back-hand swoop and cue twist poll

[Russ Chewning]

Colin,

I do plan to try to film some swoop stuff, but I need to find an expert swooper first. As you can probably tell, I'm a little skeptical concerning the value of swooping, but I still plan to look at and think about it some more. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Regards,
Dave

Get with John Dougherty (a.k.a. "J.D." of Playing Off the Rail fame, who woofed a little at Bucktooth) on this. He lives in Washington state, around the Seattle area, if you ever make it over that way.

He is very very good at these "swoop" shots. He was demonstrating for a lot of us players how the swoop shot allows you to aim certain inside english shots as if you were striking center ball. In fact, he aims the shots as if he is using center ball, and then "swoops" into the english.

He once embarassed the heck out of a Portland area shortstop when he was explaining the stroke to some of us lesser players. He was saying that he could play a "wrong angle" shot in the side, and get the ball to reverse off the rail smoothly and get over to the other side of the table.

The shortstop insisted J.D. could not get any farther up the opposite rail that "X" diamonds. J.D. asked him to bet on it..to put his money up.

Shortstop declined, and just to twist the knife a little, J.D. attempted the shot anyways, put the SMOOTHEST stroke I have ever seen on the ball, and got the ball THREE DIAMONDS further up the rail than the shortstop said was possible.

I mean, I am a good player, and have SEEN a lot of great players play, and what he did looked impossible.

So...Is the shot possible without swooping? Probably.

Is it easier to hit while swooping? Imho, DEFINITELY.

Russ

 

[Blackjack]

Dr. Dave

With all due respect, the mechanics and grip you used in that video... you will never be able to master the techniques you are trying to denounce. Just an observation.

Go to Manila. You'll see a lot of things you won't be able to duplicate on video, trust me on that.

 

[dr_dave]

the red carpet is ready when you are

Dave,
Can't see a trip to Colorado on the immediate cards, but hope to get there and try some high speed stuff with you one day.

You are certainly welcome anytime. I have an extra room, beer in the frig, and a pool table (and cameras) in the basement.

I think I can video some demonstrative shots to make some estimates on the magnitude of the effects of some swoop shots.

I would like to see that before I do any serious swoop tests. Please let me know as soon as it is available.

I agree that players should avoid swooping like the plague, especially on ordinary table play shots while they are learning proper alignment and stroking.

I agree.

Perhaps when they get those in order they might benefit with some swooping experimentation.

To me, the jury is still out on this one.

Perhaps the greatest incentive to study swoop shots is because it is so prevalent. For someone to really understand the nature of the variables in their play, and hence their errors, getting swoop into perspective is crucial.

Agreed. Well stated.

...
I do understand the concept of the original video, which is to point out the silliness of expecting magical results out of swooping and twisting. Quite obviously, I expect most if not all players would be better than they currently are if they had never swooped a ball. However, swooping is a disease that seems to infect all player's strokes at some time or another.

Again, well stated. I agree.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

swoop vs. BHE video

I've done some testing with BHE. An overview of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERFTM8dbat0

Part of that testing was comparing a pivot and straight cueing versus swooping to the same contact point. There is a noticeable and consistent difference of about 1 inch over 6 diamonds travel for a large swoop. Perhaps half this for a minor swoop. That variation is enough to make a lot of shots miss.

Colin, is this in the video? I didn't see it.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

swoop mechanics

Dr. Dave

With all due respect, the mechanics and grip you used in that video... you will never be able to master the techniques you are trying to denounce. Just an observation.

David,

I don't claim to be a good model for swoopers (or non swoopers for that matter). I have never practiced swooping before (although, I have probably done it by mistake many times).

I am curious though, what mechanics and grip differences do you think are required to properly execute an effective swoop (pivot while swinging forward) stroke?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[spoons]

Dave, it looks like 4:45 of Colin's video he demonstrates what he calls "tuck and roll or swipe effect." I think that might be the bit he was referring to.

Colin, I don't want to derail the thread, but I do want to compliment you on that video. I don't have any experience with back hand english, because frankly this game is already more complicated than I can handle :frown:, but I've always wondered what the basics are, and that video gave me a good starting point. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Jule]

Great video dr_dave, gave me a real good laugh!

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, it looks like 4:45 of Colin's video he demonstrates what he calls "tuck and roll or swipe effect." I think that might be the bit he was referring to.

Thanks. As Colin has suggested, I think we need a carefully-done study to look at the differences and effects in more detail.

Colin, I don't want to derail the thread, but I do want to compliment you on that video. I don't have any experience with back hand english, because frankly this game is already more complicated than I can handle :frown:, but I've always wondered what the basics are, and that video gave me a good starting point. Thanks for sharing.

Agreed. Colins videos are great. I look forward to seeing more from him.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

fun even if a little disrespectful

Great video dr_dave, gave me a real good laugh!

I was hoping people would take it in jest, but I was a little worried some people might think it is inappropriate or disrespectful.

Regards,
Dave

 

[cowboyup200560]

Lol i found it quite entertaining. Think of all the action you could husltle with that 8 ball. LMAO I just thought it was funny. Rep to you

 

[Colin Colenso]

Tuck & Roll - Swipe and Two examples

Dave, it looks like 4:45 of Colin's video he demonstrates what he calls "tuck and roll or swipe effect." I think that might be the bit he was referring to.

Colin, I don't want to derail the thread, but I do want to compliment you on that video. I don't have any experience with back hand english, because frankly this game is already more complicated than I can handle :frown:, but I've always wondered what the basics are, and that video gave me a good starting point. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, that's the part where I mention it Spoons, referring to tuck and roll as Rempe used to advocate. My 12 gig ran out so I couldn't download the whole clip last night on 56kbps speed.

I was doing a bit more thinking on why and when some of us use swoop. You can see me clearly swooping on shots 11, 15 & 16 of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keznf66dSHE

These shots require considerable power and large amounts of spin. For some reason, after years of mucking around playing these shots, they just feel more makeable using a swoop stroke.

They are probably repeatable with straight strokes, but it does tend to feel like I can rip the ball more with this kind of stroke.

Another mechanism that I was thinking about is that when striking shots this hard and this far off center, the amount of squirt increases considerably, which means the bridge would need to be shortened a couple of inches to compensate. Shortening the bridge reduces our ability to accelerate. And if we choose the longer bridge with a piston action, the pot would have to be aligned quite differently than usual. It would require aiming to over cut the ball.

By swooping, a longer bridge can be used, making the speed of shot more attainable and making the alignment for the pot the same as for a medium speed shot using a straight stroke.

If this idea, that swooping helps alignment with longer bridge lengths feel more natural, then we might imagine using low squirt cues would allow us to align to these power shots more easily using a piston like action.

I know that I have trouble using BHE with extremely low squirt cues because standard shots require too long a bridge length. I've heard Efren doesn't use predators for the same reason.

Just some food for thought.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...when striking shots this hard and this far off center, the amount of squirt increases considerably

You mean because swerve is less?

...which means the bridge would need to be shortened a couple of inches to compensate. Shortening the bridge reduces our ability to accelerate.

Couldn't you pivot and then adjust the bridge length?

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

You mean because swerve is less?

Patrick,

I know swerve affects the effective pivot point on shots, and have read that squirt is supposedly independent of speed of shot, but after lots of playing using BHE I'm pretty convinced that pure squirt does increase with speed of shot, and that swerve is just an additional variable that tends to disguise that effect. Pure squirt here is the actual deflection angle from the line of the cue, whereas effective squirt is the net squirt effect after swerve has curved to CB to a new line.

I think when we get into the 20mph+ range of speeds, the increased pure squirt becomes noticeable. I find I need to adjust my pivot point from around 14 inches for medium speeds to as low as 6 inches for high power shots.

Anyway, even if that is swerve reduction that leads to this effect, it still means that the effective pivot point of power shots becomes uncomfortably short.

Couldn't you pivot and then adjust the bridge length?

Not sure what you mean by pivoting here. I already pivot.

What I could do is change the original alignment to undercut the OB slightly, then use the normal bridge length with a straight cue action instead of a swoop. But the problem with this method is that I have to change my adjustment depending on the distance between the OB and CB. In contrast, swooping allows me to aim at the same contact point on the OB regardless of the distance between CB and OB. It creates a new pivot point for that speed of shot.

Also, I'm still not sure if I can get the same rip on a ball (maximal spin), as reliably without swooping.

It does seem possible that swooping on these shots does develop as a compensation for alignment, and seeing that so many experienced players have developed this mechanism, perhaps there is some justification for it. The justifications being that:
1. It is a useful aid in compensatory alignment of power shots with english.
2. Large amounts of spin can be applied with greater consistency and lower miscue risk with experience.

Neither of these justifications is a proven benefit, but they deserve exploration.

No doubt these shots can be replicated, or at least approximately replicated using and compensating for a non-swoop action. What might be interesting is to spend some time attempting these same shots using the two methods and compare the effectiveness.

I'll try to get a hit in over the next couple of days and see if I gain any new perspectives.

Colin

 

[Chesscat]

The Rifleman

Of course, Buddy Hall is a big advocate of the tuck and roll. Anyone who watches his Clock video gets the tuck and roll as a bonus.

 

[Scott Lee]

dave...I disagree that a "carefully study" is needed. "Swooping" the cuestick is an inaccurate method of delivering an accurate, repeatable stroke. Are there SOME people who can do it effectively...sure (look at Colin's videos). However, for the GIGANTIC majority of poolplayers out there, all this does is confuse people, on what is the simplest, most effective way to shoot! With that said, YOU are certainly the one to do this "study"! :grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

As Colin has suggested, I think we need a carefully-done study to look at the differences and effects in more detail.

 

[Jal]

...
Neither of these justifications is a proven benefit, but they deserve exploration.

No doubt these shots can be replicated, or at least approximately replicated using and compensating for a non-swoop action. What might be interesting is to spend some time attempting these same shots using the two methods and compare the effectiveness.

Welcome back Colin!

I think the limiting factor for generating a high spin/speed ratio is always the coefficient of static friction. This is the ratio between the tangential and normal forces acting between the tip and ball. It's essentially zero for a centerball hit and reaches a maximum of about .5... at a large offset with no miscue. No matter what trickery or technique we might try, the coefficient can only get so big before the interface fails in shear. In the case of swooping, even if you could generate a significantly larger effective offset, this would require a larger coefficient, accordingly. The same can be achieved with a straight stroke, I think, with a larger initial offset. (There is some question as to how the force direction evolves during contact, but in my mind the straight stroke probably produces a more uniform direction over the contact period?)

The idea of using an upward swoop on a break shot to reduce or eliminate bounce intrigued me. If you hit centerball while swiping across it, this does generate much more squirt (negative in this case) per the amount of spin produced. Some calculations I did though, which are a bit questionable, indicate that the tip needs to be moving faster tangentially than forward to get anything like the expected benefit. More endmass helps here. It seems as if you might thus have to steal from your forward power very significantly. But as I said, the physics could be too simplistic.

Jim

 

[Colin Colenso]

Welcome back Colin!

I think the limiting factor for generating a high spin/speed ratio is always the coefficient of static friction. This is the ratio between the tangential and normal forces acting between the tip and ball. It's essentially zero for a centerball hit and reaches a maximum of about .5... at a large offset with no miscue. No matter what trickery or technique we might try, the coefficient can only get so big before the interface fails in shear. In the case of swooping, even if you could generate a significantly larger effective offset, this would require a larger coefficient, accordingly. The same can be achieved with a straight stroke, I think, with a larger initial offset. (There is some question as to how the force direction evolves during contact, but in my mind the straight stroke probably produces a more uniform direction over the contact period?)

The idea of using an upward swoop on a break shot to reduce or eliminate bounce intrigued me. If you hit centerball while swiping across it, this does generate much more squirt (negative in this case) per the amount of spin produced. Some calculations I did though, which are a bit questionable, indicate that the tip needs to be moving faster tangentially than forward to get anything like the expected benefit. More endmass helps here. It seems as if you might thus have to steal from your forward power very significantly. But as I said, the physics could be too simplistic.

Jim

Hi Jim,
Very interesting insights, as per usual

I see where you're going on the static friction. I wondered whether the swoop could significantly alter the spin:speed ratio, as we see on a masse type. My immediate thought is that such an effect would be quite insignificant. However, I've seen quite a few masse specialists adopt a swooping technique, especially on some softer masse shots, so it makes me curious.

I'm not sure how you're calculating the bounce elimination / reduction idea. From some BHE pivot point trials, (rough I should add), I reckon I can get the CB to hit about 1 inch left of a target with leftward swoop. (i.e. Compared to hitting the same point with a straight cue action). Hence I kind of assumed that by swooping upward on the break shot, I could alter the CB direction by about 1 inch in an upward direction.

I'm not sure what the cue slope angle is for a relatively flat break shot, but I wouldn't imagine it is much more than 1 inch over 6 diamonds and that therefore such a change in direction could constitute a significant reduction in bounce. Maybe you have some insights on that.

I do feel that on power follow shots the CB gets moving faster after impact on the OB if I stroke with an upward swoop. This is what would be expected if less bounce is occurring, and this can be useful when trying to hold an angle (which will happen if the ball is gripping the cloth earlier on its travel path along the tangent line).

Still, these are just ideas, they maybe mostly illusory or just a matter of bad habit.

The one area that has piqued my interest the most is thinking more about how swoop provides a compensation method for squirt, and hence it may have significant benefits for some shots as an alignment compensation method for shots requiring english. This doesn't show that it should be used, but it may explain why it is often used.

Any insights appreciated.

Colin

 

[Jal]

Hi Jim,
Very interesting insights, as per usual

I see where you're going on the static friction. I wondered whether the swoop could significantly alter the spin:speed ratio, as we see on a masse type. My immediate thought is that such an effect would be quite insignificant. However, I've seen quite a few masse specialists adopt a swooping technique, especially on some softer masse shots, so it makes me curious.

I'm not sure how you're calculating the bounce elimination / reduction idea. From some BHE pivot point trials, (rough I should add), I reckon I can get the CB to hit about 1 inch left of a target with leftward swoop. (i.e. Compared to hitting the same point with a straight cue action). Hence I kind of assumed that by swooping upward on the break shot, I could alter the CB direction by about 1 inch in an upward direction.

I'm not sure what the cue slope angle is for a relatively flat break shot, but I wouldn't imagine it is much more than 1 inch over 6 diamonds and that therefore such a change in direction could constitute a significant reduction in bounce. Maybe you have some insights on that.

I do feel that on power follow shots the CB gets moving faster after impact on the OB if I stroke with an upward swoop. This is what would be expected if less bounce is occurring, and this can be useful when trying to hold an angle (which will happen if the ball is gripping the cloth earlier on its travel path along the tangent line).

Still, these are just ideas, they maybe mostly illusory or just a matter of bad habit.

The one area that has piqued my interest the most is thinking more about how swoop provides a compensation method for squirt, and hence it may have significant benefits for some shots as an alignment compensation method for shots requiring english. This doesn't show that it should be used, but it may explain why it is often used.

Any insights appreciated.

Colin

Colin, let me try to gather my thoughts a little more on this. (I'll probably want to read Dr. Dave's analysis of squirt first.) Because the cue bends and departs so much from a rigid body in the transverse direction, the physics is difficult.) As soon as I can, hopefully a day or two, I'll post a link or send you a PM.

Good to see you providing stimulating ideas again.

Jim

 

[dr_dave]

squirt is relatively constant with speed?

I know swerve affects the effective pivot point on shots, and have read that squirt is supposedly independent of speed of shot, but after lots of playing using BHE I'm pretty convinced that pure squirt does increase with speed of shot, and that swerve is just an additional variable that tends to disguise that effect. Pure squirt here is the actual deflection angle from the line of the cue, whereas effective squirt is the net squirt effect after swerve has curved to CB to a new line.

I think when we get into the 20mph+ range of speeds, the increased pure squirt becomes noticeable.

Colin,

FYI, I have some data on this in Diagram 2 of my February '08 article. We only tested up to 8 mph, but the squirt was relatively constant up to this speed. I also have a thorough analysis of squirt physics in TP A.31. I can't think of any physical effect that would create more squirt at higher speeds (based on the analysis), but I'm not saying it is impossible (just improbable). We will design and build a better machine in the fall and early spring. Hopefully, I can get more data then.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

swoop study can't hurt

dave...I disagree that a "carefully study" is needed. "Swooping" the cuestick is an inaccurate method of delivering an accurate, repeatable stroke. Are there SOME people who can do it effectively...sure (look at Colin's videos). However, for the GIGANTIC majority of poolplayers out there, all this does is confuse people, on what is the simplest, most effective way to shoot! With that said, YOU are certainly the one to do this "study"!

Scott,

I don't see any harm in doing a study. It would be nice to know whether or not swoop can create any measurable benefit (e.g., more English). I will do my best with a "study," but I would like to find someone with a consistent and effective swoop stroke first.

BTW, I agree with you that the value of swooping is highly questionable.

Regards,
Dave