Are we killing folks' stroke ???

[Jaden]

ok then explain the mechanism of how end mass causes squirt????

We don't have to assume anything. It's been tested.



End mass directly causes squirt. Shaft stiffness has little or no effect. This isn't theory or assumption - it has been tested many times and shown to be true.

Flexible shafts with high end mass have been shown to produce high squirt. Stiff shafts with low end mass have been shown to produce low squirt.

One example close to home: my own shafts have thin, hollow tips (low end mass) but straight conical tapers (very stiff, like billiard cues). Guess what? They produce less squirt than Predator or OB-1 shafts.

pj
chgo

Explain the mechanism of squirt then. Because stating, IT'S ?BEEN TESTED>>>> doesn't mean anything. WHAT IS THE MECHANISM>?????? You can't explain it. I can........... Like you I also believe that end mass is the main factor in determining HOW much the CB squirts, but end mass is NOT the mechanism.

 

[Jaden]

Back Hand English.

What does BHE stand for?

It stands for Back Hand English. You first find your cues pivot point, even the low deflection shafts have one, it's just farther back. This is easy to find...

Then you line up on your shot as though you weren't going to put any english on the CB and leaving your bridge hand exactly where it is, you pivot the cue to put the amount of english you want on the CB. As long as you stroke straight and let the cue do the work, it will go EXACTLY where you were aiming with all of the english that you put on it there.

I can easily demonstrate that it is real and works. There are situations where you have to adjust aim but these are usually situations where you would have to adjust regardless of whether or not you are using spin. When you hit hard (compression induced throw), and when you hit soft (only with spin, friction induced throw), you will have to adjust your aim accordingly, but for the most part you don't have to do anything else. There are situations where it is absolutely necesary, although these are few and far between. I wish that Colin was still here posting, he would defend it to his death. We have been in slight disagreement as to some of the physics but for the most part we are in agreement as to what is going on.

 

[Flex]

I don't disagree but I think you're talking cues that have an inherent workmanship problem or damage, that's a whole different ball game. In the highlight of my post it says your "player", I don't think that too many of us will make a cue with an annoying sound or workmanship problem our everyday cue.

Actually, I have owned and extensively played with several cues that were my "players", at least for quite some time. Nevertheless, and even though I can play with all of them, one or two stand out from the others and play much, much better, at least for me.

That being said, there are cues that I've owned that I could play decently well with, but I'd not reach the point where I love playing with them.

As far as cues that are most like some "players" that I've used being the most "natural" feeling, I respectfully disagree.

Just because I can make a cue work for me doesn't mean I'll really like it, or that it feels like my "player."

By the way, compare the hit and playing characteristics of a Meucci with a black dot shaft, to a sneaky pete with a firm standard shaft, to a custom sneaky with an 11 mm shaft, to a Southwest style knockoff , and so on. They all hit differently, and play differently. While I can make them all dance and sing, I have definite preferences. Which of these cues are my player, and feel the most "natural?" I suppose they all do; nevertheless, the best one, IMHO, is the custom sneaky.

Why? Overall performance... not hit or natural feel.

Flex

 

[oldneo]

If you want more action than an OB-1 gives, try this: have any regular shaft retapered to an 11 mm tip, with a 16 inch pro taper. Then put on an Elkmaster tip, play with it for 6 hours or so, including plenty of power stroke shots.

Get used to the action from this combo. Now, put that OB-1 on your cue and see if the action is the same, or more or less.

Give the 11 mm shaft a chance... you may be surprised at the difference between it and an OB-1.

Flex

Thinner shafts will give you more action but your accuracy decreases due to the flexing of the thinner shaft.

 

[pooltchr]

Explain the mechanism of squirt then. Because stating, IT'S ?BEEN TESTED>>>> doesn't mean anything. WHAT IS THE MECHANISM>?????? You can't explain it. I can........... Like you I also believe that end mass is the main factor in determining HOW much the CB squirts, but end mass is NOT the mechanism.

When you strike the cue ball, the energy is dispersed in two ways. The primary force is from the directional movement of the cue that causes the cue ball to move in that direction. When you hit off center, there is some energy that goes from the point of contact through the center of the cue ball. If you hit with right english, it moves the cue ball to the left a little bit. This is squirt.
The greater the end mass of the cue, the greater amount of squirt.
Steve

 

[Jaden]

exactly, I know this.

When you strike the cue ball, the energy is dispersed in two ways. The primary force is from the directional movement of the cue that causes the cue ball to move in that direction. When you hit off center, there is some energy that goes from the point of contact through the center of the cue ball. If you hit with right english, it moves the cue ball to the left a little bit. This is squirt.
The greater the end mass of the cue, the greater amount of squirt.
Steve

I know that, but that is not the mechanism. I admitted that endmass is the primary factor in determining how much squirt there is, but the mechanims is that there is flexion of the shaft, this means that the shaft (only during initial contact) bows so that the tip is pointing toward the center mass of the CB. Once the tip starts to slip away from the CB, the shaft flexes away from the CB (deflection). The mechanism that causes squirt is that the tip is actually pointing in the direction that the CB travels during contact. He was trying to say that end mass directly causes squirt, and that is not true, it is only the greatest factor in determining how MUCH squirt there is.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Jaden:
Explain the mechanism of squirt

It has been explained ad infinitum, but just for you:

As the CB rotates it pushes the tip to the side. The tip's weight (it's mass, not its flexing) resists this pushing so the the CB pushes itself in the opposite direction, just like if you (= the CB) stood flatfooted on rollerskates and pushed your friend (= the shaft) who was also on rollerskates - both of you would move in opposite directions even though your friend didn't push back. In effect, the spinning CB pushes itself away.

This is nothing new. This is widely accepted (by qualified people like Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard and Mike Page by the way) as the mechanism that produces squirt. It's also widely accepted by these same people that shaft flexing has little or nothing to do with it. I didn't make this stuff up just to argue with you.

pj
chgo

 

[Flex]

Thinner shafts will give you more action but your accuracy decreases due to the flexing of the thinner shaft.

You know, I had always heard that, but can't say as I agree with you. I think it probably depends on the quality of the thinner shaft, and just how stiff it is. Wood varies quite a bit. Perhaps I have the good fortune of having two very stiff hitting thin shafts.

Flex

 

[StrokeofLuck]

Actually, I have owned and extensively played with several cues that were my "players", at least for quite some time. Nevertheless, and even though I can play with all of them, one or two stand out from the others and play much, much better, at least for me.

That being said, there are cues that I've owned that I could play decently well with, but I'd not reach the point where I love playing with them.

As far as cues that are most like some "players" that I've used being the most "natural" feeling, I respectfully disagree.

Just because I can make a cue work for me doesn't mean I'll really like it, or that it feels like my "player."

By the way, compare the hit and playing characteristics of a Meucci with a black dot shaft, to a sneaky pete with a firm standard shaft, to a custom sneaky with an 11 mm shaft, to a Southwest style knockoff , and so on. They all hit differently, and play differently. While I can make them all dance and sing, I have definite preferences. Which of these cues are my player, and feel the most "natural?" I suppose they all do; nevertheless, the best one, IMHO, is the custom sneaky.

Why? Overall performance... not hit or natural feel.

Flex

I'm not even sure I disagree with you but I'm not sure of exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying all custom sneakys with an 11 MM or are you referring to something specific that you own? The point of my post was to say, using your analogy, if you p/u a cue that hits like your custom sneaky that you like so much you are going to be inclined to like that cue too. If it hits a lot differently you might not think it's nice hitting cue because it's not what you're accustomed to. That's all.

 

[Flex]

I'm not even sure I disagree with you but I'm not sure of exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying all custom sneakys with an 11 MM or are you referring to something specific that you own? The point of my post was to say, using your analogy, if you p/u a cue that hits like your custom sneaky that you like so much you are going to be inclined to like that cue too. If it hits a lot differently you might not think it's nice hitting cue because it's not what you're accustomed to. That's all.

Not all custom sneakies, but one that I had made with an 11 mm tipped shaft, and a 16 inch pro taper on it.

I have another shaft that Ed Young made for me that is also 11 mm with a 16 in pro taper, but it plays significantly differently, especially on power stroke shots with english. It squirts the cue ball more. However, both of them are excellent.

As for the different hits of the two shafts, they are both nice.

As I mentioned before, the most important part of the equation is how the shaft performs... Especially how much the cue ball squirts when shooting a power shot with english at some distance.

Flex

 

[Jaden]

It has been explained ad infinitum, but just for you:

As the CB rotates it pushes the tip to the side. The tip's weight (it's mass, not its flexing) resists this pushing so the the CB pushes itself in the opposite direction, just like if you (= the CB) stood flatfooted on rollerskates and pushed your friend (= the shaft) who was also on rollerskates - both of you would move in opposite directions even though your friend didn't push back. In effect, the spinning CB pushes itself away.

This is nothing new. This is widely accepted (by qualified people like Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard and Mike Page by the way) as the mechanism that produces squirt. It's also widely accepted by these same people that shaft flexing has little or nothing to do with it. I didn't make this stuff up just to argue with you.

pj
chgo

I can demonstrate it to you. The cue does, although minutely, flex toward the ball. If you push on the tip of the cue toward straight back from the side that would be closest to the ball you will see that the pressure is uneven and will put pressure on the shaft to the inside. Once that pressure is released, the shaft deflects in the opposite direction. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For the shaft to deflect in the opposite direction relative to the CB there HAS to be flexion in the direction toward the CB first. PERIOD.

Because the mass of the CB is there preventing the shaft from bending too much, it is difficult to see the initial flexion even in high speed photography, but what can be seen in high speed photography is the tip bending toward the CB. Yes, it is the opposing masses and the off of center of mass hit between the two masses that causes squirt, but the shaft and the tip(although mostly the tip) does bow slightly toward the CB during contact. IT has to for deflection to occur at all and deflection of the shaft does occur even in the low deflection tech shafts. So the tip IS pointing in the direction that the CB travels at the exact point that the CB leaves the tip. Or atleast once slipping starts to occur.

I never said that end mass wasn't the contributing factor for the amount of squirt, but it is the interacting masses and their effect on each other that changes the direction of the CB relative to the initial direction of movement of the shaft.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...I never said that end mass wasn't the contributing factor for the amount of squirt, but it is the interacting masses and their effect on each other that changes the direction of the CB relative to the initial direction of movement of the shaft.

Whatever that means.

Show me how this fact fits into your theory: Flexible shafts with high end mass produce more squirt than stiff shafts with low end mass.

By the way, are there any tests that support what you're asserting? I mean with results like the ones I just described, that clearly differentiate between mass and flex as the mechanism for squirt? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.

pj
chgo

 

[Jaden]

ANother thing.

Another thing that I was trying to explain earlier, but I obviously didn't explain well enough. Pivot points are a reality. PERIOD. No one can deny that. For pivot points to exist, squirt has to be affected by flexion of the shaft. Unless you think that bridge position somehow miraculously lessens end mass of the tip of the shaft????

Here is why...bridge position affects the amount of squirt. IT has to or there wouldn't be a pivot point, but even low deflection shafts have a pivot point. The only thing that changes with bridge length is the amount of flex in the shaft. So follow closely here. IF we KNOW that the only thing that differs between different bridsge positions is flex of the shaft, and we KNOW that bridge length does affect the amount of squirt, then we must conclude that shaft flex DOES have an affect,( however minute compared to end mass relation), on squirt. That is SIMPLE LOGIC.,......

 

[Patrick Johnson]

For pivot points to exist, squirt has to be affected by flexion of the shaft.

Nonsense. Pivot points only show the relationship of squirt to tip offset - they're just a measure. Like your height doesn't tell why you're tall or short, pivot points don't tell you why squirt happens. They're just marks on a ruler.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For the shaft to deflect in the opposite direction relative to the CB there HAS to be flexion in the direction toward the CB first. PERIOD.

I think that the direction of flexing (concave or convex towards the ball) is dependent on the exact properties of the shaft and could, in principle, be in either direction.

Because the mass of the CB is there preventing the shaft from bending too much, it is difficult to see the initial flexion even in high speed photography, but what can be seen in high speed photography is the tip....

I'm not familiar with any high-speed video that clearly shows the shaft bending concave towards the ball. Where can we see this?

 

[Bob Jewett]

... For pivot points to exist, squirt has to be affected by flexion of the shaft. Unless you think that bridge position somehow miraculously lessens end mass of the tip of the shaft???? ...

To the extent that I understand this, I think it is false. You may want to read Ron Shepard's paper on squirt. It is available at http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_squirt.pdf Also, Dave Alciatore has recently done some very interesting experiments on squirt. He puts these in his column in Billiards Digest and on his web site (for free) some time after print publication.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

For the shaft to deflect in the opposite direction relative to the CB there HAS to be flexion in the direction toward the CB first. PERIOD.

Jaden,
While I believe that there is some truth at the core of what you are trying to say in the above example and other statements you have made, I have a couple of points of difficulty with your approach.

First, in what I believed was a fairly casual and friendly conversation about pool mechanics (in an online forum in which there is no chance to convey a world of info in a couple of brief posts), there is really no place for phrases like "PERIOD". The reason why is that it implies that the matter is settled and beyond discussion. Since this is a discussion forum...you see the issue?

Second, your logic is somewhat flawed here. It is possible that the cue tip grabs the cueball at impact. It is further possible that the cue bends in an "S" shape at the instant of contact--at the point in time when the cue shaft on the whole wants to move out of the way of the cueball, and the friction between the tip and the ball is opposing this motion. However, I do not see any causal relationship between any tip motion towards the cue ball and the general shaft deflection away from the cue ball. This can be illustrated with an extreme example, Imagine that the cue shaft is extremely flexible, the cue ball is immovable, and the contact between the cue tip and ball is frictionless. With respect to the items involved, this is simply a maxed-out version of what is really there. In this scenario, absolutely no movement whatsoever is required towards the cue ball in order for the tip to move away from the cue ball. Is this right or wrong?
The equal and opposite reactions in question here are the change in momentum of the cue tip (and accompanying shaft) and the change in momentum of the cue ball, as well as all accompanying sound, heat from friction, compression of the wood, compression of the phenolic ball, etc. most of this stuff is negligible except the mass and vector motion of the two objects (cue and cue ball) before and after impact. If the cue ball diverges in any way from the straight line, this change in momentum will give you the energy you need to change the direction and speed of the shaft.

Finally, you may as well drop any talk of BHE and pivot points from the conversation, because they all work around the concepts of the human (soft) hands that hold the stick and form the bridge. The variablity in this human component essentially eliminates any useful information to come out of these principles.

I do not end any of this with "Period". I would be happy to hear your thoughts and am eager at the possibility that you might point something out to me that I had previously not thought of, or show me a hitherto unexplored way of looking at the situation! ;-)

Thanks,
KMRUNOUT

 

[Jaden]

I apologize for using period.

Jaden,
While I believe that there is some truth at the core of what you are trying to say in the above example and other statements you have made, I have a couple of points of difficulty with your approach.

First, in what I believed was a fairly casual and friendly conversation about pool mechanics (in an online forum in which there is no chance to convey a world of info in a couple of brief posts), there is really no place for phrases like "PERIOD". The reason why is that it implies that the matter is settled and beyond discussion. Since this is a discussion forum...you see the issue?

Second, your logic is somewhat flawed here. It is possible that the cue tip grabs the cueball at impact. It is further possible that the cue bends in an "S" shape at the instant of contact--at the point in time when the cue shaft on the whole wants to move out of the way of the cueball, and the friction between the tip and the ball is opposing this motion. However, I do not see any causal relationship between any tip motion towards the cue ball and the general shaft deflection away from the cue ball. This can be illustrated with an extreme example, Imagine that the cue shaft is extremely flexible, the cue ball is immovable, and the contact between the cue tip and ball is frictionless. With respect to the items involved, this is simply a maxed-out version of what is really there. In this scenario, absolutely no movement whatsoever is required towards the cue ball in order for the tip to move away from the cue ball. Is this right or wrong?
The equal and opposite reactions in question here are the change in momentum of the cue tip (and accompanying shaft) and the change in momentum of the cue ball, as well as all accompanying sound, heat from friction, compression of the wood, compression of the phenolic ball, etc. most of this stuff is negligible except the mass and vector motion of the two objects (cue and cue ball) before and after impact. If the cue ball diverges in any way from the straight line, this change in momentum will give you the energy you need to change the direction and speed of the shaft.

Finally, you may as well drop any talk of BHE and pivot points from the conversation, because they all work around the concepts of the human (soft) hands that hold the stick and form the bridge. The variablity in this human component essentially eliminates any useful information to come out of these principles.

I do not end any of this with "Period". I would be happy to hear your thoughts and am eager at the possibility that you might point something out to me that I had previously not thought of, or show me a hitherto unexplored way of looking at the situation! ;-)

Thanks,
KMRUNOUT

I usually don't speak in absolutes but I admit I was getting a little frustrated that some people were just accepting things without really thinking (seemingly to me).

In answer to your question, you would be 100% correct IF the deflection that is shown in high speed photography were to occur DURING the contact between the cue tip and the CB, but I believe that it doesn't. I'm pretty sure that high speed video shows that the shafts deflection away from the CB happens after contact ceases. The only plausible way that this could happen is if it is from an equal and opposite reaction caused by torsion on one side of the shaft from pressure being exerted unequally because of the off center hit. If it were being caused by a side ways motion from the off center hit. or rather from the mass of the CB pressing side ways into the shaft, it should occur during contact. IF it truly does not occur during contact, it can't be from the mass of the CB pressing side ways on the shaft. Therefore, IMO, it is only possible that it is a reaction to an off center torsion on the shaft because of the pressure being placed off center.

If you look dead on straight on your cue and place even pressure on one side of the tip with your finger or by pressing the tip against something hard trying to do it off center of the tip where the pressure would be in an off center hit on a CB, a lot of even pressure pressing backward, which should be what the CB's mass is doing because the shaft is moving straight forward, you can see that the shaft starts or wants to bow so that the point moves toward the direction of the pressing force. and the shaft bows outward away from the pressing force. This makes sense with what I believe is occurring. I also wasn't saying period about my argument only about the fact that pivot points exist. I was then using logical argument and deductive reasoning to attempt to prove my point. If the premises are true then the argument must be true. That was the only thing I was trying to say. I apologize for it coming off as me saying that my argument is the only truth period, it was not intended as portraying that.

 

[Jaden]

To the extent that I understand this, I think it is false. You may want to read Ron Shepard's paper on squirt. It is available at http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_squirt.pdf Also, Dave Alciatore has recently done some very interesting experiments on squirt. He puts these in his column in Billiards Digest and on his web site (for free) some time after print publication.

Bob, I agree to disagree. I know that you had also responded to something that JOEYA and I were discussing and you disagree with me on that as well. I respect your opinion and acknowledge that you have a lot of knowledge in regards to pool, but I would like the chance to come by, since we live so close to each other and demonstrate some of what I'm talking about in person without having to verbalize it online like this. A demonstration is worth a million words. Maybe you can demonstrate to me how I'm seeing it wrong, if I am. Right now I'm in New Orleans, but I'll be back in Cali within a month or so. PM me to see about setting up a time if you're willing and able to. It's also possible that I'm wording this wrong and we are talking about the same thing as was often the case when Colin and myself were seeming to disagree about something.

Respectfully,

Jaden

 

[DoomCue]

No, I'm not saying that BHE that BHE players have a more pure stroke. I'm saying that tha majority of people who buy into and use low deflection shafts that minimize squirt so that they don't have to adjust as much, actually think that they don't have to adjust at all and while that works on many tables, especially with loose pockets, it doesn't work on tighter tables and it provides an excuse to not learn more about the game. Another thing I'm saying is that well used BHE at the proper pivot point is more accurate in tighter tolerances than relying on the low deflection properties and low end mass properties of low deflection shafts. Many feel players can get to where they play as well with low deflection shafts but they could get to where they play even better if they learn to properly use BHE or learn to adjust in other ways without relying on the low squirt properties of low deflection shaft tech.

Are you asking me what I think contitutes a pure stroke? A pure stroke is putting the shaft straight through the ball letting the weight of the cue do the majority if not all of the work, IMO. Again, the top tier of players can use parallel enlgish, BHE english or even feel, but IMO, the majority of players out there aren't top tier and CAN'T use any old way to get their best game. The only reason that those other top tier players can is because they are already there at the top tier. If they would've learned to understand more about the game or to use BHE, I think that it could've made their top play even better. In some few cases, they wouldn't, but I think that they are the exception rather than the rule. I think the biggest problem that players face when trying to learn to use BHE, is that they tend to want to pull the cue back to what looks familiar to them and don't stroke straight through the ball or don't let the cue do the work.

This is not meant as an offense to anyone and I'm not trying to say that my way is the best way. Hell, it wasn't even my way. Of everything that I do know about this game, BHE is the only thing I didn't discover on my own. So I can't claim it as my own.

I'm not even going to do what I did in the past and throw down all of the top players that use BHE, even some that don't understand what all they have to do for it to work right.

I just demosntrated and showed to JoeyA that it works by showing him how to use it himself. Most players just don't believe that it works as well as it does until they use it and see for themselves how well it works. This is starting to go a little off topic though.

I think that because BHE and knowledge of what is going on at the table is decreased by things like low deflection tech on looser equipment it gives the players that aren't in that top tier an excuse to not learn the other possibilities and in the case of BHE, it prevents them from being able to more fully test and develop their knowledge and stroke because the pivot point is so far back as for them to not be able to see that it does work. JOeyA had to shorten his bridge substantially with his cue for it to work for him and I told him that he could have someone make him a shaft that has a pivoy point that is farther back and I'm pretty sure that if he was able to get a shaft that had the same taper and shaft diameter that had a pivot point that was further back he would switch to only or at least mostly using BHE. It just works too well if used correctly.

You have an interesting viewpoint. There are many who would argue the exact opposite - that BHE prevents players from learning more about the game and developing a good stroke. BHE can become a crutch, and if players don't know how to deal with shots where BHE doesn't work, they're in trouble. I teach beginners to use BHE, as it takes some of the mystery out of applying english, but I also try to help them understand that whether "parallel" or BHE is used, the cue ends up in the same place and it's really just personal preference (obviously, you prefer BHE). What that has to do with stroke or knowledge, I'm not sure.

So much of this game comes down to personal preference, from shafts, to ferrules, to weights, to wraps, to dominant eye, to stance, to ways of thinking. My personal way of thinking and shooting is totally right... FOR ME. You obviously think BHE is a great method to avoid squirt (and it is, as long as the pivot point is in a place where a bridge can be made). And that's great... FOR YOU. You keep mentioning tight pockets and how non-BHE players in your mind would have a tougher time on them. Let's debunk that right now - the top potters in the world play snooker, and very rarely do you see a snooker player using BHE.

Check out my sig - I use a Z shaft. BHE won't work for me, and I don't mind that since I've not used BHE with any of my shafts. It's nice to know about though, because there have been times when I didn't have my cues and I had to play with strange equipment. Knowing how to find the pivot point allowed me to use BHE to some degree.

BHE isn't pool's Holy Grail, it's a simple method used to take advantage of the science involved with squirt. Low squirt cues do the same thing by a different manner. Either way, you still have to line up right to see the desired contact and aim points. Either method gets you there, you can't proclaim one more accurate than another. That's in the shooter.

Personally, I think a BHE player who can't aim "parallel" probably is going to have a tougher time than a player who uses only "parallel" english. "Parallel" english works on EVERY shot, while BHE shots work only in conditions with a specific set of circumstances.

-djb <-- just my two cents - you can go back to arguing with PJ