"How" a cueball is hit.

nataddrho

nataddrho

www.digicue.net
Silver Member
For a single given cue, the only possible dynamic influence a player can have on a cue ball is the following:
  1. The impact vector. The vectorincludes the following:
    1. position on the face of the cue ball (center of contact patch)
    2. angle of incident
    3. velocity
The impact time (duration) is only, at the very most, 2ms. It is physically impossible for human muscles to react at this speed, and therefore the impact vector does not change due to player influence.

With the same cue, the effective end mass can be changed very slightly with bridge length. But since the bridge hand does not move during the stroke, this is a static parameter and is not included.

It might be possible to grip the cue very firmly and add total effective mass to the cue, but I am unsure about this and don't know if this is true.

Chalk is binary. You either keep static friction during the (good hit) or transition from static-to-kenetic friction (miscue). Miscues aren't purposefully used as a technique so aren't considered. Tip softness helps maintain static friction to some degree.

Therefore, any twisting, swooping, drilling, side-movement, or any other claimed dynamic cueing motion doesn't "add" anything. Different types of strokes only change the three components of the impact vector.

Dropping your elbow too early, following through properly, stroking downwards into the table, good action, bad action, etc. all only impact the accuracy of delivering the intended impact vector.

This means that if two different strokes, from either the same or different players, using the same equipment, creates the exact same impact vector... then the shot outcomes will be equivalent.

Therefore, there is no such thing as "a need for different types of strokes". (Excluding jumps, breaks and masse's which are different developed skills.)

The same stroke can reproduce all effects possible with proper accuracy.

However, “need” is separate from “useful”: this doesn’t invalidate how anybody hits the ball or what their stokes are to create their desired outcome. This is personal and important. The point is that the only thing all these different strokes do physically is hit the ball in a different place at a different speed.
---

Do you agree? Or am I missing something. A lot of fellow players have discussions with me about their 'special magic strokes' ;)
 
Last edited:
Control of the edge along the cuetip is possible.

Shooting along the cue tip edge or on the miscue limit is an category of shots that could be better documented.

Are you talking stroke or configurations during contact?
 
That would be usually less than 2 milliseconds (2ms) for the contact time. 2us would be one thousandth of that time.

There are some miscues that are "partial". That is, the ball is spinning significantly before the tip/ball slipping starts. The discoloration on the tip is often whitish for such miscues as opposed to the darker spots for full-blooded miscues.
 
nataddrho said:
With the same cue, the effective end mass can be changed very slightly with bridge length.

It might be possible to grip the cue very firmly and add total effective mass to the cue, but I am unsure about this and don't know if this is true.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of these are true to a meaningful degree.

pj
chgo
 
Bob Jewett said:
That would be usually less than 2 milliseconds (2ms) for the contact time. 2us would be one thousandth of that time.

There are some miscues that are "partial". That is, the ball is spinning significantly before the tip/ball slipping starts. The discoloration on the tip is often whitish for such miscues as opposed to the darker spots for full-blooded miscues.
Click to expand...
Oops, yes 2ms that is what I meant. I made the correction.

Partial miscues are interesting, that is new to me. It isn't something controllable however.
 
justnum said:
Control of the edge along the cuetip is possible.

Shooting along the cue tip edge or on the miscue limit is an category of shots that could be better documented.

Are you talking stroke or configurations during contact?
Click to expand...
This would be controlling the position/angle components of the impact vector.
 
nataddrho said:
For a single given cue, the only possible dynamic influence a player can have on a cue ball is the following:
  1. The impact vector. The vectorincludes the following:
    1. position on the face of the cue ball (center of contact patch)
    2. angle of incident
    3. velocity
The impact time (duration) is only, at the very most, 2ms. It is physically impossible for human muscles to react at this speed, and therefore the impact vector does not change due to player influence.

With the same cue, the effective end mass can be changed very slightly with bridge length. But since the bridge hand does not move during the stroke, this is a static parameter and is not included.

It might be possible to grip the cue very firmly and add total effective mass to the cue, but I am unsure about this and don't know if this is true.

Chalk is binary. You either keep static friction during the (good hit) or transition from static-to-kenetic friction (miscue). Miscues aren't purposefully used as a technique so aren't considered. Tip softness helps maintain static friction to some degree.

Therefore, any twisting, swooping, drilling, side-movement, or any other claimed dynamic cueing motion doesn't "add" anything. Different types of strokes only change the three components of the impact vector.

Dropping your elbow too early, following through properly, stroking downwards into the table, good action, bad action, etc. all only impact the accuracy of delivering the intended impact vector.

This means that if two different strokes, from either the same or different players, using the same equipment, creates the exact same impact vector... then the shot outcomes will be equivalent.

Therefore, there is no such thing as "a need for different types of strokes". (Excluding jumps, breaks and masse's which are different developed skills.)

The same stroke can reproduce all effects possible with proper accuracy.

---

Do you agree? Or am I missing something. A lot of fellow players have discussions with me about their 'special magic strokes' ;)
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, by vector you mean a velocity vector having x.y.z components corresponding to a spot on the face of a cue ball?
 

This massé shot from The Hustler….Jimmy Moore showed it to me when I was a kid……
….then he said “Let’s go for a little distance….the cue ball went up to the side pocket and came back to make the ball.

…..those long banks where the ball is froze on the long rail and the object ball checks on the short rail ….
…..some players, like Reyes, can bank it farther out and make it come back to the pocket.

I feel you can extend that contact to more than 2ms….soft grip and decelerating just before contact.
….that time may be unmeasurable by our senses but make a difference in ball effect.

We had an old snooker player up here when I was young….a player accused him of pushing the ball every shot….he was a sweet striker.
 
kling&allen said:
Just to be clear, by vector you mean a velocity vector having x.y.z components corresponding to a spot on the face of a cue ball?
Click to expand...
Yes, the velocity vector, which has magnitude, x,y,z for position and normal angle and elevation (or equivalent Euler angles)
 
pt109 said:


I feel you can extend that contact to more than 2ms….soft grip and decelerating just before contact.
….that time may be unmeasurable by our senses but make a difference in ball effect.
Click to expand...
My point is regardless of what anyone feels thinks or says, it doesn’t change reality or physics. Even if it feels different, it’s all in their heads. However, of course I am not invalidating what is in their heads if it helps them play better.
 
Last edited:
nataddrho said:
Yes, the velocity vector, which has magnitude, x,y,z for position and normal angle and elevation (or equivalent Euler angles)
Click to expand...

Like pitching a baseball, isn’t it possible that some stroke mechanics make it easier to tweak that vector in a desired direction? It would be subjective and vary person to person of course.

I suspect for most players the vector itself is of little consequence provided it’s located on the correct spot on the cue ball. Dr Dave or someone has good videos of how most players wildly miss their aiming point on the cue ball.

I think this is what your post is getting at. It’s tip location on the cue ball that matters most with any vectors at that location being far less important? And your cue ball addresses the former and not the later.
 
kling&allen said:
Like pitching a baseball, isn’t it possible that some stroke mechanics make it easier to tweak that vector in a desired direction? It would be subjective and vary person to person of course.

I suspect for most players the vector itself is of little consequence provided it’s located on the correct spot on the cue ball. Dr Dave or someone has good videos of how most players wildly miss their aiming point on the cue ball.

I think this is what your post is getting at. It’s tip location on the cue ball that matters most with any vectors at that location being far less important? And your cue ball addresses the former and not the later.
Click to expand...
Yes this is more or less what I am getting at. But cue ball aside…

It is difficult to disentangle the discussion of cause and effect. Pool is the ultimate game of effect where players become emotionally tied to the outcome, sports psychology. I’m just curious about the subject. Cause is very important for learning and improving but I think the emotional comfort or investment in nurturing an idea distorts fundamental education.

Nobody is right or wrong about their stroke, and yes, different ways of stroking the cue benefit each person with their own customized efficiency and confidence. But if one realizes that that is exactly what it is, then they can use cause to learn instead of continuing to not know what to blame when they stop improving.
 
A couple of things that indicate what is possible: As a beginning pool player I was self mistaught as poorly as anyone. No doubt a cowboy tried to help me out with side spin, taught me the dreaded swoop shot! Perhaps a juggler of William Claude Dukenfield's skills might have been able to master a swoop. I hit early or swooped late the vast majority of the time. No denying that on the rare occasions when the swoop was perfect it was possible to go across the face of the ball and make it carry on like a wild child. More like a mexican jumping bean than a cue ball! No control at all so the odds of making the shot were slim, but damn could that cue ball dance hit perfectly!

Off topic other than what is humanly possible, A friend of a friend had a ten yard olympic air pistol. Two things I knew, somebody with a $1500 BB gun could probably shoot it, and the valves were easily damaged by dry firing these guns. Put a BB in it, really a pellet if I remember rightly and give it hell! No warm-up. The bullseye wasn't much bigger than the lead in a wooden pencil. To add a kicker, you turn sideways and hold this beast with one hand, not my style at all! Code Duello and all of that. Trying to hold iron sights on a tiny dot after I had already driven four or five hundred miles that day wasn't easy. As I was afraid, the one ounce more or less button that the pistol used for a trigger broke before I was ready. The sights were three-quarters of an inch left of target when the shot broke! Crappola! Fortunately I had been shooting a lot in the last six months or so and an unplanned flick of the wrist before the pellet left the barrel saved a half inch and left me neck and neck with the owner. I think the pellet moved 750FPS so that flick before it left the barrel had to be pretty damned quick!

The old players might have four to six different strokes depending on the shot they were shooting. While it can be argued that one stroke can do all things, one stroke isn't the best way to do all things.

No idea where the footage is now but there was video on the net of Willie Mosconi using a slip stroke in practice. He didn't use it a lot in competition but he had it in his arsenal when he needed it! Most of the players of that era were the same, they didn't rely on one stroke for all things.

I don't use the same bridge for all shots, why should I use the same grip or stroke with the other hand all the time?

I think if somebody gave me five to ten thousand dollars to design and build a robot I could have it make pretty much any shot possible on a pool table. However, we aren't robots and we are best served by doing things in the easiest manner for us to execute. Hard to beat a slipstroke when we have little room to execute a shot, just one example.

A final thought: If someone is really mad at their money I can build a robot for under fifteen thousand that can impart consistent action on a cue ball that a human can't duplicate one time in a dozen!

I have never believed there was only one way to get to heaven and I don't believe there is only one way to pocket pool balls and get shape.

Hu
 
nataddrho said:
For a single given cue, the only possible dynamic influence a player can have on a cue ball is the following:
  1. The impact vector. The vectorincludes the following:
    1. position on the face of the cue ball (center of contact patch)
    2. angle of incident
    3. velocity
The impact time (duration) is only, at the very most, 2ms. It is physically impossible for human muscles to react at this speed, and therefore the impact vector does not change due to player influence.

With the same cue, the effective end mass can be changed very slightly with bridge length. But since the bridge hand does not move during the stroke, this is a static parameter and is not included.

It might be possible to grip the cue very firmly and add total effective mass to the cue, but I am unsure about this and don't know if this is true.

Chalk is binary. You either keep static friction during the (good hit) or transition from static-to-kenetic friction (miscue). Miscues aren't purposefully used as a technique so aren't considered. Tip softness helps maintain static friction to some degree.

Therefore, any twisting, swooping, drilling, side-movement, or any other claimed dynamic cueing motion doesn't "add" anything. Different types of strokes only change the three components of the impact vector.

Dropping your elbow too early, following through properly, stroking downwards into the table, good action, bad action, etc. all only impact the accuracy of delivering the intended impact vector.

This means that if two different strokes, from either the same or different players, using the same equipment, creates the exact same impact vector... then the shot outcomes will be equivalent.

Therefore, there is no such thing as "a need for different types of strokes". (Excluding jumps, breaks and masse's which are different developed skills.)

The same stroke can reproduce all effects possible with proper accuracy.

---

Do you agree? Or am I missing something. A lot of fellow players have discussions with me about their 'special magic strokes' ;)
Click to expand...
This is as well stated as anything I've heard on the matter.


nataddrho said:
The same stroke can reproduce all effects possible with proper accuracy.
Do you agree? Or am I missing something. A lot of fellow players have discussions with me about their 'special magic strokes' ;)
Click to expand...
This ^^^though...
I use the information transfer analogy where the cue ball only "knows" and reacts to how it was hit. The message has to be encoded by the shooter. I think, different strokes help to zone things for some players. A 'quarter masse swoop with a half fade at the end' may be a classification with more meaning to some shooters and in fact add points of accuracy by virtue of it's uniqueness.
 
I’m on board with the premise that swooping, swiping, snapping the wrist, intentional deceleration, and anything of the like is just bad karate being advocated by crazy uncles and the same results can be achieved with greater simplicity in your execution.
 
nataddrho said:
For a single given cue, the only possible dynamic influence a player can have on a cue ball is the following:
  1. The impact vector. The vectorincludes the following:
    1. position on the face of the cue ball (center of contact patch)
    2. angle of incident
    3. velocity
Click to expand...
I call it Angle-Spot-Speed (for the memorable acronym).

nataddrho said:
The same stroke can reproduce all effects possible with proper accuracy.

Do you agree?
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly.

But, of course, easier said than done. And whatever gets it done.

pj
chgo
 
Maybe it's psychological, but It seems to me that there is some difference between a stroke with a very light grip and a stroke with a very tight grip.
I employ the lighter grip when I want extra travel on the cue ball in some situations, and a tighter grip when I want more of a stun shot.
The idea that you can (not) influence the cue ball beyond initial contact I definitely agree with.
 
Last edited:
Extremely well written, and correct information presented. Unfortunately, the people that understand the science and physics being discussed, already believe you. Those that do not grasp this, will not grasp this. This that do not recognize what a swoop stroke actually does due to misperception, will not be swayed. I have read years worth of arguments posted on here and the best analogy I can come up with is that of flat earther debates on YT. What you’re saying is not even arguable, however, you cannot win a debate proven by science, math, physics, etc when there are people who will never grasp the concept. At least it’s not actually harming them to believe what they believe and I appreciate how well you explained it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top