed to adjust for all these variables and a different speed for shape?

Well yes Pat I do usually adjust for distance between the cue ball and object ball with speed. Most shots that is all that is needed. Explain one instance where how the cue ball comes off the object ball isn't what is critical for shape? In every instance I have encountered, which granted only dates back to the sixties, the combination of speed and spin at contact with the object ball was what affected where the cue ball went. It didn't really matter what speed the cue ball started with, how far away it was, or what conditions I had corrected for in route to the object ball.

Pool isn't rocket science. You pocket a ball and play shape to pocket the remaining balls. Oddly enough, you don't get extra points and it doesn't pay any more if the cue ball rockets around the table, draws six rails, or flies six foot through the air. Since they don't give extra points or pay more to do these things, I rarely find the need to try any of them. Perhaps your game is more suited to trick shot competition.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Where did I ever say anything about how anybody shoots monster draw shots?

Hu:
Post #109 of this thread with your direct reply to my statement.

Oh, I guess I did. But then if that's what you were offering to bet about you should have quoted it in the post where you offered to bet. In that post the only quote with substance is me saying that everybody's less accurate jacked up, so I assumed that's what you wanted to bet about.

And about "jacking up" to shoot monster draw shots, that's also a misunderstanding. Your point in this thread has been that it's better to jack up (more than necessary to just clear the rail) for the sake of consistency, so I assumed that's what you meant when you said everybody shoots monster draw shots "elevated". Of course I know most shots are made with the butt over the rail; I've made that same point myself several times.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What you just posted is a flat lie. That isn't my quote, that is your edit.

Alright, if you want to tapdance, here's the entire post in which I accepted the bet:

Me:
Everybody's less accurate when jacked up.

Hu:
Bet a thousand?

I'll bet ten thousand. How do you want to do it?

pj
chgo

I'd like to know how that leaves any doubt about what I was betting on.

pj
chgo

 

[TATE]

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.

Some people have a hard time bridging low and making solid contact, so when they raise the butt, the tip drops to where it should be.

Basically, every player elevates the butt of the cue for draw shots, it's just a matter of how much.

Chris

 

[av84fun]

Some people have a hard time bridging low and making solid contact, so when they raise the butt, the tip drops to where it should be.

Basically, every player elevates the cue for draw shots, it's just a matter of how much.

Chris

Right...which is why I have always objected to the "stroke as low as possible" advice.

There are fairly rare instance when the butt is far enough away from the rail behind the shooter that a truly level stroke can be accomplished. But for sake of consistency, I have always felt the advice should be so stroke a draw shot with a "slightly elevated cue" since that is going to be required 90%+ of the time.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So, back to the topic:

Well yes Pat I do usually adjust for distance between the cue ball and object ball with speed. Most shots that is all that is needed. Explain one instance where how the cue ball comes off the object ball isn't what is critical for shape? In every instance I have encountered, which granted only dates back to the sixties, the combination of speed and spin at contact with the object ball was what affected where the cue ball went. It didn't really matter what speed the cue ball started with, how far away it was, or what conditions I had corrected for in route to the object ball.

Back up a second, Hu. We're talking about your claim that you can eliminate all the variables that cause different amounts of swerve (tip offset, butt elevation, speed, distance, ball/cloth conditions) by using a single elevation and tip offset and adjusting speed to handle the others. Well, if you're adjusting your speed to control the other variables, you can't also adjust it to get the right shape. You have to make a choice.

Pool isn't rocket science. You pocket a ball and play shape to pocket the remaining balls. Oddly enough, you don't get extra points and it doesn't pay any more if the cue ball rockets around the table, draws six rails, or flies six foot through the air. Since they don't give extra points or pay more to do these things, I rarely find the need to try any of them. Perhaps your game is more suited to trick shot competition.

Does this relate to something I said? It makes no sense to me.

pj
chgo

 

[MitchDAZB]

Jimmy Reid demonstrates the slightly elevated draw in his NTFN videos.
Like the rest of his game, it's very impressive stuff!

 

[ShootingArts]

Wow, we are finally in agreement!

PJ's comment about a paragraph in my post concerning the very basics of pool:

Does this relate to something I said? It makes no sense to me.

pj
chgo

Pat,

We are finally in agreement. With your level of knowledge and understanding, little I say makes any sense to you. You can't understand posts in context, you can't twist them out of context and understand them. You were so busy wanting to jump into controversy and show your butt that you couldn't read posts before you replied to them. Then you can't comprehend the very basics of pool as you acknowledge in the quote above.

Oddly enough you seem to be the only one reading this thread with that problem. Apparently I have vastly overrated your intelligence. My sincere apology for that error. I'll waive the $10,000 you owe me and simply avoid needlessly confusing you with replies to your more foolish posts in the future.

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

Jim actually it can mean neither

Jim,

The post clearly referred to draw shots made in the past. So they were possible. No issues there. Everything we had talked about before had been involving distance between the cue ball and object ball so no real issue there. Also I used the term "monster" table length draw shots. I'll bet anyone that I can have someone that doesn't play pool draw table length after hitting the object ball in less than an hour with the two balls close together. That doesn't qualify as a "monster draw shot".

I do appreciate your thoughts and concerns but I knew exactly what I wrote when I wrote it. There is nothing unclear here other than through PJ's play with words and deliberate editing to pair sentences that never went together to begin with.

Hu

Be careful to define the bet precisely. As worded, it could mean either:

1. A "table length draw" means that the cb and ob must be a table length apart. Without extraordinarily deep shelves, that would be impossible and you would lose the bet.

2. "Table length draw" means that from whatever position the balls are in, you must draw the cb 9 feet. Given that definition, you would lose as well since the ob can be placed near the jaws of a corner pocket and when the shooter gets down on such a shot, the butt would come nowhere near the rails so the cue can be kept level.

Please know I am not arguing with you but rather, trying to be helpful.

Regards,
Jim