D Appleton is against pivoting for spin ?
- Thread starter JoeyInCali
- Start date
Lol.... could be!
Your statement applies to traditional stroke pros also. It doesn't address my question.
I'm asking you to comment on and discuss the mechanics of backhand-use pros, not their intangible "talent" or persistence.
You still haven't addressed mine: how does an arcing stroke "provide better results when using english"?
Get back to me when you can answer it.
pj <- might've been wrong about that adult conversation thing
chgo
I think we all know that conversation isn't headed anywhere so let me take a stab at generating some...
I guess there is the possibility that a glancing strike on the CB by the tip when it's headed in a direction (swooping whichever way) may impart some rotation. No different then how a rotating CB will impart spin on a OB. Now whether or not that glancing blow would impart additional spin beyond what could be generated with a straight stroked strike at the miscue limit...?..., that's the question. Personal and without experimentation to back it up, I think not.
However, what makes matters worse is subconscious arc path plotting the mind would have to do to strike the CB perfectly to maximize the perceived benefit. The vast majority of pool players can't stroke a cue straight to saves their lives. Can't imagine the level of SAMT (stroke a million times) a player would need to be able to consistently time that swoop to reap any reward. ...and again, the reward would be generating more english than what can be achieved by traditional cueing means.
Personally I think it a fools errand to try and develop a swooping stroke. So much risk and no tangible reward. In fact I always make it a point to tell players I see 'swooping' to focus on straightening their stroke. Some who listen instantly become more consistent.
i agree with your statement bolded above.
my question is if most players dont stroke straight
do those same players have a mini swoop in their stroke?
asking for a friend
I apologize. I’m not trying to provoke you.
I have a lay understanding of anatomy, geometry and physics, so I welcome your corrections.
1) For a given cut shot with the cue ball viewed from above as shown, you or I would stroke through center cue ball at A and B to score the object ball.
2) From memory, we both dislike what is called “parallel english”, moving both hands parallel to A-B to stroke through C-D, due to adverse effects on the cue ball.
3) So for right english, you or I address center cue ball, then leave our bridge hand in place but move our stroke hand to a new position, to stroke diagonally through C-E.
4) I don’t wish to create a straw man argument, so if you stance or stroke english differently than in 3) above, please explain.
5) We agree: C-E improves on C-D, since angle of approach alters the cue ball’s path. Put differently, a cue ball struck at point X with speed Y yields different results based on approach angle, for example, a bit of bottom right english struck with a near-level cue at point X with speed Y becomes a massé struck at point X with speed Y when using a greatly elevated cue.
6) The wrist may supinate from the elbow, allowing the arm to stroke a straight path but with an angled hand (and turned cue stick).
7) I do not swoop the arm on backhand strokes. Rather, I address center cue ball but supinate the wrist for english, my lower arm and hand stroking through A-B but with a turned wrist (visualize an uppercut punch in boxing). My hand strokes A-B as my cue tip paths along C-D. This is a different approach angle than parallel english since my bridge hand remains at center cue ball. Note that supination can be set at the end of the backstroke, no arcing is added to the straight line movement of the cue tip.
8) We agree: no wrist, hand or arm movement defies physics to magically change given amounts for throw, deflection, squirt and curve.
9) However, since my cue tip goes through C-D and yours through C-E (different cue angles equal different cue ball paths) I adjust aim less to score the given cut shot with english.
10) I find therefore, that it is correct to say backhand english makes aiming with english simpler, but incorrect to say nonsense like “eliminates deflection and throw”, etc.
Last edited:
Watch the SVB-Banares match that's live now. The overhead shots clearly show Banares using parallel-shift english. He sets up already at his 'spin spot'. I've noticed that almost every Filipino i've seen does this. I'm assuming he adjusts his aim for deflection prior to getting down on the shot. Thoughts/ideas/criticism??
OK. Thanks for that.
Yes, assuming no spin is needed.
If by "adverse effects on the cue ball" you mean squirt/swerve caused by the offcenter hit but not compensated for with an angled hit (thru C-E) - then yes, I agree.
I don't think it matters to our discussion, but I don't pivot - just get down on the shot with my cue (and stance) aligned at the angle I estimate is correct for squirt/swerve.
Now we're getting to the part I think we disagree on - I say the tip must move in the C-E direction at contact in order to correct for squirt/swerve.
With your wrist fixed in place (in whatever position) the tip must move along (or parallel to) the same line as the lower arm and hand follows. For the tip to move along a different line you must "supinate" it during the shot stroke (causing the tip to "swoop" in an arc to the contact point).
Yes.
If your tip is actually moving along the C-D line at contact, then you're hitting the CB as if you're using "parallel" english (i.e., no squirt/swerve correction) - same as if you simply lined up straight along C-D and stroked straight through.
It all comes down to the tip's direction of movement at contact - no matter how you accomplish it, the tip must be moving in the C-E direction to correct for squirt/swerve.
So the simple objection I have to swooping is:
1. There's only one way (contact point & angle of tip movement) to hit the CB to produce the correct CB direction and speed with the correct amount of side spin and the correct amount of squirt/swerve compensation
2. A swooping stroke and a straight stroke can both deliver the tip to that same spot moving in that same direction
3. Therefore there's no positive payoff for the added difficulty of swooping accurately/consistently
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, even though It seems we disagree with our conclusions.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Arcing is unneeded for backhand english, and provides a third cue path different than the butt-to-tip direction straight-line stroke through C-D or C-E:
1) Stance for a center cue ball stroke
2) At the end of the backswing, pause to supinate the wrist
3) The forward stroke brings the whole cue mass forward, turned diagonal, as below
The diagram's scale is exaggerated but I hope it illustrates that the cue's tip is not only parallel to center cue ball through C-D, but also the butt of the cue (moving along A-B) rather than the whole cue being on the extended shot line in a traditional straight-line stroke.
The feel of the stroke--not that we want to confuse feel with physical reality--is almost of an (illegal) push stroke with a sweet spot of extended tip-to-ball contact time.
The analogy I like is spinning a globe on a stand with intent, instead of striking a globe obliquely, toppling the globe with its stand to the floor.
There are limitations to this stroke but I'd be happy to discuss the details.
Would be if true - I don’t believe a swoop stroke generates more english than a straight stroke in the same direction.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
1. Unless you’re sliding your grip hand forward during the shot stroke, there’s no way the tip moves parallel with the C-D line - it’s physically impossible.
2. I get your spinning globe analogy (like spinning a basketball on your fingertip), but don’t agree it’s equivalent - maybe if you could hit the CB at its outer edge without miscuing…
pj
chgo
Last edited:
You are correct, tip through C-D is an approximation--the scale of my diagram is off--and the stroke hand due to cue stick pressure naturally moves a bit left of ccb, too.
Imagine, though--the side of the tip is pressed through C on a straighter course then C-E, more closely parallel to ccb, and the "sweet spot" hit generates english well.
If the tip is "pressed through C on a straighter course than C-E", then I believe you get a different CB direction/spin/squirt than you get with a straight stroke along C-E - you get the same CB direction/spin/squirt as if you hit the CB with a straight stroke along that "straighter course".
pj
chgo
Neither do I, but I haven't seen any data that disclaims the possibility so I'll just call it 'my opinion' and leave it at that.
I'll place this along side the tangible tip shaping capabilities of various makes of chalk, and the existence of the Yeti.
yeti is the best you will find (jmho)
the ice almost never melts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see that I have to give my spell check something that's close enough or it doesn't even try. "Susquitch" is ignored but it objects to Sasquitch. And exactly where are you Canadians hiding him?... the correct spelling for sasquatch...
I hear you loud and clear and I've felt how you felt, however, in this situation below it's a lot easier to send the cue ball to Y instead of X after pocketing the 1-ball with right english only, no draw or topspin, using a non-traditional english stroke. And you can kick the ball around the table beyond Y more easily than with vertical axis spin.
Try it and see on your table.
There is no "magic" involved with the backhand stroke that alters physics, it's simply cue ball path affected by cue stick path.