Those would be the times you miss.
pj
chgo
Illustration of BHE....
- Thread starter Jaden
- Start date
Those would be the times you miss.
pj
chgo
Well, we know the CB squirts with any sidespin, so "executed properly" must mean either:
1. the shot is close enough to the pocket that it doesn't matter that you hit it inaccurately,
2. something, like swerve or throw, is counteracting the squirt, or
3. you're not really aiming it parallel with the shot line.
I think that in most cases where players think they're aiming parallel with the shot line, they're really not.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
The shot is a feel shot. You may say that players think they're doing one thing when another is actually taking place. Fair point, but it doesn't really matter, as it's in the shooter's mind in any case. If I think it's a parallel shift and I consciously shift it like that, as far as I'm concerned that's what I'm doing. Whether or not someone else agrees with me is of no consequence.
Looks like we're not going to agree on this either, Pat.
Have a nice day.
Flex
P.S. What I'm describing is not an aiming but a shooting system, and it depends on feel to a great extent.
Last edited:
Flex said:
Well, like I said, depending on the shot you could probably get away with pointing your cue exactly parallel to the center line but I will bet that you are not actually doing that and that you are crossing the centerline on the shots you think you are parallel on. OR you are probably fairly inconsistent with your make the ball and go two rails and out. I know that this is a big statement to make when I have no idea what your game is like.
I am basing it on my own experience with how the balls react and how much trouble I know I would have to aim those shots with parallel english. I would tend to think that the margin of error is relatively small using this aiming.
I bet if you video taped yourself playing these shots you might see that you are doing something other than what you think you are.
For me, for example, I noticed that even though I am clearly using BHE I am also sometimes shifting the bridge a little to one side or the other. So that must be some sort of subconscious correction that I am doing in addition to the conscious pivot for the spin I want to use.
Tonight I played around with the bridge to see if BHE works when I KNOW that the bridge is not moving. It does but it's harder to apply.
So I can see that at least for me there is some adjustment going on but that's cool because it only proves that there is not any finite way to do something on the table - more than one way to get to Rome as they say.
For me BHE is MUCH MUCH easier to use than Parallel, or Shifted. Learning to use BHE brought my game to a whole new level and a lot of those spin shots that were giving me fits before suddenly became easy. Now, if, like you I want to use PE or SE then I can and my understanding of it is MUCH MUCH better since I use BHE.
That's all - once again a lot of words to say the same thing.
Flex said:
Whether you and I agree is of no consequence, but other readers might believe from your comments that "parallel english" works. That's why I point out that it doesn't - not to disagree with you, but to correct the spreading of misinformation (way too much of that goes on here).
You too.
pj
chgo
JB Cases said:
Yes, BHE is often much easier to use. However... since I practiced the shifting stuff so much before I knew anything about BHE, it's already in my brain, and the amount of squirt my shaft produces is a variable that has gotten easier and easier to compensate for almost automatically, depending on the strength of the shot. Perhaps I should say that I've shot certain difficult, PE or shifted english shots so many times at warp speed that I have a sense for it. How many times have I shot those pesky shots? Hundreds, thousands, I don't know, but plenty. If I had to learn it again from scratch, I certainly would suggest that BHE is the way to go for a myriad of shots. Now, should I just jettison what I already know how to do reasonably well (certain shots with PE) or just keep those shots in my quiver?
It's interesting to note that very few people have ever asked me how I shoot those shots. Why? Probably because they've experimented with it and were so frustrated by their results that they gave up. However, better players probably use a combination of techniques to achieve their good results.
I can tell you with certainty that if the shaft I were using were a high squirt shaft (and I have a few of those, believe me) that the PE stuff would be such a nightmare that I'd change the shaft, and that's actually what I've done, several times, until I found what works for me.
It doesn't bother me if what I'm doing to pot the ball and move the cue ball is against the "rules". IMHO, if it works, use it, and refine it and continue to learn, as I try to do every time I step to the table.
Flex
Patrick Johnson said:
"Parallel english" does work, with all the adjustments that are necessary.
Those adjustments are tough, no doubt. I just find that using PE at times, and BHE at others, works for me. Am I perfect with it? Of course not, but I sure have fun trying.
Flex
When I first started using BHE......
When I first startedusing BHE, I had trouble getting it to work on close shots....
So what I would do is use parallel english on shots less than about 10 inches. I didn't do anything except shift straight over. I never experimented with longer shots and PE because prior to using BHE I was a total feel player and after I started using BHE, it wasn't necessary to change.
Then I learned that as long as you don't hit too soft, and keep your cue as parallel to the slate as possible, that BHE works on close shots too.
Jaden
Flex said:
When I first startedusing BHE, I had trouble getting it to work on close shots....
So what I would do is use parallel english on shots less than about 10 inches. I didn't do anything except shift straight over. I never experimented with longer shots and PE because prior to using BHE I was a total feel player and after I started using BHE, it wasn't necessary to change.
Then I learned that as long as you don't hit too soft, and keep your cue as parallel to the slate as possible, that BHE works on close shots too.
Jaden
You're right, all of this is in the players mind.
With the same cue and bridge length, no matter who is shooting and what method they use, everything will be in exactly the same positionfor the ball to go into the same place, the cue's final line, the bridge location, everything. It only varies in how you think to get there.
Jaden
Flex said:
With the same cue and bridge length, no matter who is shooting and what method they use, everything will be in exactly the same positionfor the ball to go into the same place, the cue's final line, the bridge location, everything. It only varies in how you think to get there.
Jaden
Flex said:
What are those adjustments?
I am specifically talking about Parallel English as defined by getting a line to the target so that if you hit the cueball to the target with no side spin the center of the cueball will hit the center of the target.
And THEN you shift your cue EXACTLY parallel to that line to apply side spin for the shot. And then you deliver the cue on that parallel line.
Is that what you mean by Parallel English?
If so then I would gladly pay to see someone show me how it's possible to hit the center of the target this way. Here is my video concerning side spin.
Find a way to show me how to use Parallel English as described above and hit the center of the line where it meets the rail and the next TAR broadcast is on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYNF0yF6zY
I think it's physically impossible to do except with a true zero deflection cue which does not exist, well I guess theoretically there is probably SOMETHING that can hit the cue ball off center on a line that is parallel to the marked line in my video and have the cue ball hit the center of the target but my guess is that it won't be a 19oz pool cue.
I have another video that shows that at very slow speed there is almost no deflection - but that's already known and is only useful information for a specific set of shots, one of which is not the two rail follow shot you say that you use Parallel English for.
Anyway - the offer stands for anyone to show me how to do it - free TAR for the first person who demonstrates it on video.
JB,JB Cases said:
I'm glad you spent some time analyzing what your bridge hand is doing. I think BHE still works well as a ball park followed by slight adjustment / some feel.
I used to do it this way, and still do it this way sometimes when I can't be bothered going through my calculations. I'll pivot, take a look, if it looks a bit off I shift the bridge a little.
This of course gives you infinite aims through intuitive adjustments and allows the player more flexibility in bridge hand length.
Colin
JB Cases said:
Of course, shooting as you show in your video will produce the squirt results with the cue ball going off the straight line. That is certain, and while a shaft may one day be developed that will allow PE to be used to get the cue ball to track on that line it certainly isn't here now.
My contention is not that delivery of the cue ball along that straight line when using PE will work, my contention is that with that parallel shift that it is possible to stroke along that parallel shifted line of aim to achieve the potting of the object ball as well as movement of the cue ball. Why is it possible? I suppose it has to do with all the factors that influence where the object ball will go once the cue ball has made contact with it, and especially the speed of the shot. That may be one of the biggest bugaboos, the speed of the shot. Because if the stroke is too hard or too soft the cue ball will not squirt just the right amount and then swerve back over to contact the object ball in the right place with the specific spin applied to actually pot the object ball, let alone move the rock.
I never said it was easy, just that it's possible to do it. When I'm going to shoot those shots at firm speed, I'll need to adjust the aim line to account for the amount of cue ball squirt and swerve, no doubt about it. However on softer shots, which come up not infrequently, the simple parallel shift and the appropriate speed of stroke and quality of stroke desired works for me without altering the aim line.
It is very possible to achieve different degrees of cue ball squirt with the same basic speed of stroke due to the way the cue ball is stroked. Stroking with PE with a stun stroke will produce a different amount of squerve than a smooth stroke, at least in my experience.
Flex
Flex said:
Of course it's possible but it's very very limited and is hard to calculate properly with consistency. But until you are able to demonstrate this on video I will just say that I prefer to stick to that which also works for a nearly infinite range of bridge positions, shot distance, and speed.
2009 for me is the year of put up or shut up. I have decided that I won't talk about anything concerning how to play unless I am prepared to demonstrate it. Then anyone can post a video response and let the pictures speak for themselves.
JB Cases said:
I like that idea.
I like posting videos so people know I can execute what I'm talking about - so my posts aren't "theory-based."
I almost wish AZB went 100% video-based. Replace these threads with "channels" and let people post video questions/answers. That will weed out the sht-talkers from people who know something and can execute. You can learn a lot more from a video than a sentence.
What's the difference between a "stun stroke" and a "smooth stroke"?
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
Videos don't show that you're executing what you're talking about. They just show you making some shots. In that sense your videos are completely theory-based.
Those who can execute don't necessarily know how they execute, which is the topic of most of these threads. In fact, I think they most often don't know how they do it.
Based on our experience here that's usually not true. It isn't valid to assume everybody is like you in this respect.
pj
chgo
dr_dave said:
Funny, I knew either you or PJ would respond that way. I totally agree with your comment, by the way. You could have people post idiot videos - but you'd know that the moment you clicked on "play." Many would be entertaining, I'm sure.
I assume your use of the word misleading maybe relates to BHE or aiming systems, since I don't think you or PJ really like at all. If you post about "XYZ" math within a diagram that proves a "ABC" technique can't possibly work and another person makes a video about "ABC" that shows it does work (and countless people report it has helped them run out better than ever)......my question is....which post is misleading?
Can you really calculate all of the variables within pool on a piece of paper or cuetable diagram? I know you guys love the word "feel" - what if "ABC" system helps a person feel a shot better than setup & guess?
Pool is 100% "outcome-based"....meaning, you make the ball with position or you don't. If "ABC" makes it easier for people to comprehend and get-there when they failed miserably for years with the old stuff..... which collection of information is REALLY misleading and who decides?
There are a group of people on AZB who like to position themselves as experts on what is and what isn't bad information (you included, Dr. Dave since you always refer people to your website resource as the answer for everyone's questions). However, you guys are all self appointed and none of you post videos on so called "bad information" showing why it doesn't work which prevents people who can use the systems very well from seeing what you're doing wrong. Instead, you point to the chalkboard and lecture to the contrary.
So, I like JB Cases concept. Let the world decide on what's good/bad/misleading by watching people in action. It will be apparent to them what is and isn't - without being locked into the information monopoly of a handful of self-appointed experts.
I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just saying video is the future. It's time for people to see what works in practical application and what doesn't.
Video-away, I say.
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I don't believe this is true.
I've been around this game and its structure and the way it is learned and the way it is perceived enough to know that there is frequently little relation between what a player actually does and what a player thinks he's doing.
These videos are often someone saying, "see every shot is blah blah blah" while firing balls in doing something other than blah blah blah.
Demonstrations conceal all sorts of stuff the demonstrator often isn't even aware of. And they can't be examined carefully enough to back out the actual details.
Simple, clear, unambiguous, communication with words and diagrams is the way to go for understanding the advice.