English on the break

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick...Loose ends...or in your case...loose screws.

You:
No matter how you dicker over terminology, you can't hit a level-cue break shot (or any other shot within 5 feet of a rail) on a normal pool table.

Me
So, is it your personal, learned opinion that Olhausen does not manufacture a "normal pool table?"

How about Brunswick? To they build "normal" pool tables? Well, if you think so, then check out this link. http://www.brunswickbilliards.com/he...ces/index.html

As you do with great frequency when you are shown to be wrong, you didn't respond. So, Patrick, are brunswick and/or olhausen tables not normal in your opinion?

You
Quote:
The nose of the cushion isn't the top of the cushion. My Diamond Pro has K-66 cushions (or something equally common),

Me
There IS nothing equally common. The K55 profile is far less prevalent.

So, Patrick, what cushion profile is "equally common" as the K-66?

You
And, by the way, a conical taper isn't standard for pool cues (even though I have one).

Me
That will go down in my lexicon of Patrick's Preposterous Pronouncements.

You see Patrick, a CONE, in terms you might be able to understand is a tubular sort of thingy that is skinny on one end and fat on the other...kinda like a normal pool cue.

If that is not "normal" in your opinion, do you think that normal people play pool with pencils????????

And by the way, regarding your persistently incorrect and somewhat paranoid insistence that I am conducting a "war" on you, as the documented history of this thread PROVES...I simply, and politely disagreed with a portion of your response to another poster.

And then, the following took place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennesseejoe
It is my understanding that tip offset effects deflection but not speed.

av84fun:
...That was my assumption too but I wanted to confirm it

You
Yeah, sure.

pj
chgo

That statement was an outright accusation that I was lying when, in fact, unlike your NUMEROUS preposterous and UNDOCUMENTED statements such as the rarity of dime shape tips, I prefer to obtain FACTS.

THAT is what started this exchange sir and I DARE AND DEFY you to point out any rude or insulting post of mine that preceded yours to me in this thread.

And as I previously pointed out, I was a MAJOR contributor to the Allison vs. Johnny thread that totalled in excess of 260 posts and crap like this didn't happen...with the ONLY variable being that YOU didn't post there.

This is on you sir.

And at least twice now, you have stated that you would no longer respond to me but of course, you lied. So why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and keep your word on that subject.

(-:
 
Jim, you're wrong about each and every thing you said, but I'll only respond to this one because it's about a pool principle and because it illustrates all too well why we disagree so much.

You:
... you are still HOPELESSLY wrong that the couple of 16ths of an inch we are talking about is sufficient to impart any material amount of swerve on a typical hard break shot...which is the NONSENSE you stated which started this whole debate...

Me:
No, I didn't state anything of the sort. That's something else (not the first thing by a long shot) that you made up in your fevered imagination. I simply said that speed and squirt aren't directly related.

You:
You lie like a rug Patrick. Why? Here is what started all this...

captainJR...in reference to a break shot which was the subject of the thread
... "the harder you hit the cue ball, the more deflection you get."

You
This is only true when you go from a pretty soft shot to a pretty hard shot, because a lot of the swerve in the soft shot is eliminated by shooting harder. But you don't continue to get more and more squirt with harder and harder shots, because you can only eliminate the swerve once. (Also, you're not technically propducing more squirt, just eliminating the swerve that counteracted squirt.)
Click to expand...

Where in that comment did you state that squirt and swerve aren't directly related???
Click to expand...

I said squirt and speed aren't directly related (you quoted me saying that).

You said that a hard shot eliminates "the swerve that counteracted squirt." By definition, that statement implies that swerve exists on a hard, properly executed break shot
Click to expand...

No, it means what it says, that swerve does not exist on a hard shot because hitting hard eliminates swerve.

...BUT IT DOES NOT and therefore, there is nothing to eliminate.
Click to expand...

It doesn't exist because it's eliminated. You said this yourself, Jim.

This is all typical of the way you mangle most of what you read and misunderstand whatever's left. You do it all the time. I used to suspect that you were a troll just pretending to be so dense, but I'm becoming convinced that you have real comprehension difficulties.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick...in keeping with my policy to cite noted authorities whenever possible (unlike your notorious propensity to pontificate from your own, often less than authoritative meanderings, I offer the following regarding the existence (actually, non-existance) of swerve on powerful shots...which was the SUBJECT of the thread.

As a preface, I quote you directly wherein in reference to powerful shots you propose that there IS swerve that is offset by squirt.

Quote: captainJR...in reference to a break shot which was the subject of the thread
... "the harder you hit the cue ball, the more deflection you get. "

You
This is only true when you go from a pretty soft shot to a pretty hard shot, because a lot of the swerve in the soft shot is eliminated by shooting harder. But you don't continue to get more and more squirt with harder and harder shots, because you can only eliminate the swerve once. (Also, you're not technically propducing more squirt, just eliminating the swerve that counteracted squirt.)""

So, Patrick, to "eliminate" something it must first exist wouldn't you agree?

Well, I didn't think that swerve existed on break shots and the NOTED scientific mind on the subject of pool, Dave Alciatore, concurs to wit:

David Alciatore, PhD (“Dr. Dave”)

Quote av84fun:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone ever done a study on the amount of swerve there is...if any...on a typically hard break shot assuming the use of side english and a level as possible hit (i.e. slight downward tilt at impact)?

I don't think swerve is a material factor given the short distance of travel, the speed of the shot and the fact that the cb will be in the air a meaningful part of the time.

Dr_Dave?

THANKS!
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,

I agree with you and Deeman. On a power break shot, swerve is negligible. Because of this, it can be helpful to use a break cue with a natural pivot-length well matched to your preferred break bridge-length (see Diagram 4 and the explanation in my November '07 article).

Regards,
Dave

Now you can dance all you want and embarrass yourself further but as the above authority shows, the issue of swerve does not belong in any discussion of hard break shots...or hard any other shots...because it does not exist.

But you DID bring swerve into the discussion which shows conclusively, that you thought it DID exist to a material degree. If you try to dance out of that it will be as entertaining as it will be detrimental to your credibility.

(-:
 
[snip way too long ramble]

Jim, you really need to get off the computer and get a life.

you have stated that you would no longer respond to me...
So why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and keep your word on that subject.
Click to expand...

Because you won't stop saying dumb things that could mislead people who don't know better (although I bet they're getting the message now). The fact that you almost pop a vessel every time you're corrected is your problem.

pj
chgo
 
to "eliminate" something it must first exist wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

OK, let's say hitting hard prevents swerve. Do you think your being pedantic and argumentative improved anybody's understanding?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick...not even CLOSE...but entertaining nevertheless because you dance devinely.

" But you don't continue to get more and more squirt with harder and harder shots, because you can only eliminate the swerve once."

1. As you are obviously too dense to understand squirt does not vary with the speed of the shot...so the first part of your sentence is CORRECT. But where you fall flat on your face is your explanation of WHY squirt doesn't increase with speed. I will put your explanation on caps in case vision difficulties are at the heart of your apparent ignorance.

Your explantion of why squirt doesn't increase with speed was:

"BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY ELIMINATE THE SWERVE ONCE."

No you cannot Patrick...BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU CANNOT "ELIMINATE" SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

I know this is taxing your meagre powers of cognition so let me help you.
Had you said that a hard shot PREVENTS SWERVE you would have been correct but to "prevent" something from happening, by definition, it must not have happened to start with.

To "eliminate" something, it must first exist.
e?lim?i?nate (-lm-nt)
tr.v. e?lim?i?nat?ed, e?lim?i?nat?ing, e?lim?i?nates
1. To get rid of; remove: an effort to eliminate homelessness; eliminated his enemies.

So Patrick...take several SLOW, DEEP breaths....clear your mind...what there is of it...of any distractions and focus ONLY on the following.

Hard shots don't "get rid of" or "remove" swerve BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT PREVENTS SWERVE.

And thank you for confirming your idiocy by saying that everthing else I stated was wrong.

SO...you are now ON RECORD as believing that there are other cushion profiles equally popular as the K-66

And that neither Brunswick nor Olhausen produce normal tables.

And that the centerline of the tip/ferrule is not level when their centerlines are level.

And that normal cues are not conical in shape.

Fine Patrick...you go with that old buddy! I'm done with you in this thread. Catch ya around the corner.

(-:
 
av84fun said:
Patrick...not even CLOSE...but entertaining nevertheless because you dance devinely.

" But you don't continue to get more and more squirt with harder and harder shots, because you can only eliminate the swerve once."

1. As you are obviously too dense to understand squirt does not vary with the speed of the shot...so the first part of your sentence is CORRECT. But where you fall flat on your face is your explanation of WHY squirt doesn't increase with speed. I will put your explanation on caps in case vision difficulties are at the heart of your apparent ignorance.

Your explantion of why squirt doesn't increase with speed was:

"BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY ELIMINATE THE SWERVE ONCE."

No you cannot Patrick...BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU CANNOT "ELIMINATE" SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

I know this is taxing your meagre powers of cognition so let me help you.
Had you said that a hard shot PREVENTS SWERVE you would have been correct but to "prevent" something from happening, by definition, it must not have happened to start with.

To "eliminate" something, it must first exist.
e?lim?i?nate (-lm-nt)
tr.v. e?lim?i?nat?ed, e?lim?i?nat?ing, e?lim?i?nates
1. To get rid of; remove: an effort to eliminate homelessness; eliminated his enemies.

So Patrick...take several SLOW, DEEP breaths....clear your mind...what there is of it...of any distractions and focus ONLY on the following.

Hard shots don't "get rid of" or "remove" swerve BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT PREVENTS SWERVE.

And thank you for confirming your idiocy by saying that everthing else I stated was wrong.

SO...you are now ON RECORD as believing that there are other cushion profiles equally popular as the K-66

And that neither Brunswick nor Olhausen produce normal tables.

And that the centerline of the tip/ferrule is not level when their centerlines are level.

And that normal cues are not conical in shape.

Fine Patrick...you go with that old buddy! I'm done with you in this thread. Catch ya around the corner.

(-:
Click to expand...

Jim, what value do you think pages and pages of pettiness like the above contribute to this forum?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
OK, let's say hitting hard prevents swerve. Do you think your being pedantic and argumentative improved anybody's understanding?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Patrick are you saying that speed eliminates swerve and squirt???
 
Patrick are you saying that speed eliminates swerve and squirt???
Click to expand...

No. Speed only eliminates (prevents, if you want to get pedantic) swerve. By doing so it appears to increase squirt, but that's an illusion.

That information was clear before it was buried beneath pages of av84fun's pedantry.

pj
chgo
 
av84fun:
I'm done with you in this thread.
Click to expand...

Finally. Now, if anybody would like any straight answers about the stuff that he tried so hard to hopelessly confuse, I'd be happy to oblige.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
No. Speed only eliminates (prevents, if you want to get pedantic) swerve. By doing so it appears to increase squirt, but that's an illusion.

That information was clear before it was buried beneath pages of av84fun's pedantry.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Thats what I thought you said. Patrick have you ever played pool before??
 
Question regarding elevation

Bob Jewett said:
I think I can answer this one. Essentially all shots are hit with some elevation. A level stick would require the center of the bumper to be at the same height as the center of the tip at tip-to-ball contact. That doesn't happen except on contrived shots. It is possible to contrive a shot with negative elevation, but not with a normal grip.

To the best of my knowledge, all break shots are hit with elevation of at least 2-3 degrees. Two degrees of elevation means that the center of the bumper is two inches above the center of the tip at the time of contact.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can make this as clear as possible without going on and on or with a diagram.

I have a cue stick (for easy equations sake) with a 12 mm shaft at the tip and the butt end is 36 mm.

If you place a ball on the table and lay this cue stick down so that the bottom of the cue stick is laying flat and pointing at the ball. The tip of this stick would have to be raised 12 mm in order to make the cue level to the ball. Correct?

So if the base of the cue is level with the rail and the base line of the cue stick is level pointed at the ball, (as laying it on the table), I am actually aiming with a elevated cue of about 12 mm. (I do not know the degrees)

Is this what you mean by all shots have some degree of elevation whenever the cue comes across the rail?
 
raybo147 said:
Thats what I thought you said. Patrick have you ever played pool before??
Click to expand...

Oh, another one.

Do you have a point you can get to in 100 words or less? I'm not getting any younger here.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Oh, another one.

Do you have a point you can get to in 100 words or less? I'm not getting any younger here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
You seem like a nice guy, but I don't think you can reverse physics with velocity. I don't want to get into anything with you but you are wrong at a pretty high level here. If it bothers you that I posted tell me and I won't post any more. Sorry that you are getting older but I think that is universal
 
Not Bob, but...

If you place a ball on the table and lay this cue stick down so that the bottom of the cue stick is laying flat and pointing at the ball. The tip of this stick would have to be raised 12 mm in order to make the cue level to the ball. Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes (although I'm not sure what level "to the ball" means here).

So if the base of the cue is level with the rail and the base line of the cue stick is level pointed at the ball, (as laying it on the table), I am actually aiming with a elevated cue of about 12 mm. (I do not know the degrees)

Is this what you mean by all shots have some degree of elevation whenever the cue comes across the rail?
Click to expand...

No, he means you can't hit the ball as high as the top of the rail without miscueing, so you have to lower the tip to make a successful shot. This is true if the top of your rail (the lowest you can get your level stick) is above about 1 5/8". [Edit: And it's true whether you use the bottom edge of the cue or its centerline to measure "level". Using the cue's centerline makes the situation worse unless the cylindrical part of the shaft is over the rail.]

If av84fun is right about some tables having rails that don't exceed the height of the cushion nose, then this is wrong for those tables, but I'm skeptical.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
You seem like a nice guy...
Click to expand...

So why the snide question?

...but I don't think you can reverse physics with velocity. I don't want to get into anything with you but you are wrong at a pretty high level here. If it bothers you that I posted tell me and I won't post any more.
Click to expand...

Why not just say clearly what you think is true rather than all this beating around the bush? I'll go first:

Shot speed has no significant effect on the amount of squirt produced. However, more speed = less swerve, which can look like more squirt.

Your turn.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So why the snide question?



Why not just say clearly what you think is true rather than all this beating around the bush? I'll go first:

Shot speed has no significant effect on the amount of squirt produced. However, more speed = less swerve, which can look like more squirt.

Your turn.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Ok Patrick I think I understand. On a center ball hit speed has no effect on how straight the ball goes. On a off center hit the harder you hit it the wider the arc of swerve. You could say this is less swerve I guess but it will still swerve. The way you worded it I was thinking you were saying that hitting it harder will straighten the ball up. (this would have to be on an off center hit--Center ball hit it dosen't make a difference). I am not trying to push your buttons really but speed dosen't cure anything, it might just make it look less obvious. If you are talking about the arc widening on the swerve shots then I agree.
 
klockdoc said:
Let me see if I can make this as clear as possible without going on and on or with a diagram.

I have a cue stick (for easy equations sake) with a 12 mm shaft at the tip and the butt end is 36 mm.

If you place a ball on the table and lay this cue stick down so that the bottom of the cue stick is laying flat and pointing at the ball. The tip of this stick would have to be raised 12 mm in order to make the cue level to the ball. Correct?

So if the base of the cue is level with the rail and the base line of the cue stick is level pointed at the ball, (as laying it on the table), I am actually aiming with a elevated cue of about 12 mm. (I do not know the degrees)

Is this what you mean by all shots have some degree of elevation whenever the cue comes across the rail?
Click to expand...
Almost. A stick that has a horizontal lower surface is elevated as you describe. But that's not my major point. If you are going to hit the cue ball in the middle, the center of the tip will be 1.125 inches above the level of the slate. The top of the rail cap is roughly 1.8 inches above the level of the slate. Maybe you want your knuckles to pass above the rail cap. Even if you don't, the bottom of the butt will be at least 1.9 inches above the level of the slate. That makes the center of the butt at least 2.5 inches above the level of the slate. That's at least one or two degrees of elevation, and usually a lot more depending on how close the ball is to the rail.

Try a shot out in the middle of the table so the stick doesn't pass over the rail and so you don't have to jack up as much. If you try a center-ball hit with the stick actually level, I'm betting you'll take all the skin off your knuckles.
 
BPG24 said:
... all I know is from what I have read and my own experimenting... And I don't care for people to tell me why what I figured out isn't true...
Click to expand...


Hear, hear! Well said!

Flex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top