Nah. No thanks. He's far from an expert.
power draw
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
For some of them the flex is against the chin, or so it seems.
If you do this without the cue ball, you could get the hang of it in a week +/- dental work. The problem must be cue alignment and/or placement.
In addition to being a pretty good pool player, he's also a professor of mechanical engineering trained in controlled experimentation with a fascination for pool dynamics - so literally a certified expert in exactly this. You're welcome to your own preference in experts, but in this area Dave's one of very few.
pj
chgo
Compare to the Rexperts competing for stage time.
Well I have a different opinion of him, going back to when he first started posting things on his website. He conveniently forgot to give credit to people in our industry, thus allowing the impression that it was all his original work. In his field, he should have known better. I can't accept that as a mere oversight. I called him on that a few times in the Billiards Digest forum and maybe this one too. As far as his ability to play --- from what I've seen by his demonstrations, he was acting as an expert from when he started posting and he was at a beginner skill level. I certainly hope his skill level has improved over the past 10 years to at least "pretty good."
I don't know anything about your complaint, but it doesn't seem to be about his scientific expertise or his experiment-based conclusions about open/closed bridges.
pj
chgo
I know you don't know anything about my complaint. That's why I took the time to explain it to you. I won't do that for just anybody. My point is this: Just because a person has a background in science, it doesn't mean they can enter any field, put a scientific spin on it and call them self an expert. If that were the case, then any scientist can enter any profession and call them self an expert.
I think you need to spend more time on Dr. Dave's site, Fran.
No, your absolute statement is incorrect--and arrogant.
As an expert instructor, I'm sure you can tell us what's incorrect about it.
pj
chgo
He's going to have to become a lot more humble to make up for his past mistakes and win me over. It's probably not worth it for him so I'll just stay away from all that.
Not my business, but...
You don't have to forgive him to make use of his efforts. Your choice, of course, but I believe it'll be your loss to reject the wealth of info there because of an unresolved issue.
pj
chgo
I'll use him when it suits me, just like he uses others when it suits him. That's about the best I will offer someone like him. Oh and by the way, I've had some back and forths in this forum with him regarding some of his experiments and conclusions --- and although I'm not a scientist, I caught errors in his logic where he failed to consider important variables. To me, that comes from lack of knowledge from not being a true player and a level of arrogance of thinking he's got it covered.
Last edited:
Your view is yours, of course.
For balance, here's mine: Dave's a friend and I have great respect for what I know of him, his expertise and his principles.
pj
chgo
For one, it's ridiculous on its face to say, "EVERY player gets no benefit from X". In this case, X is a closed bridge used for power draw or other specialty shots.
I've never said that. I acknowledged that a closed bridge can help compensate for sloppy stroke mechanics - but it can't add anything to an open bridge shot with good mechanics.
You don't need me to argue with your strawmen...
pj
chgo
Yes, it is always about the amount, not if, the butt is raised, isn't it? The rail prevents a totally level cue. Oddly, CJ told me my stick was "too level". It seems to me the most important thing is the direction the stick is headed. It HAS to be going down towards the cloth to avoid miscuing. Level, maybe, but even slightly up and you miscue. The argument seems to be how much angle, not if there is an angle. I recently discovered how crazy far I can draw with a short bridge. In my case it is because I can hit so precisely. If I had a professional stroke I could do the same thing with a long bridge like the pros. But with my flawed stroke I have learned accuracy is THE most important component in my draw shot. I learned this by accident. I shortened up for accuracy and control and found the cue ball come screaming back at me more then I expected. I found I was hitting the cue ball where I used to "think" I was hitting it.
I practice draw shots (and other extreme spin shots) by looking at the cue ball during the shot stroke - it's very effective for accuracy and very instructive, both about how inaccurate I normally am and about how important it is.
pj
chgo
I disagree, still. Of course a closed bridge can add help shot making (as I wrote, on a number of specialty shots)!
You like shooting pool experiments. So shoot the diagram below and report back to everyone here, after trying to sink both the cue ball and object ball in the far corner, with follow.
And so we know the pros only use the closed bridge as you wrote for "psychological benefit only", aim and practice stroke as some pros do, at the base of the cue ball. Shoot it five times with an open bridge, five times with a closed bridge, cueing and practice stroking at the base of the ball, then adding topspin on the final forward stroke only . . .
. . . At issue, of course, is your confined thinking, confined to "one stroke fits all".