Methods of Applying English

[Colin Colenso]

Ok I'm the new convert the "Banger" if you will (it's ok I don't mind) I have been working on my game seriously for about 6 months......a month and a half considering I felt like I was starting from scratch when I started playing with my I-2 shaft....

How do I find my cues pivot point? I know where the balance point is .......

A brief primer on English might be in order here as I just line up on the shot and adjust where I hit to apply whatever english I want......That's about as in depth as I can get.....

McCue Banger McCue

There are different types of tests and measures to establish a cue's pivot point.

An easy method, and one that I think makes sense is to hit the CB from the head spot to the center diamond on the foot rail. Line up center ball, then pivot and hit with 2 tips of english firm.

Begin at 5" very short bridge length. Right english will send the CB right of your target. (Use a block of chalk at the target point to aid vision).

Then try with bridge lengths of 7", 9", 11" etc. As you get to 15 or 20" you'll probably notice that squirt over powers the change in direction of the cue, so right english will hit left of your target.

Somewhere in the middle is your pivot point. Mine is about 10" for a firm strike. Close to 15" for a soft stroke and around 7" for a high power stroke.

Some people test it by hitting into an object ball, but this brings throw into the equation which can confuse things a bit.

But when you play with BHE or aim and pivot, you have to know how to compensate for throw also. But knowing your pivot point is a good starting point.

 

[jsp]

The method you are describing is NOT parallel aiming. Someone (on this group) set a confusion into the term by equating a straight delivery with the word "parallel." I have no idea why. Parallel english is a non-squirt compensating "method."

Parallel english: the cue strokes and hits on a line parallel to what would be a centerball aim.

Fred <~~~ doesn't use parallel english.

Haha...I think Fred is referring to me.

jsp <~~~ Sometimes uses SCPPE (squirt-compensated pseudo parallel english)

 

[12squared]

I have been playing off & on for 30+ years and at one point in my life I have played 3-cushion at a fairly high level. Because of this, I play a lot of pool shots with probably more english than needed, but it feels natural to me. Using inside english when needed is no big deal for me. Here's what I do:

I'm not sure if this is what is meant when talking about "Parallel English", but the method that works best for me when using english (spin) is aiming the shaft to the point of contact on the object ball. This works best if while shooting a straight shot or cutting the ball with inside english. It still works with outside english for me, but only in certain situations so I don't want to make a blanket statement about usage for those outside english shots. But it sure comes in handy when playing one-pocket.

Depending on the throw from YOUR cue would depend on what part of the shaft you use to aim at the object ball point.

The example with my cue (judd with standard shaft) is that I aim the inside edge of the shaft to the aiming point of the object ball for all inside english shots. I use a very level cue, a full follow through to the aiming point and don't over hit the shot. I use only the speed necessary to get the cue ball where I want it, if that makes sense. I mostly stroke straight through to where I'm aiming, but on occassion when I need maximum spin, I swipe at the cue when devlivering the stroke - this is not back hand english system where I begin aiming at center ball then swipe, I actually aim the same way I described and swipe from there. Not sure why it works, it just works. I'll leave that to the technical guys.

Hope this helps somebody.

Dave

 

[Jal]

... Mine is about 10" for a firm strike. Close to 15" for a soft stroke and around 7" for a high power stroke.

Some people test it by hitting into an object ball, but this brings throw into the equation which can confuse things a bit.

But I think you should invent some other name for your pivot point to avoid additional confusion.

The aim-and-pivot method using an an object ball is intended to get at the intrinsic property of the stick, whereas yours is stroke speed and ball distance dependent because of swerve. With the object ball method, throw only causes a slight error (fraction of an inch by my reckoning) and you can pretty much eliminate that by adjusting your bridge length until the cueball drifts over to the english side of the object ball by about an inch (instead of stopping dead). But it's probably better to just let it stop.

A description of the aim-and-pivot test using an object ball can be found here:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/faq.html

Search for "pivot".

Jim

 

[Colin Colenso]

But I think you should invent some other name for your pivot point to avoid additional confusion.

The aim-and-pivot method using an an object ball is intended to get at the intrinsic property of the stick, whereas yours is stroke speed and ball distance dependent because of swerve. With the object ball method, throw only causes a slight error (fraction of an inch by my reckoning) and you can pretty much eliminate that by adjusting your bridge length until the cueball drifts over to the english side of the object ball by about an inch (instead of stopping dead). But it's probably better to just let it stop.

A description of the aim-and-pivot test using an object ball can be found here:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/faq.html

Search for "pivot".

Jim

Jim,
You are right that it would be better to have different terms to identify different measures.

To me, it would seem to make more sense to define a pivot point as the length of bridge at which the CB will travel along the exact same line after being pivoted. This I believe is significantly different from the resultant line of an OB placed at one diamond distance travelling the same line.

From my tests, the OB when hit at firm speed (travel 2.5 table lengths) with 1-2 tips of english will turn off line by about 1" in every 20" travelled. That means to hit it in the intended direction, the CB must hit it about 1mm from the center contact point. Meaning that such a test actually measures the pivot point for a squirt angle of a couple of degrees.

This testing method results in significantly longer pivot point estimates, probably twice as long as the ones my method establishes. This pivot point length only has meaning for an OB at one diamond's distance, so I don't see why it is considered a better or more useful or meaningful measure of a cue stick characteristic.

Speed and tip offset will affect both measurement methods. Swerve will come into significance on my test on slower shots, but I wouldn't attempt to use slower shots as a way to determine a standard test. I'd use the firm (2.5 -3 table lengths) speed with say 1.5 tips offset.

It's worth noting that many still seem to think that speed does not significantly increase squirt, and that the differences are mainly a result of reduced swerve when hitting hard. I've trialled this quite a lot recently and I'm convinced that increasing speed significantly increases squirt. Two aspects confuse the matter in opposing directions, swerve and reduced spin induced throw at speed.

Just some food for thought

 

[CaptainJR]

Works with maximum english and with the ball travelling 8 feet to the pocket. The resultant line of the OB can be exactly the same.

Squirt works in the opposite direction as the throw.

It is common knowledge that when the CB is an inch from the OB right english will make the OB throw left. Over this inch, squirt is negligable.

The throw remains constant, but squirt increases as the distance between CB and OB increases. At some point they are exactly the same. By my extensive testing I found they cancel at around 12", but it depends on speed and amount of english.

I know Squirt works in the opposite direction as th throw. But the spin must be applied by BHE, pivot or swoop. It does not work using parallel.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I know Squirt works in the opposite direction as th throw. But the spin must be applied by BHE, pivot or swoop. It does not work using parallel.

Yes it does work just as I described.

Please read my posts. They are easy to prove emperically (by testing). And logically consistant.

Which if any point do I make that you can argue with?
1. CB and OB 1 inch apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB turns left of line through centers.

2. CB and OB 3 feet apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB contacted on left side of center due to squirt (slight spin induced throw turns OB slightly left), net result is OB travels right of line through centers.

3. Somewhere between these lengths, the throw and squirt are equal in magnitude. At this length and at slightly shorter and longer lengths, parallel english alignment works quite accurately.

Can anyone else here see that this is logical? Or can anyone actually state how these points are wrong?

 

[X Breaker]

I've never liked this assessment. That's not a knock on you, but a knock on the internet and our industry. It's a little too standard common answer, with what I consider to have little backup. To consider what many pros and other top player do naturally as "a flaw" is, IMO, is short-sighted. We should all strive to find out why the things they do work, not waste effort on why they don't (since it's obvious that it does work.) But, that's just my opinion and isn't open for debate.

Fred

I agree. I think the standard answer, "the pros are so talented so they can get away with flaws" is not logical at all.

When we observe that something works, we should try to understand why it works.

If the observation is not consistent with our assumption/axiom/theory, we should re evaluate our assumption/axiom/theory, rather than trying to say that what we observe is just an exception based on natural talent. The latter statement is ungrounded, because it lacks supporting envidence; and illogical, because it was using an assumption to prove another assumption.

This logic has been used many times when it comes to the debate on elbow dropping.

You cannot dismiss facts and observations made in real life because it does not comply with your theory. You need to re evaluate your theory if it is not consistent with what you observe in reality.

Richard

 

[X Breaker]

The only way I understand the term "parallel" english, is that it is to apply the same straight stroke through the cue ball as the stroke applied in a straight center ball hit, but with the body facing the shot at a different angle, or to elevate the cue at different angels, but facing the shot in the same angle as if a center ball hit is applied.

Either way, the shooter is not simply shifting parallel to the line of aim of a center ball hit.

My understanding is that it denotes a stroke going straight through the ball. The shooter also aims at the cue ball where the english is striked.

 

[Jal]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the detailed info. I think it's pretty clear where our point of departure is: the amount throw. But first:

...To me, it would seem to make more sense to define a pivot point as the length of bridge at which the CB will travel along the exact same line after being pivoted. This I believe is significantly different from the resultant line of an OB placed at one diamond distance travelling the same line.

I think that I and everyone else agrees with your definition, if you mean by traveling along the same line that its initial line of travel is the same, ie, sans later swerve. I think you do mean this but correct me if I'm wrong.

...From my tests, the OB when hit at firm speed (travel 2.5 table lengths) with 1-2 tips of english will turn off line by about 1" in every 20" travelled.

This is where our differences lay. The figure of 1" in 20" is almost three degrees. Dr. Dave's equations show a throw value of less than one degree at this speed, which is, I believe, about 8 mph for the 2.5 table lengths of travel. (The values shown in his graph for spin induced throw are for a cueball speed of 3 mph). Obviously, this makes for a large difference in the estimate of the error. It is of course possible that the balls you've been using are different than the ones his theory is based upon (from Wayland Marlow's experiments). A factor of three seems unlikely, but who knows?

That means to hit it in the intended direction, the CB must hit it about 1mm from the center contact point. Meaning that such a test actually measures the pivot point for a squirt angle of a couple of degrees.

I don't believe this is right if I'm reading it correctly. 1mm in one diamond's worth of travel is an angle of arctan (1/25.4/12) = .19 degree. This is the error in the squirt angle and is even smaller, by a third, if the throw is actually as the aformentioned theory predicts.

Here is an error calculation for a cue with a true pivot point of 15", a tip offset of (2/5)R (= .45"), and a throw value of one degree. (Dr. Dave's theory predicts .70 degree whereas my version of it predicts .63 degree at a cueball speed of 8 mph. But let's say it's 1.0 degree.)

To have the cueball stop dead, the object ball has to be hit off-center by R*sin(1 deg) = 1.125"*sin(1 deg) = .0196".

With 12" of cueball travel, this introduces an error of arctan(.0196"/12") = .094 deg.

For a cue with a 15" pivot point, the true squirt angle is arctan(.45"/15") = 1.718 deg.

With the above error of .094 deg, the pivot point will instead be measured at .45"/tan(1.718 deg - .094 deg) = 15.9".

The above is not quite exact geometry, but pretty close. Do you agree with it, if not the throw part?

It's worth noting that many still seem to think that speed does not significantly increase squirt, and that the differences are mainly a result of reduced swerve when hitting hard. I've trialled this quite a lot recently and I'm convinced that increasing speed significantly increases squirt. Two aspects confuse the matter in opposing directions, swerve and reduced spin induced throw at speed.

I think that increasing speed probably does increase squirt a bit because of the increased tip offset. Is there another speed related mechanism that might affect it?

Jim

 

[Jal]

...
1. CB and OB 1 inch apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB turns left of line through centers.

2. CB and OB 3 feet apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB contacted on left side of center due to squirt (slight spin induced throw turns OB slightly left), net result is OB travels right of line through centers.

3. Somewhere between these lengths, the throw and squirt are equal in magnitude. At this length and at slightly shorter and longer lengths, parallel english alignment works quite accurately.

Can anyone else here see that this is logical? Or can anyone actually state how these points are wrong?

Makes sense to me.

Jim

 

[CaptainJR]

Yes it does work just as I described.

Please read my posts. They are easy to prove emperically (by testing). And logically consistant.

Which if any point do I make that you can argue with?
1. CB and OB 1 inch apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB turns left of line through centers.

2. CB and OB 3 feet apart. Right hand parallel english applied - OB contacted on left side of center due to squirt (slight spin induced throw turns OB slightly left), net result is OB travels right of line through centers.

3. Somewhere between these lengths, the throw and squirt are equal in magnitude. At this length and at slightly shorter and longer lengths, parallel english alignment works quite accurately.

Can anyone else here see that this is logical? Or can anyone actually state how these points are wrong?

Colin
I guess we are going to have to agree that we disagree on this. I tried this again last night. I'll admit that about three times out of ten I was able to move the object ball between 1/4 and 1/2 inch over a distance of about 6 feet. But only if I hit the shot very softly and I'm still inclined to believe that I might have swooped a little rather that using pure parallel english.

However, the point was that parallel english doesn't work. I try to remember that there are people on here that haven't been shooting that long, trying to learn. That is what I had in mind when I made this post saying that parallel english doesn't work.

There is only one position that the cue stick can be in when playing a certain shot, with a certain amount of side spin, at a certain speed, and make the shot. That is the position that gives the correct amount of compensation for throw and deflection. These methods of applying side spin are just different ways to get the cue stick to that spot. You can pivot to get to that spot. You can swerve to get to that spot. You can move your front hand to get to that spot. But if you move your front hand and your back hand in a parallel manor away from center ball line up, you can't get to that spot.

There is an assumption in the above statement. That is, when using side spin an adjustment it necessary to compensate for throw and deflection. The only way that parallel english can work is if your original center ball line up already includes the adjustment. In other words, what your moving parallel from would miss the shot. In this case you could move in a parallel manor from a position that would miss the shot to that one spot (mentioned above) that would make the shot.

I think you agree with me other than this one shot. Let's say for a moment that you are right. I still don't think so but even if you are, what is the point. After letting someone that doesn't know, know that parallel english doesn't work, why would you want to say it doesn't work only 99% of the time, but on this one shot...... Why put it in there mind, 'oh, maybe it does work'? It doesn't. The point is, they need to learn a different method because parallel doesn't work. It's like saying to a two year player that he should spend 20 minutes every day out of his daily 1 hour practice to work on some 9 ball trick shot that you saw on Trick Shot Magic, just in case it comes up. You are not going to leave your self 1 inch away from the object ball on purpose and if you do, or if it is left to you, deal with it. But don't get involved with parallel english because of it. Parallel english doesn't work.

 

[CaptainJR]

The only way I understand the term "parallel" english, is that it is to apply the same straight stroke through the cue ball as the stroke applied in a straight center ball hit, but with the body facing the shot at a different angle, or to elevate the cue at different angels, but facing the shot in the same angle as if a center ball hit is applied.

Either way, the shooter is not simply shifting parallel to the line of aim of a center ball hit.

My understanding is that it denotes a stroke going straight through the ball. The shooter also aims at the cue ball where the english is striked.

I don't know. Are we actually talking about the same thing? Not sure.

I'm going to define parallel enghish as I understand it. This is a basic explaination that I think most people are under the impression you are talking about when you talk about parallel english.

Parallel english = Line up your shot to pocket the ball. Move your back hand and your front hand the exact same distance in either direction and play a straight stroke.

At this point there must be an adjustment made to compensate for the deflection of the cue ball off the line of the cue stick. Once you have made this adjustment, you are no longer parallel.

 

[CaptainJR]

Having second thoughts.
I'm here saying that parallel english doesn't work. If what I've said has helped someone understand english that is great, if I confused you maybe this will help.

I'm sure that there are a lot of players that use parallel english or the term wouldn't exist. So why am I saying it doesn't work. Well, if you have read everything you will have noticed that I did say that it can work. This has to do with the last paragraph in my original post saying about going parallel from an already adjusted aiming line. I think this is more of a 'feel' approach to applying english. Then again making the adjustment for english is a feel thing regardless of how you apply the english. So how do you explain 'a feel thing'. It's tough. So instead of trying to explain a 'feel'. I tried to steer people away from what I thought was the approach to applying english that required the most 'feel' and toward something that requires a little less feel. So I'm having second thoughts because I'm such an advocate of working toward playing by feel.

 

[Cornerman]

Not trying to be a contrarian here Fred, but I think you're talking about another phenomenom above.

When the CB and OB, or 2 OB's are about 1/4 to 1/3 inch apart, the direction of travel of the first ball onto the second will send the second ball basically along the same path, regardless of direction. Useful to know for plants (combinations). But english still makes a significant difference of a couple of degrees at close separations..

You're right. Not english. Just direction.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

I'm not sure if this is what is meant when talking about "Parallel English", but the method that works best for me when using english (spin) is aiming the shaft to the point of contact on the object ball.

This isn't parallel english, either. But, it's a pretty powerful sighting method for inside english.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi Jim,
Thanks for giving me an afternoon of head scratching, testing and calculating

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the detailed info. I think it's pretty clear where our point of departure is: the amount throw. But first:
I think that I and everyone else agrees with your definition, if you mean by traveling along the same line that its initial line of travel is the same, ie, sans later swerve. I think you do mean this but correct me if I'm wrong.

That's right.

This is where our differences lay. The figure of 1" in 20" is almost three degrees. Dr. Dave's equations show a throw value of less than one degree at this speed, which is, I believe, about 8 mph for the 2.5 table lengths of travel. (The values shown in his graph for spin induced throw are for a cueball speed of 3 mph). Obviously, this makes for a large difference in the estimate of the error. It is of course possible that the balls you've been using are different than the ones his theory is based upon (from Wayland Marlow's experiments). A factor of three seems unlikely, but who knows?

I hadn't realized the amount of throw reduces to below a degree at that speed. I would have thought it was still at least around 2 degrees...but it could just be that I have dirty balls and not accurate measuring equipment. However, I think Dr. Dave's equations are probably pretty good, and the values shouldn't affect the overall conclusions.

I don't believe this is right if I'm reading it correctly. 1mm in one diamond's worth of travel is an angle of arctan (1/25.4/12) = .19 degree. This is the error in the squirt angle and is even smaller, by a third, if the throw is actually as the aformentioned theory predicts.

Here is an error calculation for a cue with a true pivot point of 15", a tip offset of (2/5)R (= .45"), and a throw value of one degree. (Dr. Dave's theory predicts .70 degree whereas my version of it predicts .63 degree at a cueball speed of 8 mph. But let's say it's 1.0 degree.)

To have the cueball stop dead, the object ball has to be hit off-center by R*sin(1 deg) = 1.125"*sin(1 deg) = .0196".

With 12" of cueball travel, this introduces an error of arctan(.0196"/12") = .094 deg.

For a cue with a 15" pivot point, the true squirt angle is arctan(.45"/15") = 1.718 deg.

With the above error of .094 deg, the pivot point will instead be measured at .45"/tan(1.718 deg - .094 deg) = 15.9".

The above is not quite exact geometry, but pretty close. Do you agree with it, if not the throw part?

I messed up with the 2 degree squirt....while squirt can actually be around 2 degrees, the 1mm...or a bit less than that, offset does indicate a net angle offline of about 1/10th that amount.

I went through some calculations myself and also found that the pivot point length derived from hitting around 1mm off center would only account for about a 1" difference in pivot point length.

So seems you are right and that my statement that pivot points should measure significantly longer using an OB at 1 diamond distance is not correct. I overestimated this based on a bit of guessing and sloppy math, and recalling that some who have used this method in the past came up with pivot points over 30 inches which I found hard to believe.

Anyway, it was good going through the math and I've still got a few things I want to sort out in my mind regarding this, and how it may affect some of my ideas on BHE compensation.

I think that increasing speed probably does increase squirt a bit because of the increased tip offset. Is there another speed related mechanism that might affect it?

Jim

I've suggested for a while that the mechanism affecting this is the degree of interlocking (grip), and how this effects relative forces at the tip-CB contact interface.

We see relative friction is reduced between 2 balls on high speed collision...hence less throw. I expect the relative component of friction between the tip and CB is also reduced at higher speeds.

By relative, I mean the amount of friction actually increases in both these collisions, though not in the same ratio as the elastic rebound through the center of the two masses. Basically this means their is partial slip, and this becomes more noticeable at higher speeds...at least how I can fathom it.

Colin

 

[Cornerman]

Either way, the shooter is not simply shifting parallel to the line of aim of a center ball hit.

My understanding is that it denotes a stroke going straight through the ball. The shooter also aims at the cue ball where the english is striked.

Did someone else other than the internet forums describe it such a fashion?

Parallel aimining is exacty what it sounds like, right or wrong. The cue stick is parallel and is stroked parallel to what would be a center ball stroke. If it wasn't parallel, then it wouldn't be called parallel. It would be pivoted

Parallel Aiming, as Bob Jewett See It

Many instructors of two or three decades ago believed that the cueball would still go straight.

Fred

 

[Chris]

Yes it does work just as I described.

Please read my posts. They are easy to prove emperically (by testing). And logically consistant.
. . .
Can anyone else here see that this is logical? Or can anyone actually state how these points are wrong?

Yes, it's logical. It is completely consistent with my experiences. It is also consistent with Newtonian Physics. There is no reason why parallel english should not work. Physics is Physics.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin
I guess we are going to have to agree that we disagree on this. I tried this again last night. I'll admit that about three times out of ten I was able to move the object ball between 1/4 and 1/2 inch over a distance of about 6 feet. But only if I hit the shot very softly and I'm still inclined to believe that I might have swooped a little rather that using pure parallel english.

However, the point was that parallel english doesn't work. I try to remember that there are people on here that haven't been shooting that long, trying to learn. That is what I had in mind when I made this post saying that parallel english doesn't work.




I think you agree with me other than this one shot. Let's say for a moment that you are right. I still don't think so but even if you are, what is the point. After letting someone that doesn't know, know that parallel english doesn't work, why would you want to say it doesn't work only 99% of the time, but on this one shot...... Why put it in there mind, 'oh, maybe it does work'? It doesn't. The point is, they need to learn a different method because parallel doesn't work. It's like saying to a two year player that he should spend 20 minutes every day out of his daily 1 hour practice to work on some 9 ball trick shot that you saw on Trick Shot Magic, just in case it comes up. You are not going to leave your self 1 inch away from the object ball on purpose and if you do, or if it is left to you, deal with it. But don't get involved with parallel english because of it. Parallel english doesn't work.

JR,
I think you have a point in this and your follow up post about the practicality of teaching someone to try to align parallel for english. In the end it is very much a feel thing.

But I think it is useful to know how it works, especially when the separation between CB and OB is a foot or less.

In this range, squirt deviation is rarely enough to align to pocket the ball using BHE as throw will usually send the OB further off line than the squirt does. This is particularly noticeable on fullish to 1/2 ball shots on the Outside English side. (Note: Throw has less effect on IE collisions).

BHE still can work on these closer shots by increasing bridge length and speed, but the closer the balls are, the harder this becomes.

It is true that it is very hard to know if you are lined up actually parallel. I'm sure most who say they are playing parallel english, and especially those who think they are doing so on longer separation shots are simply under an illusion most the time.

But by knowing the parallel alignment to the pot angle can work in the short range straight and OE cut domain, where BHE is unsuitable, then a player has a better chance to approach the shot in the best way, even though in the end the player is judging the shot with feel (intuitive judgement) based on experience.

Try some BHE versus parallel english on some straight pots. 6 inch CB to OB separation and 6 feet of travel to the pocket. Try the same with 3/4 ball cut on OE and IE sides and see how they compare.

Colin