His Boy Elroy - Pool Eccentric: An Autobiography

[SloMoHolic]

Are you aware that there can be more than one reason for a skid to occur?

People can subscribe to the belief that a stroke can create a skid and the balls can create a skid too, even with a perfect stroke.

I don't know why I am even replying to this.

Stroke cannot cause skid. Period. Skid happens when the *downward* force of the front edge of a rolling or forward-spinning cue ball reacts to a higher than normal coefficient of starting friction with the object ball.

If you would like to assert that the stroke causes a rolling or forward-spinning cue ball, then I suppose I'd have to agree with you to some extent.

-Blake

 

[Tony_in_MD]

The only measured, observed and repeatable reason is chalk on the cueball. Any other reason is opinion to date.

Some believe caulk type some think formulations of the phenolic in pool balls. some say electrostatic differences between the balls and cloth and chalk.

Lots of theories, none have been proved yet.

For myself the important thing is to recognize the type of shot that CAN result in a skid, and either avoid it, or modify my delivery in the hope it does not happen.

But I will never classify a soft centerball stroke as stroke error.

Are you aware that there can be more than one reason for a skid to occur?

People can subscribe to the belief that a stroke can create a skid and the balls can create a skid too, even with a perfect stroke.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I don't know why I am even replying to this.

Stroke cannot cause skid. Period. Skid happens when the *downward* force of the front edge of a rolling or forward-spinning cue ball reacts to a higher than normal coefficient of starting friction with the object ball.

If you would like to assert that the stroke causes a rolling or forward-spinning cue ball, then I suppose I'd have to agree with you to some extent.

-Blake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUT7-RdKdeA

Check out the 47:00 mark of this tar podcast.

Johnny seems to believe what I know to be true, a punch stroke will cause greater reaction from the object ball.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

OK then, with a punch stroke you should be able to cause a skid every time right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUT7-RdKdeA

Check out the 47:00 mark of this tar podcast.

Johnny seems to believe what I know to be true, a punch stroke will cause greater reaction from the object ball.

 

[(((Satori)))]

OK then, with a punch stroke you should be able to cause a skid every time right?

Yes, but not as drastic as a chalk induced skid.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Then every shot Allen Hopkins shot should have been a skid.



Maybe what you observed is really not a skid.

Yes, but not as drastic as a chalk induced skid.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The following are my opinions on the differences of hitting a shot with the intention & purpose of using spin(english) vs. using squirt(CJ's TOI) all while hitting the CB at the same location on the CB, BUT with different speeds.

With the OB on the spot & with the CB on the head string on the right side of the table & cutting the OB into the left corner pocket the CB will be hit a 'touch' to the inside at the 7:30 location on the ball.

First at a speed for the intention & purpose of spin (english):

The 'aim' or alignment should be to the thin hit side of the pocket.

The CB will squirt out to the right in the direction that is directly opposite of the tip hit & that would be in the direction of 1:30 & the ball will be spinning on that axis.

When hit with the appropriate speed the CB will be spinning & will grab the cloth & the spin will 'swerve' the CB back toward the intended contact point on the OB.

When it makes contact with the OB aligned to the thin hit side of the pocket, the spin on the CB will combine with the collision induced throw(CIT) & both the spin induced throw(SIT) & the collision induced throw will throw the OB into the center of the pocket. That is the intention of the shot when using the spin of the off center hit. If the level of spin & resulting swerve were more than planned the OB could go into the full hit side of the pocket. If they were less than planned the OB could go into the thin hit side of the pocket. Naturally if things were off by TOO much the OB would mis the pocket.

Now at a speed for the intention & purpose of using the squirt (CJ's TOI):

The alignment should be to the full hit side of the pocket.

The ball will squirt out to the right directly opposite of the 7:30 tip hit in the 1:30 direction & will be spinning on that axis.

When hit with the appropriate speed (which is greater than when hitting for the intended purpose of using the spin) the spin on the CB will NOT grab & will NOT 'swerve' the CB back. This will result in the OB being hit with more cut, which will result in the OB going into the center of the pocket if all went as intended & planned. This is the intention & plan for using the squirt of the off center hit. If the CB did not squirt as much as planned, the OB will go into the pocket toward the full hit side of the pocket. If the CB squirted more than planned, the OB will go in toward the thin hit side of the pocket. Naturally if things were off too badly the OB would mis the pocket.

Now...when I'm talking squirt, naturally I'm talking the NET effect. If the speed was a bit under what was needed to keep the swerve completely out of the picture then the NET squirt would be less & the OB would go into the full hit side of the pocket or mis the pocket. That is why CJ says that one must acellerate. If one 'quits' on the shot then the ball will swerve & that is not in the plan. Too much quit & the OB will be hit TOO full because of the swerve that was allowed to come into play.

I hope that this shows that I am willing to answer the question & support my opinions. Some understand the difference & some do not. I hope this helps those that did not understand become those that do understand. Helping is always my intention.

I was & am not willing to get into a drag out argument over semantics & vernacular just for the sake of such childish behavior. Especially with one that already understands the parameters involved.

I'd like to also point out that while there is a POTENTIAL for 'swerve' in a shot hit such as this, that if the spin does not grab at all, then there is NO swerve. IF the CB did not contact the OB & the table was 3 or 4 times as long then the swerve would come into existence eventually. But if the CB hits the OB before the swerve comes into existence & appears then it did not exist, & there was no swerve.

Sincerely & with nothing but good intentions & Best Wishes for ALL,
Rick

PS CJ is certainly correct when he says that putting these things into the correct words is very much more difficult than showing them in person. Most of us, especially men are visual beings.

 

[Neil]

I hope that this shows that I am willing to answer the question & support my opinions. Some understand the difference & some do not. I hope this helps those that did not understand become those that do understand. Helping is always my intention.

I was & am not willing to get into a drag out argument over semantics & vernacular just for the sake of such childish behavior. Especially with one that already understands the parameters involved.


Sincerely & with nothing but good intentions & Best Wishes for ALL,
Rick

PSsCJ is certainly correct when he says that putting these things into the correct words is very much more difficult than showing them in person. Most of us, especially men are visual beings.

Since when is using the proper words childish? And, this from someone that says "nothing but good intentions"? Putting things in the correct words and context is what communication is all about. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be doing it. Words mean a lot. And, thanks for the slam again, guess that was also part of your good intentions.

Rick, I'll spell it out for you. Way too much of the things you and CJ both post is a bunch of nonsense because neither one of you really know how the balls react and why. So, you make up stuff to try and get your point across, thinking no one will notice.

That is very insulting to anyone you are trying to help. And, neither one of you give a darn about that little fact. Everytime either of you are called on it, you both have nothing but insults, or just ignore it. It's a great and honorable thing to help others. You cheapen that and cause a great disservice when you put out incorrect material. Just adding "IMO" all the time does not excuse it. It only shows that you want to "be somebody" and don't really care at all if the people reading your material really improve or not. You feel you just have to add something whether it's right or not. That's not helping anyone, only hurting people.

Bottom line- if you are going to help people, at least take the time to learn what you are talking about so you don't supply misinformation. At least care about the people you are replying to. Make this a good place for people to go to, to learn about pool. Not somewhere where people go to that will only screw up their game and perpetuate myths and fables. Have some respect for yourself and the people you are trying to help.

You and CJ both feel that I am nothing more than a big thorn in your sides. Ever stop and wonder why? Why only you two and one other? Why always the same theme from me? Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you still don't know why, read the above paragraphs again. I'm not always right, and when I am wrong, I fully expect and want someone "in the know" to correct me so I don't make the same mistake again. However, it sickens me when certain people constantly want to argue against known science of the game and then resort to calling names just to try and save face. I hate arguing. But, I hate misinformation even more.

This is supposed to be the age of information. Instead, it has become the age of misinformation.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Deleted for the sake of the thread & the forum.:ignore:

 

[His Boy Elroy]

IMO

This thread needs to be moved back to the "Aiming Conversation" category.

Please take no offense, but this was started as (and continues to be) an aiming thread.

I'm going cross-eyed just trying to read this. Surely, that's not good for my aim.

P.S.
Be nice to one another. We all have different aiming methods, and they are all acceptable within our own heads.

-Blake

Yeah. I should never have put anything in the main forum. When I first wrote my thing I got a few private messages from people who were amused. So I informed the main forum thinking more people might be amused. I was wrong. It was a bad posting day for the only son of George Jetson. You can take chances like this when no one knows your name.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Mike Sigel was the master at avoiding "skids,

Ask Chris Bartram if the two skids he had in one match were caused by a stroke error.

He needed a "Touch" of Inside Skid Deterrent

Mike Sigel was the master at avoiding "skids," however, on the Diamond tables there seems to be more than usual. It may be because of the "black spots" from the pockets.

Hitting the cue ball firmer with the "stun stroke" helps, but doesn't eliminate them.

 

[His Boy Elroy]

Since when is using the proper words childish? And, this from someone that says "nothing but good intentions"? Putting things in the correct words and context is what communication is all about. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be doing it. Words mean a lot. And, thanks for the slam again, guess that was also part of your good intentions.

Rick, I'll spell it out for you. Way too much of the things you and CJ both post is a bunch of nonsense because neither one of you really know how the balls react and why. So, you make up stuff to try and get your point across, thinking no one will notice.

That is very insulting to anyone you are trying to help. And, neither one of you give a darn about that little fact. Everytime either of you are called on it, you both have nothing but insults, or just ignore it. It's a great and honorable thing to help others. You cheapen that and cause a great disservice when you put out incorrect material. Just adding "IMO" all the time does not excuse it. It only shows that you want to "be somebody" and don't really care at all if the people reading your material really improve or not. You feel you just have to add something whether it's right or not. That's not helping anyone, only hurting people.

Bottom line- if you are going to help people, at least take the time to learn what you are talking about so you don't supply misinformation. At least care about the people you are replying to. Make this a good place for people to go to, to learn about pool. Not somewhere where people go to that will only screw up their game and perpetuate myths and fables. Have some respect for yourself and the people you are trying to help.

You and CJ both feel that I am nothing more than a big thorn in your sides. Ever stop and wonder why? Why only you two and one other? Why always the same theme from me? Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you still don't know why, read the above paragraphs again. I'm not always right, and when I am wrong, I fully expect and want someone "in the know" to correct me so I don't make the same mistake again. However, it sickens me when certain people constantly want to argue against known science of the game and then resort to calling names just to try and save face. I hate arguing. But, I hate misinformation even more.

This is supposed to be the age of information. Instead, it has become the age of misinformation.

I haven't joined in this debate because I'd kinda like to see the title of this thread disappear from the first page of threads, but if I'm the "one other guy" your referring to all I can say is that when I first started using A tad bit of spin on the inside or outside of the ball it was because I simply couldn't shoot a center ball without producing unintentional spin. When I started putting a tad bit of spin I started controlling the spin and the unintentional spin stopped controlling me. This seemed to me to be completely logical. I started this after playing for about five thousand hours. So you may ask, If it's completely logical why to take you five thousand hours to think of it. It's because I took me that long perceive the effects of the unintentional English. If you shoot a basketball and it hits the back of the rim, you lighten up on the next shot. If you keep hitting the left side of the rim you start aiming more towards the right. It's easy to perceive the ball hitting the back or the side of the rim. You can see it. In pool the amount of unintentional spin required to miss a shot that has been perfectly aimed at is not perceptible to the eye. The only way to perceive the unintentional spin is to feel it as the ball leaves the tip and then relate that feel to the effects when the cue ball hit the object ball. It took me a long time to perceive this. Once I perceived this then I think it was quite logical for me to think that if there is going to spin every time I shoot the ball than I should intentionally put spin on the ball and controll the ball while using spin rather than losing control of the ball by hitting it with unintentional spin. The next logical step was to say to myself, "you know, the more spin you put on the ball, the more difficult it is going to be to control. I'll put as slight a spin on as I possibly can." So that's what I did and my game improved drastically. In fact, the idea is to make it as as close to a center ball hit as possible without being a center ball hit. Maybe that's why C.J doesn't like to call it english. My desire was to shoot a center ball. But when I tried to shoot a center ball unintentional spin would result. So it was almost like I was hitting a center ball, but then I would put juuuuuussst a taaaaad of spin on the ball - just enough so that I could control the spin and not let the spin control me and not one degree of a tad more. Now... From reading these forums I've learns that some lessons with you fine instructors can be highly beneficial. So maybe if I had taken some my instructor would have eliminated unintentional spin on my center ball stroke so drastically that it would not have been a logical step for me to put a tad bit of spin on my shots. All I can say then is that I'm glad I never had a lesson with any of you fine instructors. What you instructors teach is to hit the ball down the table to the cushion and have it come back and hit your tip. Then hit the ball again with no intentional spin on it. This time shoot into an object ball. If you aim correctly it will go into the pocket. Well: all that is true on paper but I really doubt there have been any great ball pocketers who have done it that way. I wish to be a great ball pocketer some day . I don't know if I'll ever get there, but I think I know the path. The path starts when you've reached a certain amount of skill with center ball and you've reached a certain amount of skill with a tad bit of spin. That's when the pool stroke turns into art. The art is in the meshing of those two strokes. I continue to hit center balls these days with no unintentional spin, but when I hit those center balls, 50% of the skill that I employ on those shots come from a touch that I developed from practicing the tad of spin stroke for so many years. When I hit a tad of spin shot 50% of the skill I employ comes from a touch I developed practicing the center stroke for so many years. Let me try an analogy. Imagine a tight rope walker walking with fused ankles. He might walk for a long distance, but when he loses his balance a little bit to the right he won't be able to lean his foot a little to the left because his ankles are fused. So he might walk for a long distance, but all he has to do is lose his balance a little and he falls off. What practicing the tad of spin stroke does is take whatever is fusing the ankles off and allow the feet to lean to the right and left. Hitting a center ball is just like walking on a tight rope. Upon impact the tip sticks straight on the center of the ball or the cue loses it's balance and moves to the right or left delivering unintentional spin as it does. When a player practices the tad bit of spin stroke they develop a certain touch. Then; when they hit a center ball and the cue loses it's balance and the tip moves to the right or left this touch enables them to regain the cues balance and move the tip back to the center. Conversely, when a players practice the center ball hit they develop a certain touch. When the hit a tad bit of spin shot an begin to put on too much spin this touch enables them to halt the spin at the right point and go straight. Someone reading this might be saying, "The tip is on the ball for such a short time. That's impossible." Well: this is what I'm experiencing." If it's not happening exactly this way, it sure feels like it's happening this way. So Neil; I'm not saying that center ball hitting is the wrong way to go. It's the right way, but I'm saying tad bit of spin is the right way too. I believe they both should be taught, with equal weight of importance given to both.

 

[Neil]

When a player practices the tad bit of spin stroke they develop a certain touch. Then; when they hit a center ball and the cue loses it's balance and the tip moves to the right or left this touch enables them to regain the cues balance and move the tip back to the center. Conversely, when a players practice the center ball hit they develop a certain touch. When the hit a tad bit of spin shot an begin to put on too much spin this touch enables them to halt the spin at the right point and go straight. Someone reading this might be saying, "The tip is on the ball for such a short time. That's impossible." Well: this is what I'm experiencing." If it's not happening exactly this way, it sure feels like it's happening this way. So Neil; I'm not saying that center ball hitting is the wrong way to go. It's the right way, but I'm saying tad bit of spin is the right way too. I believe they both should be taught, with equal weight of importance given to both.

Did you know that the tip is on the cb for app. 1 millisecond. And that it takes 4 milliseconds for the vibrations of the hit to get back to your hand. Which means, you are only fooling yourself in thinking that you are doing what you think you are. By the time you even feel that you hit the cb, it is already gone and you have no control over it anymore.

 

[row21097]

Thank you!

my favorite physics joke: Entropy isn't what it used to be.

Did you know that the tip is on the cb for app. 1 millisecond. And that it takes 4 milliseconds for the vibrations of the hit to get back to your hand. Which means, you are only fooling yourself in thinking that you are doing what you think you are. By the time you even feel that you hit the cb, it is already gone and you have no control over it anymore.

 

[Dan White]

I've been reading this discussion for awhile and I thought I'd just throw in a little diagram I made some years back. It came out of a discussion about what causes swerve. Many people think swerve is caused by english, but it is not (I learned that thanks to the numerous physicists in the forum). Anyway I think it is a neat drawing and hopefully it will help someone out.

To explain, the drawing mentions the "3rd axis." This is the axis nobody thinks about -- the one going in the same direction as your cue. The horizontal axis is where you get english, the vertical is where you get follow and draw, and the 3rd axis (or maybe the Z axis, or the cue axis) is where you get masse which is what swerve really is.

Elevating the cue slightly creates the blue arrow point downward. When you hit with english the downward force from your cue causes rotation about the 3rd axis as shown by the second blue arrow. The cue ball then squirts in the blue path shown and then swerves back due to the rotation about the 3rd axis.

Level cue (nearly impossible) = no swerve even with english.

If everybody knew this then, as Emily Litella would say, "Nevermind."

 

[ENGLISH!]

Thank you!

my favorite physics joke: Entropy isn't what it used to be.

Nice joke. But I certainly don't think that the human body & mind is a form of 'entropy'.

Golfers often change their swings mid route when their minds perceive that something went wrong. In fact Jack Nicklaus's famous shot on the 17th hole at Pebble Beach was a shot that he saved on the way down to the ball. Do you know how fast the head of a golf club is moving? Batters in baseball re-route their swings. Tennis player adjust to bad bounces.

The human body & mind are amazing 'entities' & have an amazing synergy.

That being said I would certainly not put it past the realm of possibility that 'Elroy' might perceive a stroke variance that would result in a slight mishit & make an adjustment during the stroke that would last through the contact time.

Just a thought & perhaps food for thought.

Regards & Best Wishes
Rick

 

[row21097]

rick,
everything is a form of entropy.

Nice joke. But I certainly don't think that the human body & mind is a form of 'entropy'.

 

[ENGLISH!]

rick,
everything is a form of entropy.

Nice joke. But I certainly don't think that the human body & mind is a form of 'entropy'.

I hear you. I certainly know that I am as I turn 60 in Sept. If you note I put entropy in single quotes not double quotes.

Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

PS Would you say that when one's pool game is growing & getting better & more organized that it is in a form of 'entropy'?

 

[His Boy Elroy]

Nice joke. But I certainly don't think that the human body & mind is a form of 'entropy'.

Golfers often change their swings mid route when their minds perceive that something went wrong. In fact Jack Nicklaus's famous shot on the 17th hole at Pebble Beach was a shot that he saved on the way down to the ball. Do you know how fast the head of a golf club is moving? Batters in baseball re-route their swings. Tennis player adjust to bad bounces.

The human body & mind are amazing 'entities' & have an amazing synergy.

That being said I would certainly not put it past the realm of possibility that 'Elroy' might perceive a stroke variance that would result in a slight mishit & make an adjustment during the stroke that would last through the contact time.

Just a thought & perhaps food for thought.

Regards & Best Wishes
Rick

Thanks Rick. Neil's point makes perfect sense, but I did say "This is what I'm experiencing. If it's not happening exactly this way it sure feels like it's happening this way. So maybe what's happening is what you're describing. I'm gonna gave to think about this...........it took me a while to respond. I've been waiting for the damn title of this thread to move to the second page!

 

[CJ Wiley]

There was always an arch or curve caused by spin (or gravity)

I haven't joined in this debate because I'd kinda like to see the title of this thread disappear from the first page of threads, but if I'm the "one other guy" your referring to all I can say is that when I first started using A tad bit of spin on the inside or outside of the ball it was because I simply couldn't shoot a center ball without producing unintentional spin. When I started putting a tad bit of spin I started controlling the spin and the unintentional spin stopped controlling me. This seemed to me to be completely logical. I started this after playing for about five thousand hours. So you may ask, If it's completely logical why to take you five thousand hours to think of it. It's because I took me that long perceive the effects of the unintentional English. If you shoot a basketball and it hits the back of the rim, you lighten up on the next shot. If you keep hitting the left side of the rim you start aiming more towards the right. It's easy to perceive the ball hitting the back or the side of the rim. You can see it. In pool the amount of unintentional spin required to miss a shot that has been perfectly aimed at is not perceptible to the eye. The only way to perceive the unintentional spin is to feel it as the ball leaves the tip and then relate that feel to the effects when the cue ball hit the object ball. It took me a long time to perceive this. Once I perceived this then I think it was quite logical for me to think that if there is going to spin every time I shoot the ball than I should intentionally put spin on the ball and controll the ball while using spin rather than losing control of the ball by hitting it with unintentional spin. The next logical step was to say to myself, "you know, the more spin you put on the ball, the more difficult it is going to be to control. I'll put as slight a spin on as I possibly can." So that's what I did and my game improved drastically. In fact, the idea is to make it as as close to a center ball hit as possible without being a center ball hit. Maybe that's why C.J doesn't like to call it english. My desire was to shoot a center ball. But when I tried to shoot a center ball unintentional spin would result. So it was almost like I was hitting a center ball, but then I would put juuuuuussst a taaaaad of spin on the ball - just enough so that I could control the spin and not let the spin control me and not one degree of a tad more. Now... From reading these forums I've learns that some lessons with you fine instructors can be highly beneficial. So maybe if I had taken some my instructor would have eliminated unintentional spin on my center ball stroke so drastically that it would not have been a logical step for me to put a tad bit of spin on my shots. All I can say then is that I'm glad I never had a lesson with any of you fine instructors. What you instructors teach is to hit the ball down the table to the cushion and have it come back and hit your tip. Then hit the ball again with no intentional spin on it. This time shoot into an object ball. If you aim correctly it will go into the pocket. Well: all that is true on paper but I really doubt there have been any great ball pocketers who have done it that way. I wish to be a great ball pocketer some day . I don't know if I'll ever get there, but I think I know the path. The path starts when you've reached a certain amount of skill with center ball and you've reached a certain amount of skill with a tad bit of spin. That's when the pool stroke turns into art. The art is in the meshing of those two strokes. I continue to hit center balls these days with no unintentional spin, but when I hit those center balls, 50% of the skill that I employ on those shots come from a touch that I developed from practicing the tad of spin stroke for so many years. When I hit a tad of spin shot 50% of the skill I employ comes from a touch I developed practicing the center stroke for so many years. Let me try an analogy. Imagine a tight rope walker walking with fused ankles. He might walk for a long distance, but when he loses his balance a little bit to the right he won't be able to lean his foot a little to the left because his ankles are fused. So he might walk for a long distance, but all he has to do is lose his balance a little and he falls off. What practicing the tad of spin stroke does is take whatever is fusing the ankles off and allow the feet to lean to the right and left. Hitting a center ball is just like walking on a tight rope. Upon impact the tip sticks straight on the center of the ball or the cue loses it's balance and moves to the right or left delivering unintentional spin as it does. When a player practices the tad bit of spin stroke they develop a certain touch. Then; when they hit a center ball and the cue loses it's balance and the tip moves to the right or left this touch enables them to regain the cues balance and move the tip back to the center. Conversely, when a players practice the center ball hit they develop a certain touch. When the hit a tad bit of spin shot an begin to put on too much spin this touch enables them to halt the spin at the right point and go straight. Someone reading this might be saying, "The tip is on the ball for such a short time. That's impossible." Well: this is what I'm experiencing." If it's not happening exactly this way, it sure feels like it's happening this way. So Neil; I'm not saying that center ball hitting is the wrong way to go. It's the right way, but I'm saying tad bit of spin is the right way too. I believe they both should be taught, with equal weight of importance given to both.

Yes, this is also true in golf, tennis, and all sports/games that involve a ball.

From the time we were first introduced to hitting or throwing a ball our mind "real eyesed" that none of them traveled on a straight line. There was always an arch or curve caused by spin (or gravity), and in pool deflection also causes the ball to go "off line".

In the game of pool this is something we can avoid or embrace, and use to our advantage to create pocket and position Zones. We all are "at choice," to do what's naturally effective or develop a game that fights against it. 'The Game is the Teacher'