Peak Acceleration In Your Stroke?

[JoeW]

strange but useful shots

Not sure about others but I have always had difficulty with safety shots when the CB and OB are close together. I want to move the OB a few inches and I want to exactly position the CB. Perhaps I want to stick the CB to another OB to lock it up. Stop shots and stun shots have their uses but are often difficult to control in close quarters.

A fellow I play with has this ability to move the CB short distances in close quarters with amazing regularity and usually places the CB where he wants it. For weeks I have been somewhat amazed at his ability as he really is not that good of a player. A few nights ago I decided to observe closely what he was doing. I observed that he seems to have the cue tip elevated (relative to the butt) and he hits very high on the CB. It is like a high soft nip shot. (Those of us who are not engineers and have no desire to learn the terminology still have muddy thoughts on the topic).

I tried his technique when I got home and found that it works quite well. The shot has its uses and whether it is physically impossible, not well stated, or sounds useless; it is worth a try for those who need good control in close quarters.

I did find that with some adjusting it is possible to have the cue tip higher than the butt even when the CB is on the rail on my Gold Crown III. However the shot is of most use when the Cue stick can be placed inside the rail.

In my thinking a masse involves placing some curve on the CB. I think this is the traditional definition of the term. However, there are times that I want to draw the CB in close quarters and it is possible to use a masse with no curve to draw straight back. I do not know what to call such a shot so I use the term "above center draw" as a way to tell myself what I want to do -- a masse without curve.

 

[David Beck]

Patrick, If I have a ball about 6 inches off the end rail, the CB at the other end of the table. I shoot to kick behind the object ball using high (forward) english and the cue ball stops dead after impact. Why doesn't the forward allow the CB to advance?

Because the cue ball doesn't reverse spin off the rail. It's still spinning forward, but it's now moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, the follow becomes draw. Eventually the friction from the cloth will take over and the cue ball will take on natural roll, which is why this shot only works close to the rail.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

"To avoid the double hit the tip must decelerate quickly after impact, which probably means it must already be decelerating at impact." First half is very true, second half may not be true.

I agree; that's why I said "probably".

Me:
You can get good draw with a decelerating stick

Randy:
Quantify "good draw" please

As much as you can get any other way, assuming the speed of the stick at impact is the same and you hit the same CB spot.

It has been directly observed that the stick decelerates by half when it hits the ball (the soft flesh of your hand permits that), then re-accelerates after the ball is gone, but even then not up to its pre-impact speed. There is no "acceleration through the ball" except as a useful concept.

Smooth, continuous acceleration is like its close relative, followthrough: neither has any effect after impact, but both are useful ways to think of the stroke in order to achieve the best pre-impact and at-impact results.

[In case it needs to be said: This isn't disagreement for its own sake. Knowing the truth about such details can have real practical value.]

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

Because the cue ball doesn't reverse spin off the rail. It's still spinning forward, but it's now moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, the follow becomes draw. Eventually the friction from the cloth will take over and the cue ball will take on natural roll, which is why this shot only works close to the rail.

Makes sense. Knew it worked, never sat around to figure out why. Thanks.

Now that opens another question. If I have a ball on the side rail with other balls in front of my shot line to the OB. I kick at it with draw; I can hit the OB and then draw back behind that group of balls. Why doesn't follow take over here?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Those of us who are not engineers and have no desire to learn the terminology still have muddy thoughts on the topic.

Getting the mud out of the way is why it can be useful to learn what's actually happening.

I tried his technique when I got home and found that it works quite well. The shot has its uses and whether it is physically impossible, not well stated, or sounds useless; it is worth a try for those who need good control in close quarters.

And if you know what's actually happening, you might be able to apply the technique in situations you haven't thought of.

I did find that with some adjusting it is possible to have the cue tip higher than the butt even when the CB is on the rail on my Gold Crown III.

The rail of a GC3 (not the cushion nose) is 1 3/4" high. That's into miscue territory. You might be able to get a good hit with a very soft shot and a level stick, but I'm skeptical of an upward angled stick.

In my thinking a masse involves placing some curve on the CB. I think this is the traditional definition of the term.

I'd say a change of direction.

However, there are times that I want to draw the CB in close quarters and it is possible to use a masse with no curve to draw straight back. I do not know what to call such a shot so I use the term "above center draw" as a way to tell myself what I want to do -- a masse without curve.

I think "masse without curve" is accurate and descriptive, but "above center draw" is misleading. For follow and draw, the "effective center" (the one that matters) is the equator tilted to the same angle as your stick, so above the horizontal equator may be below the effective center.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If I have a ball on the side rail with other balls in front of my shot line to the OB. I kick at it with draw; I can hit the OB and then draw back behind that group of balls. Why doesn't follow take over here?

You can't kick a ball and "draw" the CB back closer to the rail by putting draw on the CB. You can do it (to a limited degree) by putting follow on the CB, which, as has been said, becomes draw after hitting the rail (if the rail isn't too dirty).

This can be tricky to see, because kicking a ball at a cut angle (not hitting it square) can look like that, but it's actually the carom, not draw, that's doing it:

CueTable Help

pj
chgo

 

[JoeW]

From Merriam Webster:
Masse, " a shot in billiards or pool made by hitting the cue ball vertically or nearly vertically on the side to drive it around one ball in order to strike another ball."

If you hit it on the side it is going to curve -- right?

And yes I agree a curve is a change of direction. And there to is my fuzzy thinking. I do not intentionally often think about the center of the CB (those I suppose I should). Center is usually thought of relative to the horizintal cente with regard to speed control. There is follow and draw and there is a type of draw wherin one hits above the horizonal center.

Of course center also has other meanings relative to English and of course there is the center of the CB relative to a masse shot. Hmm all of these are taken into consideration and I guess there is a need for a better vocabulary -- OH that is what engineers and similar folks do. Thanks for the clairification

I guess I could call it "above horizontal center line draw" but it just doesn't have the ring to it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

From Merriam Webster:
Masse, " a shot in billiards or pool made by hitting the cue ball vertically or nearly vertically on the side to drive it around one ball in order to strike another ball."

Leaving non-curving masse out of the definition implies that something different is happening in the two cases, when in fact it's the same dynamic: spin about a horizontal axis is causing a change in direction without impacting another object (that might even be the technical definition of "curve", I don't know).

Is it masse if the CB curves but there's no ball to go around? Which of the examples in the following diagram are masse and which are not?

CueTable Help

BTW, I think it's "masse" even when you curve the CB without jacking up, such as when you put follow or draw on a kick shot or a cut shot - the CB curves after impact in those cases without another impact occurring. This is usually called "masse effect" rather than just masse.

I guess I could call it "above horizontal center line draw" but it just doesn't have the ring to it.

I like "center of mass" or "3-D center". If your stick is pointed above the center of mass (the 3-D center inside the ball), it's follow.

I do not intentionally often think about the center of the CB (those I suppose I should). Center is usually thought of relative to the horizintal cente with regard to speed control.

If you did, it would be obvious (for instance) how to get follow on a jump shot.

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

You can't kick a ball and "draw" the CB back closer to the rail by putting draw on the CB. You can do it (to a limited degree) by putting follow on the CB, which, as has been said, becomes draw after hitting the rail (if the rail isn't too dirty).

This can be tricky to see, because kicking a ball at a cut angle (not hitting it square) can look like that, but it's actually the carom, not draw, that's doing it:

CueTable Help

pj
chgo

Sorry to differ with you there, Patrick, but, I can put draw on this shot below and get the outcome described.. I know it is draw and not a carom because you can actually view the shot happening.

Think of it this way, when Semih Saginer shoots his super draw shot in the corner, his CB actually hits the rail three times with draw. You would think that after one of the times the ball would reverse to follow and go back and hit the OB if this was not possible. The CB never hits the OB again till the draw wears out.

CueTable Help

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Think of it this way, when Semih Saginer shoots his super draw shot in the corner, his CB actually hits the rail three times with draw. You would think that after one of the times the ball would reverse to follow and go back and hit the OB if this was not possible. Could possibly be a carom the first time, but, the second or third, the CB never hits the OB again till the draw wears out.

But he doesn't put draw on the CB; he puts follow on it (defined by its direction when it first hits the rail). The direction of that spin never changes, although the CB changes direction several times. What you're proposing is that the spin changes direction.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeW]

Hey -- maybe that is why RandyG calls it a piercing shot. Now there is a good name.

And from your diagram and Merriam's thoughts (ya like that) those would not be masse shots, by definition. Seems the vocabulary needs to be expanded in more than one direction.

So what would you call a shot that has more spin than acceleration or in which the residual energy on the CB is quickly dissipated when the cue ball is hit very high on the vertical axis (got away from the nasty center term)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry to differ with you there, Patrick, but, I can put draw on this shot below and get the outcome described.. I know it is draw and not a carom because you can actually view the shot happening.

Sorry to differ with you too, klockdoc, but I don't believe you can do what you diagrammed. In that case I think draw would make the CB behave this way:

CueTable Help

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

But he doesn't put draw on the CB; he puts follow on it. The direction of that spin never changes, although the CB changes direction several times. What you're proposing is that the spin changes direction.

pj
chgo

Patrick, at work today so I do not have time to look up the video, but, if you have seen any of his work, I am sure you seen this shot.

He draws off the red ball and the CB hits the rail three times before hitting the white.

He doesn't shoot it with follow. (billiard table not available, so this will have to work)

CueTable Help

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hey -- maybe that is why RandyG calls it a piercing shot. Now there is a good name.

And from your diagram and Merriam's thoughts (ya like that) those would not be masse shots, by definition. Seems the vocabulary needs to be expanded in more than one direction.

So what would you call a shot that has more spin than acceleration or in which the residual energy on the CB is quickly dissipated when the cue ball is hit very high on the vertical axis (got away from the nasty center term)

I don't really know what you're saying here, so any attempt to answer would probably only confuse matters more. I think we're getting too far out on the semantic limb.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, at work today so I do not have time to look up the video, but, if you have seen any of his work, I am sure you seen this shot.

He draws off the red ball and the CB hits the rail three times before hitting the white.

He doesn't shoot it with follow. (billiard table not available, so this will have to work)

Yeah, I've seen the shot many times, so I know what you're talking about. I edited my post (just before reading this one from you) to clarify that "follow" means the direction of the spin as it hits the first rail. It's draw in relation to the OB and then follow in relation to the rail. Then it's draw each time it comes off the rail and follow again each additional time it hits the rail.

These changing terms aren't changes in the direction of spin, but changes in direction of the CB - the direction of the spin remains the same. But in order for draw into the cushion to become draw coming off the cushion, the direction of spin would have to reverse.

[Edit: What I should have said is that "draw" and "follow" are terms that only make sense in relation to the direction of the CB. Follow is spin in the same direction as the CB's direction and draw is spin in the opposite direction as the CB. As the CB changes direction, follow changes to draw and vice verse, but the "absolute" direction of spin (spinning toward the cushion or away from it) doesn't change.]

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

Yeah, I've seen the shot many times, so I know what you're talking about. I edited my post (just before reading this one from you) to clarify that "follow" means the direction of the spin as it hits the first rail. It's draw in relation to the OB and then follow in relation to the rail. Then it's draw each time it comes off the rail and follow again each additional time it hits the rail.

These changing terms aren't changes in the direction of spin, but changes in direction of the CB - the direction of the spin remains the same. But in order for draw into the cushion to become draw coming off the cushion, the direction of spin would have to reverse.

[Edit: What I should have said is that "draw" and "follow" are terms that only make sense in relation to the direction of the CB. Follow is spin in the same direction as the CB's direction and draw is spin in the opposite direction as the CB. As the CB changes direction, follow changes to draw and vice verse, but the "absolute" direction of spin (spinning toward the cushion or away from it) doesn't change.]

pj
chgo

I will have to decipher this later tonight. But, I think that coming off the head rail the ball reverses as was stated. Follow becomes draw after the rail when it hits the OB.

But, on the side rail, the CB doesn't really change directions, it comes off the side, at an angle hits the OB with draw and then returns to the rail with the same spin (draw).

If I shot straight into the side rail, I can see what you are saying, but, coming in at an angle, it doesn't affect it. Correct?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I will have to decipher this later tonight. But, I think that coming off the head rail the ball reverses as was stated. Follow becomes draw after the rail when it hits the OB.

But, on the side rail, the CB doesn't really change directions, it comes off the side, at an angle hits the OB with draw and then returns to the rail with the same spin (draw).

If I shot straight into the side rail, I can see what you are saying, but, coming in at an angle, it doesn't affect it. Correct?

Not quite. Even though your shot goes into the rail at an angle (not straight into the rail), it's still an angle into the rail, so the draw spin will still pull the CB away from the rail at an angle - like I show in my amendment to your diagram. For the draw spin to pull the CB back toward the rail after hitting the OB, the spin would have to change direction - not 180 degrees like when you're shooting straight into the rail, maybe only 60 or 90 degrees, but an impossible change nonetheless.

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

Not quite. Even though your shot goes into the rail at an angle (not straight into the rail), it's still an angle into the rail, so the draw spin will still pull the CB away from the rail at an angle - like I show in my amendment to your diagram. For the draw spin to pull the CB back toward the rail after hitting the OB, the spin would have to change direction - not 180 degrees like when you're shooting straight into the rail, maybe only 60 or 90 degrees, but an impossible change nonetheless.

pj
chgo

Well, logically, I guess you are correct. Some spin is lost. However, I have seen this happen many times and have also accomplished this myself.

If you look at a cue ball spinning counterclockwise going into the rail at an angle, that CB has the same spin on it as it hits the object ball coming off the rail (not reversed) to influence draw on the CB. Now it will depend on where you contact the object ball, but, you can definitely draw that CB backwards after impact.

If you can't see that or try that, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can't change my thinking here. (stubborn) I guess.

Anyone else out there been able to accomplish this?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

logically, I guess you are correct. Some spin is lost.

I didn't say any spin was lost.

If you look at a cue ball spinning counterclockwise going into the rail at an angle,

Sidespin is irrelevant to this, but OK.

...that CB has the same spin on it as it hits the object ball coming off the rail (not reversed)

Yes, that's the same thing we've been saying about draw - it doesn't reverse. That's why the CB can't go back toward the rail.

...to influence draw on the CB.

Sidespin won't influence draw.

Now it will depend on where you contact the object ball, but, you can definitely draw that CB backwards after impact.

By backwards I guess you mean back toward the rail, and I still maintain it won't happen.

pj
chgo

 

[klockdoc]

I didn't say any spin was lost.

Sorry, mis-read your answer

Sidespin is irrelevant to this, but OK.

Guess my terminology is not the same as yours. When I said look at a CB spinning counterclockwise, I meant seeing a CB with draw. Not sidespin.

Yes, that's the same thing we've been saying about draw - it doesn't reverse. That's why the CB can't go back toward the rail.

It doesn't have to reverse! It is going into the object ball spinning the same direction as if it were shot not coming off the rail. if it is hitting the ball with a draw spin, it will draw after contact.

Sidespin won't influence draw.

Answered above. You are correct. It won't

By backwards I guess you mean back toward the rail, and I still maintain it won't happen.
pj
chgo

Yes you are correct. Backwards = draw