Does Backhand English Reduce Deflection?

[titlistsucker]

That enuff u would never believe how many players, even top players, play the game without really grasping what really happens to whitey.

i agree on low english reducing skid.. In snooker i was taught that half a tip below the centre strike is the firmest shot and best shot to play, as it reduces possible "kick--> slight jump to the CB due to dirt" and "Skid -> when CB slides" ..

 

[Gabber]

I disagree, respectfully..

I didn't really explain why parallel shift requires manual adjustment and BHE doens't, so here goes.

When you parallel shift what you are doing is shifting the line of the cuestick on a parallel line with the original aimline, because of this the cuestick will stay in contact with the CB for a longer period of time than with BHE.

By pivoting from the original bridge position you reduce the amount of deflection by limiting the amount of time that the cuestick makes contact with the CB. This makes adjusting manually not necesary. Using BHE also imparts more spin on the CB. It does this because when using parallel shift the Stick maintains contact longer and therefore PUSHES the spin out of the CB that it would normally impart on it. It is this combination of increased spin and reduced squirt that allows automatic adjustment for squirt and throw.

If you doubt it just try it, but make sure you are stroking straight through the CB before you write it off.

Lets say we are are on the table and we draw a line between the middle pockets, lets call this line A. We put the OB on the spot and the QB one foot away on line A. The challenge is to pot the OB into the center of the pocket using as much E as you can. ie a lot of E.
You are shooting with BHE/pivoting and I am shooting parallel.
Here is my situation. [ sorry its so big]

Its obvious that because of squirt I cant make the shot. I could reduce the offset[ less E] and get closer to a full ball hit, but thats all. That is, if I,m using line A as a reference point!
In reality, knowing my cue and how much squirt I get I would be more likely to line up with the left outside edge of the OB and adjust from there.
If we were using the same cue we would both end up in this positin,

Nothing to do with less squirt, just different reference points.


Gabber

 

[Jaden]

taken in conjunction with previous post.

Lets say we are are on the table and we draw a line between the middle pockets, lets call this line A. We put the OB on the spot and the QB one foot away on line A. The challenge is to pot the OB into the center of the pocket using as much E as you can. ie a lot of E.
You are shooting with BHE/pivoting and I am shooting parallel.
Here is my situation. [ sorry its so big]

Its obvious that because of squirt I cant make the shot. I could reduce the offset[ less E] and get closer to a full ball hit, but thats all. That is, if I,m using line A as a reference point!
In reality, knowing my cue and how much squirt I get I would be more likely to line up with the left outside edge of the OB and adjust from there.
If we were using the same cue we would both end up in this positin,

Nothing to do with less squirt, just different reference points.


Gabber

Yes that is true it is a different line and the squirt alters the path more on the original line, but that is not all that is happening and if look at what I said in the previous post in conjunction with that I think that said that. maybe not?

It's the combination of both having a different line, having less squirt, (extremely small amount of difference, but difference none the less), and having more spin that allows automatic adjustment. Oh and on close shots parallel shift normally doesn't require any adjustment. That is because the amount of spin combined with only a small deviation off of the original line allows for the throw necesary to right the OB.

 

[Jaden]

Not referring to a system.

Just an opinion.

The technicalities are introduced because of friction. In a frictionless environment no would be talking about this stuff. The real knowledge here is understanding how to minimize friction or working with the effects of it through feel and experience, not systems. But these are variables. Just as different tips can cause more draw (more friction) than others, so do the balls used, the felt and the condition of equipment all change things. And yes humidity and your personal stroke also. There is no magic in determining how all shots will work with all these effects. It is experience that dictates a players ability simply because these things are constantly changing. Some cue balls are even lighter and heavier than the rest of the set and this also causes change. How do we adapt? Our minds do it for us based upon experience, not some system. Use a system, I say you lose. More importantly you lose your creative aspects 'cause systems are finite.

So what is needed is a general understanding of what causes things to occur, not a system to compensate for them. The only system should be a very simple one, ball to the pocket. Shoot pool until you understand how to make proper contact through feel and experience. Quickly you will learn, because of your knowledge of applied friction, that some balls have to be cut more than others. Also what is learned for those that enjoy the challenge is how to spin cut and do a whole bunch of other very effective shots. Pool is creative stuff and that's the fun of it.

First when I was referring to technicalities, I wasn't referring to a system so much as I was referring to the knowledge that is necesary to properly plan shots. If you don't understand atleast to a limited extent and have some way of correcting for it, you won't be able to plan properly.

I personally suggest using BHE to adjust, practice with it. Make sure you're stroking straight through the CB, I can't emphasize that enough, but it doesn't really matter what system or even whether you use feel to line up so long as you understand what is happening so you can properly plan.

There will be some variation i suppose, but I haven't found it yet. It's possible that I'm adjusting for the variation without realizing it, but I don't do it consciously and i am a technical player. The only thing I do on feel are kicks and banks and that is because they have to be done on feel because of the variation of angle due to firmness of stroke.

You MUST practice a whole lot but not necesarily on the table. You can practice and get a lot more from the practice stroking nothing but air and visualizing. This will allow you to fully concentrate on what you are doing as you stroke and will improve your stroke greatly. There's no concesus on what makes a great pool player. There are all kinds of systems and all kinds of ways to improve. There some players who think that yo ushould play by feel and some that think you should be a technical player and play ONLY by systems. I have been both at various times and feel that to truly be great you must have knowledge of and learn to use both.

There's nothing worse for a feel player than to get in a funk and not know how to get out of it and there's nothing worse for a technical player than to get in a funk where the systems aren't working and not be able to feel how the systems are failing. It's only through practice and ability and knowledge with both that you can truly learn to excel and be consistent.

 

[Gabber]

Yes that is true it is a different line and the squirt alters the path more on the original line, but that is not all that is happening and if look at what I said in the previous post in conjunction with that I think that said that. maybe not?
It's the combination of both having a different line, having less squirt, (extremely small amount of difference, but difference none the less), and having more spin that allows automatic adjustment. Oh and on close shots parallel shift normally doesn't require any adjustment. That is because the amount of spin combined with only a small deviation off of the original line allows for the throw necesary to right the OB.

I did read your post and I agree with a lot you have said, but like I said, there is no reduced squirt when playing with BHE!

The only difference between my first Diagram and the second is that the OB is in a different place. Its EXACTLY the same shot.Stick an OB on the line of squirt and you have Dia 2.
Put a pin in the center of the QB and rotate Dia 1 counter-clockwise and you arrive at the same picture/dia/situation.

The QB does not know the orginal aiming line, the pocket or the target. It reacts to the offset from center and the direction of force. It does the same thing every time.



Gabber

 

[Jaden]

it pushes it longer

As illustrated in your own image, if you use the aim and pivot the amount of time and length of the stroke that the cuestick maintains contact with the CB is shorter than if you use the parallel shift. This DOES cause less deviation from the original line and causes greater spin. As the cue passes through the CB using the parallel shift technique it PUSHES the spin normally imparted out of the ball and pushes it farther offline.

Yes, if you adjust manually when using the parallel shift then you could end up in the same position as if you used BHE, negating the longer contact time, but if that's the case then why in the world would anyone use parallel shift?

 

[pete lafond]

First when I was referring to technicalities, I wasn't referring to a system so much as I was referring to the knowledge that is necesary to properly plan shots. If you don't understand atleast to a limited extent and have some way of correcting for it, you won't be able to plan properly. .

I did state this and agree 100%. Understanding technicalities is very important at the least. My comment was not directed at you, just for those looking for a magic pill (system other than simple aiming) that would make them an instant player.

My point is that it is not possible to use or even to develop a system that compensates for the many variables outside of lining up the OB to the pocket. All else is experience and the mind making adjustments, kinda like throwing a football on a windy day. You need to understand the effects of the wind and adjust accordingly.

 

[Jaden]

I agree

I did state this and agree 100%. Understanding technicalities is very important at the least. My comment was not directed at you, just for those looking for a magic pill (system other than simple aiming) that would make them an instant player.

My point is that it is not possible to use or even to develop a system that compensates for the many variables outside of lining up the OB to the pocket. All else is experience and the mind making adjustments, kinda like throwing a football on a windy day. You need to understand the effects of the wind and adjust accordingly.

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no magic pill, and being given the knowledge won't help you to understand it until you get the experience using it, you just can't. Understanding pool concepts in my experience comes in epiphanies or bursts of understanding. While playing one day something just all of a sudden dawns on you and you understand it. However, when someone has given you the knowledge it makes the process much easier and shorter, in fact I will go so far as to say that for the vast majority of players out there, without having the knowledge explained and or shown to them all of the practice in the world isn't going to help them to understand what's necesary to play the game with all of it's intracacies. There is just too much knowledge necesary.

 

[Gabber]

As illustrated in your own image, if you use the aim and pivot the amount of time and length of the stroke that the cuestick maintains contact with the CB is shorter than if you use the parallel shift. This DOES cause less deviation from the original line and causes greater spin. As the cue passes through the CB using the parallel shift technique it PUSHES the spin normally imparted out of the ball and pushes it farther offline.

Yes, if you adjust manually when using the parallel shift then you could end up in the same position as if you used BHE, negating the longer contact time, but if that's the case then why in the world would anyone use parallel shift?

Forget the pocket and the OB.
The QB does not know a pocket or an OB.

In the second Dia if you were laying with BHE, if I was standing by the left top corner pocket and I didnt know where you were aiming, would it be wrong for me to say that you were shooting using PE, and aiming for the same pocket?

The QB does not recognize a pocket or a OB.

The reference point should be a paralell line thru the midle of the QB in realation [ eg, parallel] to the line of the Q.
If you do that, you will see that every shot with E is the same.
Once again, there is no difference between the 2 dia,s that I have shown, not as far as the QB is concerned. Put an OB on the line of squirt on the first Dia and you have Dia 2, the only dif is that the pocket and OB are in a dif place- but then again, the QB doesnt know that.

If there is skimming, there is always skimming.
There is no REDUCED SQUIRT with BHE.

If you can prove otherwise, I,m willing to listen.

Gabber...........its just wrong

 

[Jaden]

In relation to the shot

Forget the pocket and the OB.
The QB does not know a pocket or an OB.

In the second Dia if you were laying with BHE, if I was standing by the left top corner pocket and I didnt know where you were aiming, would it be wrong for me to say that you were shooting using PE, and aiming for the same pocket?

The QB does not recognize a pocket or a OB.

The reference point should be a paralell line thru the midle of the QB in realation [ eg, parallel] to the line of the Q.
If you do that, you will see that every shot with E is the same.
Once again, there is no difference between the 2 dia,s that I have shown, not as far as the QB is concerned. Put an OB on the line of squirt on the first Dia and you have Dia 2, the only dif is that the pocket and OB are in a dif place- but then again, the QB doesnt know that.

If there is skimming, there is always skimming.
There is no REDUCED SQUIRT with BHE.

If you can prove otherwise, I,m willing to listen.

Gabber...........its just wrong

PE/BHE are not in relation to the CB. They are in relation to the shot. You can't separate them. Yes, if you hit the CB in the same position you will get the EXACT same amount of squirt, that is not in question.

The question is the comparison of BHE to PE and whether or not more squirt is inherent, and the answer is YES. When looked at in relation to the shot which is the only way a valid comparison can be made because that is the only difference between BHE/PE, PE creates a greater offset and less spin which is why it requires manual adjustment.

If you manually adjust then you are no longer truly using PE. That would be like saying that you use CP's to aim. You only use CP's to AID you to know where to aim. you can't AIM CP to CP. You have to Parallel shift, (different meaning) from the CP to CP aimline to centerball aimline.

So truly what we arguing here is not the physics of pool but the semantics of our meanings.

So for the definitive answer to the question. The ONLY thing that will effect the amount of squirt and throw is the amount of spin and how hard you hit it. The difference in level of squirt between PE and BHE is only in reference to the shot, not any physical difference in the stroke.

 

[drivermaker]

So for the definitive answer to the question. The ONLY thing that will effect the amount of squirt is how hard you hit it.

Not according to the Post Hole Diggers (Ph.D's) that wrote the final treatise on squirt/deflection. They say how hard you hit it has no bearing.

 

[Jaden]

sorry.

Not according to the Post Hole Diggers (Ph.D's) that wrote the final treatise on squirt/deflection. They say how hard you hit it has no bearing.

I almost took that part out. Yeah, how hard you hit can't affect it based on my observations; however what could actually be happening is a relational effect. Let me explain. The harder you hit, the faster the CueSTICK goes through the CB. So it should maintain contact for less time, also the harder you hit it the more compression is generated in both the tip of the cue and the material in the CB, this compression then must be released before contact can cease. I think what happens is a relational canceling out, so I miss spoke myself when I included speed. greater or less speed does not create more or less squirt.

Oh yeah and that was a misquote you!!! I said how much spin or rather the angle of intersection between cue and CB AND how hard you hit it!!!!

 

[mikepage]

Not according to the Post Hole Diggers (Ph.D's) that wrote the final treatise on squirt/deflection. They say how hard you hit it has no bearing.

Ya know, there's not like a digger's union or something. We *are* allowed to have different views...

I think the jury's out on this issue. The simple models suggest squirt is independent of speed. Basically, if the shaft is deflecting the same way on a harder shot as on a softer shot [just more vigorously and bending further] then squirt should be the same. But if a harder shot causes a shaft to bend differently, then the effective endmass can be different.

My opinion is that at least for some shafts harder hit shots squirt more. The problem is neither I nor anybody else that I know has done careful experiments to confirm this or otherwise. They're hard to do. There are other variables, like strokes getting less precise and swerve getting reduced with speed that muddy the waters. I'd like to see some good measurements on this issue.

mike page
fargo

 

[Jaden]

even if

Ya know, there's not like a digger's union or something. We *are* allowed to have different views...

I think the jury's out on this issue. The simple models suggest squirt is independent of speed. Basically, if the shaft is deflecting the same way on a harder shot as on a softer shot [just more vigorously and bending further] then squirt should be the same. But if a harder shot causes a shaft to bend differently, then the effective endmass can be different.

My opinion is that at least for some shafts harder hit shots squirt more. The problem is neither I nor anybody else that I know has done careful experiments to confirm this or otherwise. They're hard to do. There are other variables, like strokes getting less precise and swerve getting reduced with speed that muddy the waters. I'd like to see some good measurements on this issue.

mike page
fargo

I think that even if it does, for the majority of players who are both knowledgable and skilled enough for digging this deep in the woods to matter, it's a negligable difference anyways and unless you're playing on four inch pockets LOL I don't think it's a larger enough margin of difference to matter.

 

[mikepage]

I almost took that part out. Yeah, how hard you hit can't affect it based on my observations; however what could actually be happening is a relational effect. Let me explain. The harder you hit, the faster the CueSTICK goes through the CB. So it should maintain contact for less time, also the harder you hit it the more compression is generated in both the tip of the cue and the material in the CB, this compression then must be released before contact can cease. I think what happens is a relational canceling out, so I miss spoke myself when I included speed. greater or less speed does not create more or less squirt.

A different tip-ball contact time would not generate different squirt.

But as for the contact time, the cancelling you mention [faster but also deeper compression on a harder shot] would be true if the tip obeyed hooke's law. That is, the contact time for a Hooke's law tip would be independent of speed for exactly the reasons you mention. But there are two reasons the tip-ball contact is not harmonic.

The first is that the collision is somewhat inelastic. This means, for example, that if you dropped your cue tip-down from a couple feet onto a thick piece of slate, the cue would not bounce back the full two feet. There is some energy loss to sound, heat, etc. This energy loss makes the decompression of the tip take longer than the compression.

The second is that because the tip is rounded, it would not obey Hookes law even if the collision *was* elastic. The further you compress a rounded tip, the bigger is the contact area and the bigger is the area you have to compress to go further. It's like a spring whose spring constant gets bigger as it compresses. Bob jewett has talked about this. The correct force law for two spheres compressing is Hertz's law rather than Hooke's law. And Hertz's law predicts a somewhat shorter contact time for harder shots.

Once again, though, this shouldn't affect the squirt.

mike page
fargo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Not according to the Post Hole Diggers (Ph.D's) that wrote the final treatise on squirt/deflection. They say how hard you hit it has no bearing.

Well, that's what happens when you begin your theory with only one identified variable (CB rotation induced deflection) and some dodgy assumptions such as perfect grip as I have waffled about elsewhere.

I think it is most experienced player's perception that harder hit shots with side english deflect more. Swerve manages to confuse the issue a bit though.

 

[Jal]

Well, that's what happens when you begin your theory with only one identified variable (CB rotation induced deflection) and some dodgy assumptions such as perfect grip as I have waffled about...

I went to your website but I'm still not sure what your alternate theory is about. It looks like it might involve one of three things:

1) Squirt is partly caused by the random direction of the forces generated by the collisions between the irregularities on the surfaces.

I don't think that this can be significant though, in that it would affect shots without english just as much as those with english.

2) It's partly caused by the angle of the interface between the surfaces with respect to the forward direction of the cue.

If there is no slippage during impact, the vector sum of the forces acting along the line-of-centers between the tip and ball and in the tangential direction, should still point in the forward direction. No? If anything, I would guess that the compressive forces near the edge of the tip might be greater than those near the center (less material to compress) , thus tending to reduce the squirt. But this is an uneducated speculation.

3) There is some slippage during impact.

Maybe, maybe not. If so, I would wonder how repeatable the squirt phenomena would be. Doesn't this suggest an element of randomness?

Okay, I set up some straw dogs, perhaps. But given that Predator eliminates as much squirt as it does by removing some endmass, it seems likely (to me) that this is the dominant mechanism.

Obviously, I'm not sure what your explanation is and how much of a factor you think it might be.

Jim

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi Jim,
Glad you took the time to read my short introduction to what I call Surface Property Induced Deflection (SPID), which I believe works in addition to Rotation Induced Deflection (RID), the currently accepted model. I figure the contribution by SPID is significant but will vary according to conditions.

My replies below in this color....

I went to your website but I'm still not sure what your alternate theory is about. It looks like it might involve one of three things:

1) Squirt is partly caused by the random direction of the forces generated by the collisions between the irregularities on the surfaces.

I don't think the forces are random, but vector lines representing them appear random. It represents the zillions of tiny collisions occuring at the Tip CB interface.

I don't think that this can be significant though, in that it would affect shots without english just as much as those with english.

I don't see this. We don't expect balls to travel in straight lines when the hit hlaf ball and we don't expect them to deflect at angles when they collide full. What we do is say that ball collisions have low friction at their interface...about 2% perhaps. What I am saying is that tips on balls have some loss of friction of perhaps similar maginitudes. ie. Not perfect grip...grip being a spurious term at best when used to describe tip CB collisions. At the atomic level all collisions are ineleastic remember, just like zillions of billard balls colliding. That's what's going on if we could zoom right in on the surface of the tip / CB collision interface.

2) It's partly caused by the angle of the interface between the surfaces with respect to the forward direction of the cue.

If there is no slippage during impact, the vector sum of the forces acting along the line-of-centers between the tip and ball and in the tangential direction, should still point in the forward direction. No? If anything, I would guess that the compressive forces near the edge of the tip might be greater than those near the center (less material to compress) , thus tending to reduce the squirt. But this is an uneducated speculation.

Well yes, my argument could be understood by saying there is some slip, though the term slip I don't think is perfectly adequate. It is more useful as a macro level term. ie: There is some critical level of the force that keeps the tip in contact with the CB, held through tension in the fibres perhaps, but this doesn't mean all the forces are acting through one line, there are are considerable forces pushing the tip away from the center of the CB direction. So even when a miscue is not experienced the net direction of these forces is not straight forward.

3) There is some slippage during impact.

Maybe, maybe not. If so, I would wonder how repeatable the squirt phenomena would be. Doesn't this suggest an element of randomness?

The degree of randomness would be insignificant I imagine, and would be determined by abnormalities at the surfaces. If we could establish a testing procedure to isolate the two mechanisms of squirt force, I expect the results would be predictable and repeatable. An idea that comes to mind is varying speeds and measuring the changes in deflection, which I suspect to be mainly the result of SPID.

Okay, I set up some straw dogs, perhaps. But given that Predator eliminates as much squirt as it does by removing some endmass, it seems likely (to me) that this is the dominant mechanism.

Obviously, I'm not sure what your explanation is and how much of a factor you think it might be.

Jim[/QUOTE]

I've seen some different figures on predator squirt. Seems it reduces squirt significantly, over 50% less than some cues. It could be that the low tip end mass also reduces SPID to some degree.

I think there could be good improvements made in reducing SPID by using advanced chalks, tips and ferrules.

The amount of spid is unclear, but I think it gives us a way to think about the way tip shape, speed, chalks, shaft strength, ferrule hardness etc can have an influence over squirt.

Colin

See original article HERE!

 

[drivermaker]

Well, that's what happens when you begin your theory with only one identified variable (CB rotation induced deflection) and some dodgy assumptions such as perfect grip as I have waffled about elsewhere.

I think it is most experienced player's perception that harder hit shots with side english deflect more. Swerve manages to confuse the issue a bit though.

Mark this day down on the calendar Colin...this is where I go along with you and am in agreement. (this has to be a first)

Jaden said it correctly in his first post...and then he backpedaled to agree with the Post Hole Diggers thesis on the effects of how hard you hit the CB has nothing to do with how much deflection takes place. BULLSHIT!
Now I know not to read all of that crap any more.

 

[drivermaker]

I think the jury's out on this issue. The simple models suggest squirt is independent of speed. Basically, if the shaft is deflecting the same way on a harder shot as on a softer shot [just more vigorously and bending further] then squirt should be the same. But if a harder shot causes a shaft to bend differently, then the effective endmass can be different.

My opinion is that at least for some shafts harder hit shots squirt more. The problem is neither I nor anybody else that I know has done careful experiments to confirm this or otherwise. They're hard to do. There are other variables, like strokes getting less precise and swerve getting reduced with speed that muddy the waters. I'd like to see some good measurements on this issue.

mike page
fargo

This type of heresy could get you banned from the inner circle of Post Hole Diggers...although I applaud you for saying it. (drivermaker....far, far, far from THAT inner circle)