Hi Roger,This is an interesting thread to me since I have argued with Dr. Dave in the past about the values of previously-conducted squirt tests - both robotic, and manual. I had maintained that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated as long as the tip struck the cue ball above the horizontal axis, and is struck with as level a cue as possible.
So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt. (Remember, I have been thinking that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated with this type of hit.) So, I tested it over and over, and found that the exact speed of stroke, and maybe a few other unseen and/or undetected variables, gave varying results in the amount of squirt produced.
Then I tested a Predator 314. This time, I was again surprised. The 314 still produced squirt (just as dr. Dave has reported it will), but it was not significantly less than the graphite cue. As near as I could tell, it was only about 1/8th of an inch over a distance of 70-inches. But again, results varied with speed and those other unseen and/or undetected variables.
My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go. And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot. Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong.![]()
Roger
I've done a lot of squirt testing as I've developed and exclusively use back hand english. What you are saying about negating squirt is true, but the variables involved in its execution are much harder to control than the system I use.
The biggest issues are speed of shot and degree of english. If you're 1mm off on where the cue strikes the object ball, it will change the line of shot considerably, and if you go from a slow to a fast shot, there will be variation as well.
This doesn't even take into account that playing position often requires side spin with stun and draw.
If you try some shots at various speeds and greater and lesser degrees of side spin (offset from center), I think you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
From my experience, BHE works best with low deflection cues, though on some soft long shots, the bridge length becomes awkwardly long to accommodate the effective pivot point.
Yours is an interesting approach though. I'll consider it and see if I can find some practical applications for it in game play. I generally avoid hitting very far above center unless it is a power shot, due to the early swerve effect. On slowere shots, I can hit at the center line and natural roll gathers over a foot or so.