BHE challenge.

[Jaden]

I greatly respect Colin's knowledge and opinion and the recent debates on the underlying mechanisms involved in BHE have caused me to do some experiments and some deep thinking.

I came up with some ideas and a challenge of sorts.

I have come to a conclusion, (atleast for the time being), that duration of contact is the underlying force.

Now many of you who have followed my posts will know that I don't have access to a pool table, well atleast a decent one; so how could I have done experiments? First let me give the reasons that duration of contact must be a factor.

1.) The tangent angle changes based on the right or left english placed on the cueball, this means that the CB must be contacting the OB at a different initial angle to the angle necesary for the OB to travel to the pocket or the destination. The OB does travel to the destination though. There must be a reason for that. The reason is duration of contact. Because you are hitting the CB off center you are imparting spin on the CB.

The CB is spinning as it makes contact with the OB, because of this, the CB maintains contact with the OB longer pushing it toward the direction of the spin and imparting opposite spin on the OB because of the extended duration of contact.

2.) This is where the challenge comes into play and how I was able to experiment without a Table. BHE WORKS independent of materials!!!!

As long as the balls themselves are of the same material and squirt is not enough to completely miss the OB the materials do not matter, and BHE will still work.

Here is the challenge: put a bed against a wall with a normal sheet pulled tight. Take two tennis balls and an imaginary aim point on the wall. Find the correct aimpoint and using BHE impart spin on the tennis ball that you are hitting with the cue. The second tennis ball will go straight to the aimpoint on the wall so long as the stroke is straight through the first ball.

Stroke the exact same shot with no english, with left english and with right english. In all cases the second tennis ball will travel to the aimpoint, (within a negligable margin), but the first tennis ball will travel on different tangents.

This test illustrates not only that contact duration does greatly influence the shot, but that it is material independent. In other words, BHE will work for every shot within reason so long as the stroke is correct.

I still have no way of testing extreme variations of speed to determine if speed of shot effects degree of squirt, but even if it does the extended contact a harder shot creates should counter act it. Not necesarily because I have no idea if the harder shot would cause the grip to continue as it does with spin. So I'm not sure experimentally about that yet.

As I have previously stated, in practice, it hasn't mattered how hard I've hit it or how much english was used, I've still made shots of extremely varying distances and angles so long as I've stroked straight.

 

[pete lafond]

Interesting on BHE. Since Colin had begun taking about this I started paying attention to my stroke and found that I use BHE much more often than I ever thought. Long and short shots. I know this didn't really apply to your topic but it is something I never really paid attention to. I also use a closed bridge at times to manipulate effects on certain shots as well.

 

[Jal]

1.) The tangent angle changes based on the right or left english placed on the cueball, this means that the CB must be contacting the OB at a different initial angle to the angle necesary for the OB to travel to the pocket or the destination. The OB does travel to the destination though. There must be a reason for that. The reason is duration of contact. Because you are hitting the CB off center you are imparting spin on the CB.

The CB is spinning as it makes contact with the OB, because of this, the CB maintains contact with the OB longer pushing it toward the direction of the spin and imparting opposite spin on the OB because of the extended duration of contact.

Jaden, it's not completely clear what phenomenon you're trying to describe with "duration of contact". Squirt IS explained by the fact that the contact time between the stick and the cueball is greater than zero. As the cueball picks up rotation, the tip must travel along with it, otherwise a miscue will occur. The stick is thus necessarily pushed to the side, and by Newton's third law the stick pushes back causing the cueball to be pushed to the opposite side (a little). How much it pushes back depends on how much mass is at the tip end of the stick. (The shear forces within the stick do not have the time to travel very far down the length of the stick during the brief contact period, and therefore only the mass at the end of the stick is really important.)

Spin on the cueball does affect the throw and spin of the object ball. But the "duration of contact" is an unecessary distraction here. If the balls were harder than they are, the contact time would be shorter. If the balls were softer the contact time would be longer. But the amount of throw and spin imparted to the object ball would be the same as long as their surfaces produced the same amount of friction (ignoring differences in energy losses due to differences in elasticity). And they would produce the same amount of friction if their surface properties were the same, regardless of the length of the contact period.

Jim

 

[Colin Colenso]

First let me give the reasons that duration of contact must be a factor.

1.) The tangent angle changes based on the right or left english placed on the cueball, this means that the CB must be contacting the OB at a different initial angle to the angle necesary for the OB to travel to the pocket or the destination. The OB does travel to the destination though. There must be a reason for that. The reason is duration of contact. Because you are hitting the CB off center you are imparting spin on the CB.

The CB is spinning as it makes contact with the OB, because of this, the CB maintains contact with the OB longer pushing it toward the direction of the spin and imparting opposite spin on the OB because of the extended duration of contact.

I can't see that it's necessary for the contact period to be longer when a CB collides when spinning. It may or it may not, I doubt any equipment is good enough to determine this.

But what we do know is that the spin grips the OB and hence provides an additional force. This force is trasfered both linearly (pushing the OB off its original line) and rotationally (imparting some spin in the opposite direction on the OB).

With the CB tangent line, there is also a change (albeit slight) for the same reason. The spin on the CB, when it grips slightly to the OB creates a linear force in the direction of the spin onto the CB hence creating some deviation from its standard path. This is usually too small to notice though, but it is worth knowing this theory and how it applies when trying to manipulated CB paths using side english.

btw: The fundamentals are basically the same with your tennis balls, but the amount of friction between balls is considerably greater and that might be why you are seeing significant changes in the CB tangent line.

btw2: I gotta laugh at your enthusiasm to be playing with tennis balls on your bed...I've done a ton of weird stuff like that including bumping around rulers, cups, any cylinder I can find to try to grasp rotational physics better. lol

 

[Jaden]

only in relation.

Jaden, it's not completely clear what phenomenon you're trying to describe with "duration of contact". Squirt IS explained by the fact that the contact time between the stick and the cueball is greater than zero. As the cueball picks up rotation, the tip must travel along with it, otherwise a miscue will occur. The stick is thus necessarily pushed to the side, and by Newton's third law the stick pushes back causing the cueball to be pushed to the opposite side (a little). How much it pushes back depends on how much mass is at the tip end of the stick. (The shear forces within the stick do not have the time to travel very far down the length of the stick during the brief contact period, and therefore only the mass at the end of the stick is really important.)

Spin on the cueball does affect the throw and spin of the object ball. But the "duration of contact" is an unecessary distraction here. If the balls were harder than they are, the contact time would be shorter. If the balls were softer the contact time would be longer. But the amount of throw and spin imparted to the object ball would be the same as long as their surfaces produced the same amount of friction (ignoring differences in energy losses due to differences in elasticity). And they would produce the same amount of friction if their surface properties were the same, regardless of the length of the contact period.

Jim

I'm only referring to duration of contact in relation to a no english shot. the amount of time the contact is maintained is greater for the off center shots due to the exact forces you just described. maybe the mixup has just been the way I've been describing it.

 

[Jaden]

I can't see that it's necessary for the contact period to be longer when a CB collides when spinning. It may or it may not, I doubt any equipment is good enough to determine this.

But what we do know is that the spin grips the OB and hence provides an additional force. This force is trasfered both linearly (pushing the OB off its original line) and rotationally (imparting some spin in the opposite direction on the OB).

With the CB tangent line, there is also a change (albeit slight) for the same reason. The spin on the CB, when it grips slightly to the OB creates a linear force in the direction of the spin onto the CB hence creating some deviation from its standard path. This is usually too small to notice though, but it is worth knowing this theory and how it applies when trying to manipulated CB paths using side english.

btw: The fundamentals are basically the same with your tennis balls, but the amount of friction between balls is considerably greater and that might be why you are seeing significant changes in the CB tangent line.

btw2: I gotta laugh at your enthusiasm to be playing with tennis balls on your bed...I've done a ton of weird stuff like that including bumping around rulers, cups, any cylinder I can find to try to grasp rotational physics better. lol

I've gotta do something while I'm stuck down here!!! lol. Well, I'm almost back though. A little more than a week. Oh and for those of you out there who know me. I'll be coming back to San diego in January. I'll probably be making several runs up to hard times and danny's for their tournaments too. Although any one who would know me up there have no idea who I am. lol.

I don't even think I could explain, all of those guys would only know me by sight.

Oh and Colin, I think that we're talking about the same thing, it's just that I'm referring to it in a different way. This kind of reminds me of my college algebra class.

My teacher was discussing powers and said that there can't be any negative powers and I ended up having an argument with him because I could see it in my head how it was possible. Then a few months later we got into imaginary numbers and he discussed (i) As soon as he explained the concept, I blurted out, THAT was WHAT I was TALKING about. I had referred to it as half of a negative multiplied by half of a negative and for some reason he couldn't understand what I was saying and kept saying that it wasn't possible even though he ended up teaching it later.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Oh and Colin, I think that we're talking about the same thing, it's just that I'm referring to it in a different way. This kind of reminds me of my college algebra class.

My teacher was discussing powers and said that there can't be any negative powers and I ended up having an argument with him because I could see it in my head how it was possible. Then a few months later we got into imaginary numbers and he discussed (i) As soon as he explained the concept, I blurted out, THAT was WHAT I was TALKING about. I had referred to it as half of a negative multiplied by half of a negative and for some reason he couldn't understand what I was saying and kept saying that it wasn't possible even though he ended up teaching it later.

I imagined you were gonna say that

 

[Jaden]

I imagined you were gonna say that

You imagined I was going to say the thing about (i)? or that I was going to say that we were talking about the same thing?

 

[Colin Colenso]

You imagined I was going to say the thing about (i)? or that I was going to say that we were talking about the same thing?

I imagined you were going to bring up imaginary numbers. T'is a play on words my son

 

[Jal]

I'm only referring to duration of contact in relation to a no english shot. the amount of time the contact is maintained is greater for the off center shots due to the exact forces you just described. maybe the mixup has just been the way I've been describing it.

What forces are you refering to and which collision are you talking about, stick/ball or cueball/object ball?

In either case, you can arrive at the spin imparted to the cueball or object ball without considering any increase in contact time as a necessary factor. What is important is the impulse, which is the product of the average force acting over the contact period multiplied by the duration of the period. And equally important, as far as spin is concerned, is the average torque multiplied by the time. The average torque is the average force multiplied by the sideways offset from the center-of-mass in which the impulse is directed.

In both cases, the magnitude of the impulse is equal to the linear momentum (mass times velocity) picked up by the balls, and the magnitude of the torque impulse is equal to the angular momentum (moment of inertia times the rate of spin) acquired by them. In the case of the stick/cueball, the torque impulse is simply the impusle multiplied by the amount of tip offset. In the case of the cueball/object ball, the torque impulse is the impulse multiplied by the coefficient of friction between the balls and the radius of a ball.

In both types of collisions, the magnitude of the impulse is reduced for an off-center hit. This has to be true because the balls don't acquire as much speed (momentum) as with a dead center collision. Therefore, whatever increase in contact time may occur, the reduction in the average force acting during the collision will more than offset this increase (impulse = force x time). Although the impulse is reduced, it would have to go to zero for there to be no spin produced, because it's really the torque (offset x force x time) that causes it.

You're one of the few people interested in the physics, even to the point of doing experiments, so I surely hope I haven't dampened your enthusiasm for it. Who knows, maybe you'll show me where I've gone astray. But I do think that your contact time ideas will lead you up some blind alleys. Just my opinion.

Jim

 

[Jaden]

ok here goes.

Ok before I start, I understood most of what you were saying, and I will attempt to specifically describe what I was referring to; however, I must first say that my formal physics background is very limited, so I will probably not be using the correct terminology for this. This will be laymen's terms for what I am seeing in my head based on the observations I've made along with my experience for what works and does not.

What I have notcied is the squirt off of the cue to CB contact and the throw from CB to OB contact.

What appears to be happening as the cuetip goes through the CB is this. The tip makes contact with the ball and has inertia built up from its' mass and speed. As it makes contact there is friction or a gripping of sorts between the tip and the CB surface.

if it is off center the energy from the inertia of the cue is transferred to the CB in two ways. It imparts forward motion and then spin imparted to the CB takes some of the energy. when the spin is imparted it diverts the CB from the original path to a path that is relational to the degree off center of contact.

Now what happens when the CB hits the OB.

If the CB has no spin or it was a center hit, then the contact points are the same as the aimpoints if it has spin on it however they are not.

The squirt induced by an offcenter hit cause it to divert from the aimline even when using BHE it will not contact at the originally aimed contact points, but because there is throw created by the spin, the ball still drops.

Now for what's happening when throw is imparted on the OB. In a no spin shot there is a brief contact period where the energy is transferred between the CB and the OB. the contact point and the aimpoint are the same. not the aimpoint between center ball but the aimline between the contact points.

When there is spin the contact point changes to the side of the direction of spin. As the two balls make contact there are two different directional forces at work the forward momentum of the CB traveling through the OB and the direction of the spin as two balls interact. Because there is spin as the two balls make contact, the spin pushes the ball in a direction opposite the direction of the spin while imparting some of the energy from that spin on the OB causing the OB to have limited spin in the opposite direction of the original CB spin. This offset between simliiar materials of spheres of similar size cancels out the amount of squirt. So the throw offsets the amount of squirt, so long as the bridge point is still on the original line.

This is what I have noticed in my experience. I don't know if I'm describing it with the proper terminology, but I'm pretty sure that this is an accurate description of what's taking place.

So I guess that longer duration of contact isn't necesary since the two different directional forces are acting upon the object ball at the same time.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Ok before I start, I understood most of what you were saying, and I will attempt to specifically describe what I was referring to; however, I must first say that my formal physics background is very limited, so I will probably not be using the correct terminology for this. This will be laymen's terms for what I am seeing in my head based on the observations I've made along with my experience for what works and does not.

What I have notcied is the squirt off of the cue to CB contact and the throw from CB to OB contact.

What appears to be happening as the cuetip goes through the CB is this. The tip makes contact with the ball and has inertia built up from its' mass and speed. As it makes contact there is friction or a gripping of sorts between the tip and the CB surface.

if it is off center the energy from the inertia of the cue is transferred to the CB in two ways. It imparts forward motion and then spin imparted to the CB takes some of the energy. when the spin is imparted it diverts the CB from the original path to a path that is relational to the degree off center of contact.

Now what happens when the CB hits the OB.

If the CB has no spin or it was a center hit, then the contact points are the same as the aimpoints if it has spin on it however they are not.

The squirt induced by an offcenter hit cause it to divert from the aimline even when using BHE it will not contact at the originally aimed contact points, but because there is throw created by the spin, the ball still drops.

Now for what's happening when throw is imparted on the OB. In a no spin shot there is a brief contact period where the energy is transferred between the CB and the OB. the contact point and the aimpoint are the same. not the aimpoint between center ball but the aimline between the contact points.

When there is spin the contact point changes to the side of the direction of spin. As the two balls make contact there are two different directional forces at work the forward momentum of the CB traveling through the OB and the direction of the spin as two balls interact. Because there is spin as the two balls make contact, the spin pushes the ball in a direction opposite the direction of the spin while imparting some of the energy from that spin on the OB causing the OB to have limited spin in the opposite direction of the original CB spin. This offset between simliiar materials of spheres of similar size cancels out the amount of squirt. So the throw offsets the amount of squirt, so long as the bridge point is still on the original line.

This is what I have noticed in my experience. I don't know if I'm describing it with the proper terminology, but I'm pretty sure that this is an accurate description of what's taking place.

So I guess that longer duration of contact isn't necesary since the two different directional forces are acting upon the object ball at the same time.

Jaden,
One thing to keep in mind is that the intention of using BHE is to make the CB travel along the same line as a center hit CB shot such that the contact point with the CB and OB connect the same.

However, when this is achieved the subject of spin induced throw comes into question, such that hitting the OB at the right contact point for a side-english spinning shot throws the angle of the OB a few degrees.

Hence, on an OE shot you need to either begin the aim thicker or move the bridge length backward so as to make contact a few degrees thicker.

On an IE shot, you need to aim thinner (as the IE will throw the OB thicker), or move the bridge forward such that the contact will be thinner.

Yes, this gets complex, but if you know all the causes and effects, it can allow you to develop and accurate system, whereas, if one plays by feel, they need to memorize hundreds of different shots and they will be guessing badly about why the missed or even confused when they work out a way to play the shot.

 

[Jaden]

but I don't and the balls drop.

Jaden,
One thing to keep in mind is that the intention of using BHE is to make the CB travel along the same line as a center hit CB shot such that the contact point with the CB and OB connect the same.

However, when this is achieved the subject of spin induced throw comes into question, such that hitting the OB at the right contact point for a side-english spinning shot throws the angle of the OB a few degrees.

Hence, on an OE shot you need to either begin the aim thicker or move the bridge length backward so as to make contact a few degrees thicker.

On an IE shot, you need to aim thinner (as the IE will throw the OB thicker), or move the bridge forward such that the contact will be thinner.

Yes, this gets complex, but if you know all the causes and effects, it can allow you to develop and accurate system, whereas, if one plays by feel, they need to memorize hundreds of different shots and they will be guessing badly about why the missed or even confused when they work out a way to play the shot.

I don't and the balls drop and that still doesn't explain the CB not following the tangent line on shots with spin. I don't think that BHE's goal is to hit the same contact point I think it is to hit the corrected offset based on throw and squirt.

I know that it gets complex, that's the exact reason why I didn't bother to even try BHE for years. It didn't make sense that it would work for every conceivable shot, but it does. The ONLY time I miss is when I don't stroke it straight through. I feel it when I stroke off and I can say as soon as I stroke if I'll miss or not.

If you can give me a valid reason for the CB to NOT follow the natural Tangent, then I may change my mind, but I haven't heard one yet. Because when I use BHE to the side, the CB never follows the Tangent. It follows an adjusted tangent for the amount of squirt imparted.

I think that BHE works, not because it squirts the ball on the aimline, although it comes close a lot of the time, but because the CB to OB throw counteracts the amount of squirt. I've used it with different cues,(including predator) and different tables and balls and EVEN tennis balls and it just works....

Anyone who says different is free to come to me and I'll demonstrate it.

MAybe I'll change my mind if you can show me a slow mo video of impact showing that the contact points are the SAME using BHE as using no english, but I think you'll find that they're not.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I don't and the balls drop and that still doesn't explain the CB not following the tangent line on shots with spin.

The tangent line effects with spin are very clearly understood and observed via some good high speed videos Dr. Dave has done. The deviation in CB defelction is basically the same as the OB deviation with side spin..which is just a few degrees. Hardly noticeable in 99% of play situations. There's no shot I can think of which can utilize this miniscule effect, though I am aware of it. Basically because the throw on the OB negates the side indiced throw on the CB, so then, by manipulating the CB angle, I also manipulate the OB angle, so they cancel out, hence the same effect can be achieved by a center ball shot.

I don't think that BHE's goal is to hit the same contact point I think it is to hit the corrected offset based on throw and squirt.

Wel, the end goal of BHE is to pocket the ball, but I believe the best way to set forth a system of BHE is to use it to establish a line of shot that follows the original line through center ball alignment. If it doesn't do this, then the results will vary over distance.

eg: A high deflection cue could align on 2 foot length 1/2 ball pots with a 12" bridge, while the real pivot point is 6". So if the same alignement method is tried for an 8 foot half ball shot, it would miss by a long way.

So a BHE system that does not have a standard of sending the CB on the same path as a center ball alignment seems much more complex to me.

I know that it gets complex, that's the exact reason why I didn't bother to even try BHE for years. It didn't make sense that it would work for every conceivable shot, but it does. The ONLY time I miss is when I don't stroke it straight through. I feel it when I stroke off and I can say as soon as I stroke if I'll miss or not.

Trust me, when you work out how to use the system, you will make the balls no matter how badly you cue. I assume you are a pretty good cueist, so your cueing abilities wont come into play.

I believe that the major reason people miss is because they don't put their bridge hand in the correct position. If they are not bridging at their cue's pivot point they can manipulate the CB angle to some degree by hitting left or right. But is the pivot point in front or below their bridge??? If it is in front, then cueing on the right side will send the CB left, if behind, it will follow a more intuitive path slightly to the right, but the fact is most players, even pros, don't know this, other that by some instinctive feel through trial and error. Hundreds of hours of practice of trial and error go into learning how to adapt. That system seems inefficient to me.

If you can give me a valid reason for the CB to NOT follow the natural Tangent, then I may change my mind, but I haven't heard one yet. Because when I use BHE to the side, the CB never follows the Tangent. It follows an adjusted tangent for the amount of squirt imparted.

Hit some shots hard with BHE, you'll see the tangent line is almost identical. On an OE shot the tangent line will be slightly wider by a few degrees, IE will come of a few degrees thinner. English billiards players know this very well as most score come from in-offs (scratches)....this is the game I grew up playing.

I think that BHE works, not because it squirts the ball on the aimline, although it comes close a lot of the time, but because the CB to OB throw counteracts the amount of squirt. I've used it with different cues,(including predator) and different tables and balls and EVEN tennis balls and it just works....

Anyone who says different is free to come to me and I'll demonstrate it.

MAybe I'll change my mind if you can show me a slow mo video of impact showing that the contact points are the SAME using BHE as using no english, but I think you'll find that they're not.

BHE, in my opinion should not be formulated for adjusting for spin induced throw as its basic premise, otherwise the system loses its power over a wide range of shots. It is essentially a system to compensate for squirt and adjustments need to be made so that it can counter the effects of OB throw, both speed and spin induced.

 

[pete lafond]

about BHE

The primary use for my using BHE is to affect the CB. I will make the OB with or without BHE. The CB on the otherhand is greatly manipulated by BHE; curve, deflection and rebound off the rail.

 

[Jaden]

reason for using BHE

The reason for using the aim and pivot or BHE is to be able to impart spin for CB control while still being fairly certain of being able to make the shot. Using other methods require more feel and less certainty. That's why Efren Reyes arguably one of the best players in the world, uses it. When he eplained to me how to use it even when I questioned him about it, he didn't say oh for certain shots you have to do it this way and for other shots you have to do it this way. He said just aim and pivot.

Once I started using it I couldn't believe it and I will admit that I have gone through different levels of it's use, but I really don't care much about the underlying mechanisms so much as I care that it works. I also know that most of you don't know me or my ability in the game from Adam, so I won't say anything more about this. Atleast until my ability in the game gets out there. I plan on it happening soon. Few people know of my skills, but that's about to change. I know it works and that's all I really care about. Period.

Sorry if that sounds arrogant or bad, but it is what it is.

See the problem with using science is the idea of a paradigm. Instead of using observable phenomena and trying to explain it, they use explanations to show what is possible and what is not. That ends up with people ignoring a lot of evidence, because 'it's not POSSIBLE'. I know that BHE works for every shot that I use it on. Hell, maybe it's because of using minimal english or medium levels of strength, I don't know or care. I do know that I run out consistently and put the CB exactly where I want to and that's all that matters to me.

I freely give the knowledge and experience that I have acquired. If it's wrong or right doesn't matter much to me, I do know that it works though.

Until my name gets out there, I'll just sit back an be silent. LATES.....

 

[Colin Colenso]

The primary use for my using BHE is to affect the CB. I will make the OB with or without BHE. The CB on the otherhand is greatly manipulated by BHE; curve, deflection and rebound off the rail.

Pete,
What you are talking about is true for all shots with side english.

Back Hand English is really an aiming system, but as side english is involved, he effects of OB throw and Swerve need to be taken into account.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The reason for using the aim and pivot or BHE is to be able to impart spin for CB control while still being fairly certain of being able to make the shot. Using other methods require more feel and less certainty. That's why Efren Reyes arguably one of the best players in the world, uses it. When he eplained to me how to use it even when I questioned him about it, he didn't say oh for certain shots you have to do it this way and for other shots you have to do it this way. He said just aim and pivot.

Once I started using it I couldn't believe it and I will admit that I have gone through different levels of it's use, but I really don't care much about the underlying mechanisms so much as I care that it works. I also know that most of you don't know me or my ability in the game from Adam, so I won't say anything more about this. Atleast until my ability in the game gets out there. I plan on it happening soon. Few people know of my skills, but that's about to change. I know it works and that's all I really care about. Period.

Sorry if that sounds arrogant or bad, but it is what it is.

See the problem with using science is the idea of a paradigm. Instead of using observable phenomena and trying to explain it, they use explanations to show what is possible and what is not. That ends up with people ignoring a lot of evidence, because 'it's not POSSIBLE'. I know that BHE works for every shot that I use it on. Hell, maybe it's because of using minimal english or medium levels of strength, I don't know or care. I do know that I run out consistently and put the CB exactly where I want to and that's all that matters to me.

I freely give the knowledge and experience that I have acquired. If it's wrong or right doesn't matter much to me, I do know that it works though.

Until my name gets out there, I'll just sit back an be silent. LATES.....

Huh??? I'm not sure where that came from Jaden.

I hope it was not in response to anything I wrote.

Anyway, if it helps to clarify, I have come to learn a couple of things about BHE. Firstly, that many great players have adapted to using it, without ever knowing what BHE is and secondly that used in its basic description it is very effective for many shots that require side english.

What I have been trying to do is point out the variables involved, hence finding ways to extend the usefullness of the BHE system to a wider range of shots with more accuracy.

 

[pete lafond]

Pete,
What you are talking about is true for all shots with side english.

Back Hand English is really an aiming system, but as side english is involved, he effects of OB throw and Swerve need to be taken into account.

I am not that scientific about how I aim or how I stroke because most of what I do is based from experience and feel. So each time I add a comment, I have to mentally put myself in different situations which I'm sure greatly limits the possible variables.

Given this I would like to add that there are "digital" and "analog" players (my attempt at seeing the difference). Both may be equals at achieving the same goals. I however am towards the "analog" side of things because there exist nothing absolute except for the point of the back of the OB I intend to hit to that portion to the back of the pocket. How I get there depends on what I plan to do; make it a bigger pocket and/or positioning the CB. As I have stated before, there are many variables just table to table based upon general conditions and it is these things that deserve "feel" consideration especially when dealing with tighter pockets, or expect misses.

I think this topic is a great attempt to define the "digital" side of things which is very interesting and important to know.

 

[Jaden]

Sorry about that,

I've had a bad day. I had people call me a lier and idiot all at once and coupled with being away from everything I love. All of you people out there better be DAMN appreciative of what your service members go through to safeguard your freedoms.

I was called a lier because when I was a kid, Tai the elephant lived at my ranch for a couple of years while her owner was trying to get her into show business after getting her out of the circus. She ended up being pretty successful, made larger than life, dumbo drop and george of the jungle. I told some people that I work with and they called me a lier. I came up to the computers for the main reason of writing to her owner and asking if he could send me a verification that she lived at my ranch.

Then I was called an idiot, because I said that low gas prices being bad for america was the stupidest thing I ever heard. The guy was claiming that lower gas prices will cause americans to become gluttons at driving, causing supply to dwindle. I said that's idiotic because we live in a market economy and the prices will balance themselves out, and to think that they should stay high for the soul purpose of keeping them high is asinine. They didn't agree with me and thought that I was calling them simple minded, so they said that I was an idiot and a lier. Sorry I replied like I did, it was just out of frustration over my intelect never being appreciated.