Draw shot on ball frozen to rail: Why does it pull away from rail?

iusedtoberich said:
https://youtu.be/8i88-CJzr5c

This is my video of the same shots Dr Dave shot (with the same results he had), plus a center inside, and low inside variation that also had good success.
Click to expand...

Nice job on the last shot. I'll try it out to see if I can do it to work on my table. Squirt, swerve, and throw are all required and important on that shot.

Catch you later,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Nice job on the last shot. I'll try it out to see if I can do it to work on my table. Squirt, swerve, and throw are all required and important on that shot.

Catch you later,
Dave
Click to expand...

I was really surprised the draw wasn't taking as much. My speed was plenty fast enough to get to the end rail. On the last attempt, I tried a slightly lower tip position, which meant less inside spin. That really took off. I'm hypothesizing there only needs a tiny amount of inside to make the shot work, and then as much draw as you can put on the balls will take. Maybe the same is true for follow? I did not try inside top.
 
My table doesn’t seem to get this bounce-out effect. I can make the shots without the cue ball coming out. I have an Olhausen, and I noticed the nose of the cushion is at about the center of the cue ball, not on top of it.
 
My table didn’t do this but I think the nose of my rail isn’t as high and I might have a groove in the clothe along the rail because the balls REALLY wanted to roll off the rail by a millimeter or two even when I was manually placing them.
 
BRussell said:
My table doesn’t seem to get this bounce-out effect. I can make the shots without the cue ball coming out. I have an Olhausen, and I noticed the nose of the cushion is at about the center of the cue ball, not on top of it.
Click to expand...
Do balls hop when they hit your rails?

pj
chgo
 
BRussell said:
My table doesn’t seem to get this bounce-out effect. I can make the shots without the cue ball coming out. I have an Olhausen, and I noticed the nose of the cushion is at about the center of the cue ball, not on top of it.
Click to expand...
I played on a Valley bar box this morning. The cushion nose height varied quite a bit from one rail to the next (and even along a single rail). The push-out effect was much greater where the cushion nose was high, and was almost non-existent where the cushion nose was low.

I have an Olhaussen also. I'm surprised you are not seeing the push-out effect.

Does it not happen, even with firm follow shots? :eek:

Regards,
Dave
 
iusedtoberich said:
I was really surprised the draw wasn't taking as much. My speed was plenty fast enough to get to the end rail. On the last attempt, I tried a slightly lower tip position, which meant less inside spin. That really took off. I'm hypothesizing there only needs a tiny amount of inside to make the shot work, and then as much draw as you can put on the balls will take. Maybe the same is true for follow? I did not try inside top.
Click to expand...
I could not get inside follow to work on my table at the speed required for the draw shot. The push-out effect cannot be avoided with a near-level-cue follow shot. Swerve can cancel squirt away from the rail with follow, but only at slower speeds (or with extreme elevation masse).

I'd be curious to see what you or others find if you also give it a try.

Catch you later,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
iusedtoberich said:
I was really surprised the draw wasn't taking as much. My speed was plenty fast enough to get to the end rail. On the last attempt, I tried a slightly lower tip position, which meant less inside spin. That really took off. I'm hypothesizing there only needs a tiny amount of inside to make the shot work, and then as much draw as you can put on the balls will take. Maybe the same is true for follow? I did not try inside top.
Click to expand...
I could not get inside follow to work on my table at the speed required for the draw shot.
Click to expand...
FYI, I tried it more today and was able to get the fast-speed inside follow shots to work. I got both draw and follow to work over a wide range of distances with fast speed.

With both shots, I had to aim slightly toward the rail to partially compensate for squirt. The CB still squirts away from the rail a small amount to avoid the cushion push-out effect, and the spin-induced throw straightens the OB. With follow, I had to aim slightly less toward the rail (due to slight “immediate swerve”), but not by much.

I thought about doing another video, but the two videos I did already are probably enough.

I sure learned a lot about these shots. Thanks again for encouraging me to spend the time on it.

Regards,
Dave
 
Actually, DrDave, what you are saying is what Brian Gramse beautifully demonstrated in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miRXK_UL058

It helped me a great deal that he said that you aim at the object ball at the same spot as on the cue ball - i.e. so to speak "inside English on the object ball". This made my aiming a lot easier to understand. Works fine on my table.
 
Meucciplayer said:
Actually, DrDave, what you are saying is what Brian Gramse beautifully demonstrated in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miRXK_UL058

It helped me a great deal that he said that you aim at the object ball at the same spot as on the cue ball - i.e. so to speak "inside English on the object ball". This made my aiming a lot easier to understand. Works fine on my table.
Click to expand...
He is suggesting parallel English, but that doesn’t work for all shafts, or for all CB-OB distances, or on tables with tight pockets. He has the CB and OB fairly close, which minimizes error, and he still rattles the ball.

Thank you for posting the link,though,
Dave
 
Bob Jewett said:
This was explained a long time ago in one of Robert Byrne's books -- probably the "Advanced Technique" one. It was presented as a proposition shot.

If you haven't read Byrne's books on pool, your pool education is not close to complete.
Click to expand...

+1 to that!
 
My reply in an earlier thread on the subject, with the math behind why it works:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5825058&postcount=107

Re-posted here:

Neil said:
...Does the slipstroke add anything to the stroke? I don't believe it does one iota.(and the science of the stroke says it doesn't) I think it is nothing more than he liked to hold the cue at or near the balance point.
Click to expand...

Copying my post from an earlier thread on this:

JohnnyP said:
This photo shows my cue was decelerating before impact:

pool3.jpg


It looks like I hit the cue ball about 30msec late.

My theory about why (some say) you can get more action with a slip stroke is that it changes your stroke timing. The stick is getting a few inches head start.

Bob Jewitt and Dr. Dave posted this video showing cue speed for a "medium" pendulum stroke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzUvIzKJR4#t=90

Near the end of the stroke the cue is traveling about 5.5 mph.

Convert this to inches per msec:

5.5 mi x 5280 ft x 1 hr x 1 min x 1 sec x 12 in
------- -------- ----- ------ ------ ------
1 hr 1 mi 60 min 60 sec 1000msec 1 ft

= 0.0968 inches per msec.

I contacted the cue ball 30 msec late, so 0.0968 x 30 = 2.9 inches.

Bingo, with a 2.9" slip stroke I would have contacted the cue ball at max cue speed, compensating for my decelerating cue.
Click to expand...


From post #54 of the same thread:

JohnnyP said:
The acceleration graph I posted shows I hit the cue ball late. I'm thinking that my stroke hand was a few inches forward of 90° when I addressed the cue ball. I'm often told I need to move my grip hand back a few inches.

In other words, I was already into the follow through at the address. I was near the end of my stroke at contact, so the cue had to be decelerating.

If you look at many of the old straight poolers, their stroking hand is forward of 90° at the address. Without a huge elbow drop, the cue was near the end of travel at the contact point.

I think the slip stroke was used to "get a little extra" stroke on the ball, without knowing why it worked.

Refer to the calculation in my above post. A 2.9" slip stroke would have shifted the stroke timing enough to move the hit from a decelerating one to one at max cue speed.

Now we know why it works.
Click to expand...
 
Now that I've seen your videos, I'm waiting to see a professional player use the "jump cue" method in a match :grin-square:
 
Bob Jewett said:
This was explained a long time ago in one of Robert Byrne's books -- probably the "Advanced Technique" one. It was presented as a proposition shot....
Click to expand...
I misremembered. It was Byrne's Treasury of Trick Shots in Pool and Billiards. Here is the bottom of page 160. Technically, I didn't invent the shot. I was the victim of it in a match and I went back afterwards to figure out why I had missed the straight-in by over a ball. In that shot I wanted to draw back to move the obstructing ball off the cushion a little.

Byrne 002.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top