Proof of what causes miscues

When I got an OB Pro shaft @ 11.75 mm dia. tip, after always using shafts that
were at least 12.75, I suddenly started miscuing on extreme draw shots. The result
was a scoop jump.
At first, I thought because of the smaller tip, I was cueing too low because I could.
Then I realized that the high deflecting shaft was simply doing it's job, and deflecting
downward into the cloth! I wish I had figured it out before I put three nice divots in
my cloth.
I now make sure I cue no lower than I could with a 13 mm shaft and the ball draws
as it should.
 
jeffj2h said:
When the cue hits the CB at an angle, it miscues more easily then when the cue hits the CB parallel to the aim.
Click to expand...
I think this illustration shows what you are talking about here:

tip_offset.jpg

Regards,
Dave
 
oldschool1478 said:
When I got an OB Pro shaft @ 11.75 mm dia. tip, after always using shafts that
were at least 12.75, I suddenly started miscuing on extreme draw shots. The result
was a scoop jump.
At first, I thought because of the smaller tip, I was cueing too low because I could.
Then I realized that the high deflecting shaft was simply doing it's job, and deflecting
downward into the cloth! I wish I had figured it out before I put three nice divots in
my cloth.
I now make sure I cue no lower than I could with a 13 mm shaft and the ball draws
as it should.
Click to expand...
There several possible explanations for why people sometimes think a low-squirt shaft creates more spin. This is one. For more info, see the getting more spin with a low-squirt (AKA "low cue ball deflection" or LD) shaft resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 
I call BS. If you go on the extremes off center in any direction, poke stroke or don't chalk, you may miscue. To say draw miscues are caused by the tip bouncing off the table is silly. You really don't need to be going so far under the cueball anyway. Follow through and accelleration are what generate CB spin. I almost never have to go more than a tiip below center ball and cal draw the rock like Earl.
 
It seems incorrect to say that a miscue on draw shots is caused by hitting the table first but rather that when you miscue on draw shots you happen to hit the table first.

I'm sure if you were to place a book vertically with the cue ball touching it and miscued applying side-spin, you would also hit the book first simply because you are hitting the cue ball with less than half the width of the cue tip. It just so happens that on draw shots, the table is there to deflect the cue back into the cue ball.
 
Making something obvious into something complicated again.

All miscues are caused by striking the ball further off center than the tip-to-ball frictional force allows.

Testing whether the tip strikes the cloth on a draw shot miscue is the opposite of relevant in one's efforts to minimize miscues.

Chalk well, stroke accurately, and learn where the miscue limit is. Done.

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
Making something obvious into something complicated again.

All miscues are caused by striking the ball further off center than the tip-to-ball frictional force allows.

Testing whether the tip strikes the cloth on a draw shot miscue is the opposite of relevant in one's efforts to minimize miscues.

Chalk well, stroke accurately, and learn where the miscue limit is. Done.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Good post, and well stated.

Dave
 
Andrew Manning said:
Making something obvious into something complicated again.

All miscues are caused by striking the ball further off center than the tip-to-ball frictional force allows.

Testing whether the tip strikes the cloth on a draw shot miscue is the opposite of relevant in one's efforts to minimize miscues.

Chalk well, stroke accurately, and learn where the miscue limit is. Done.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

You're no fun.
 
I hate to burst your bubble.

jeffj2h said:
Here is an experiment to try that Bert Kinister showed me. Have a friend hold the cue ball firmly on the table. Chalk your cue tip. Now place your cue tip on the cue ball and push with extreme force. You will find that if you are using a parallel cue shift to produce the english, you can use much more english then your would have thought, without the cue tip sliding off the CB. You can even have the edge of the tip hanging in the air outside the edge of the CB! Earl Strickland has said that he often uses more then two tips of english, and I don't see him miscue much.

Now try the experiment again but angle the cue (use a pivot shift to produce the english). The cue tip will slide off the CB much easier.
Click to expand...

pivoting for english and parallel shifting for english will not change the angle of approach at all using the same cue with the cueball following the same path. It is only an apparent greater from center hit, not an actual one.

If the CB follows the same path, you will have the exact same amount of sidespin on it, regardless of the approach technique...

Jaden
 
BasementDweller said:
When you compare hitting the cue ball at an angle with hitting the cue ball parallel to the aim line you are really talking about completely different aim lines. In the one shot where you are hitting the cue ball at an angle you will have way more English on the ball than on the other shot so you will be more likely to miscue in that example.

I think this boils down to the misconception about parallel English. It really doesn't exist in the way people on here think it does.

I think it was Dave Segal (spiderwebcom) that first mentioned using a bridge to see what really happens when you supposedly use parallel English. Line up a straight in, center ball shot with the bridge and then slide over "parallel" and see what happens. If your cue is not angled to account for the squirt you will not make the shot. What you find out is there really is only one angle of attack for any shot/English combination and it doesn't matter which way you apply English (backhand, fronthand, parallel or any combination of the above) you always end up with your cue pointing in the same direction.

At least this has been my understanding of this for some time now. I’m never above being corrected by those more knowledgeable than I am so we’ll see what the smart guys have to say.
Click to expand...
That's correct. The interaction between the tip and the cue ball basically boils down to a point of contact and a force vector that is a product of the tip velocity at impact and the mass of the last few inches of the cue. It's a bit of a simplification, but that model gives a good approximation of what happens on most shots. Assuming a constant end mass, each combination of point of contact and velocity will produce a unique reaction from the cue ball. Therefore, to produce the same shot using backhand english and "parallel" english, you have to somehow arrive at the same point of contact with the same velocity vector when you make contact with the cue ball.
 
dr_dave said:
Good post, and well stated.

Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I think you understand me, but for the sake of clarity it's not your flavor of complicated I object to. I like that we have high-speed video to elucidate the things in pool that happen faster than the eye can follow, and I like that physics can be used to explain it all.

It's the people that apparently don't understand basic physics and therefore try to substitute their own mysticism, often over-complicating and always confusing the issue, that annoy me. Stop making the physical aspects of pool so complicated! They're not, provided you know enough to filter out the mysticism!

Okay, done ranting.

-Andrew
 
krupa said:
You don't know what you're talking about. I have high-speed camera footage to prove he's fun!
Click to expand...

What is fun really?

Some people define it as pool+laughs=fun. For others it's more pool+money=fun. I don't think either of these definitions really work. I mean neither of them include women or alcohol.

Let's discuss this shall we?

What does fun really mean to you? You start the thread and I'll magically reappear once it reaches 12 pages.
 
Andrew Manning said:
Thanks.

I think you understand me, but for the sake of clarity it's not your flavor of complicated I object to. I like that we have high-speed video to elucidate the things in pool that happen faster than the eye can follow, and I like that physics can be used to explain it all.

It's the people that apparently don't understand basic physics and therefore try to substitute their own mysticism, often over-complicating and always confusing the issue, that annoy me. Stop making the physical aspects of pool so complicated! They're not, provided you know enough to filter out the mysticism!

Okay, done ranting.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Lighten up.

Some of us that don't have as strong of a physics background still like to talk about stuff. That's what this forum is for.

Everybody should be free to throw out their thoughts. The layman can sometimes make things more clear to me than the expert. The only problem I have is there are a lot of layman on here that act as if they are experts and they speak with an authority that they really don't have. Often times they need to step out of the way when they don't know what they are talking about -- but they hardly ever do. Just to be clear -- I'm not directing this at you because you seem like you know what you're talking about.

I just try to keep this in mind when venturing into waters that are too deep for me. I wish a few others would do the same.
 
SloMoHolic said:
I no longer have a home table, but I can confirm that draw miscues often result in the tip bouncing off the cloth. But to be clear, the tip bouncing off the cloth doesn't cause the miscue; it's the other way around.
Click to expand...

It looked like he had the piece of cloth at the back of QB, not under it. If that is the case wouldnt the tip be past the piece of sacrificial cloth and not move it forward?
 
Sure, a miscue can occur by hitting the table 1st. I don't think any of my infrequent miscues have been a result of that. My miscues are due to:

1) contact beyond the CB limit
2) improper chalking
3) tip improperly scuffed, shaped, old & tired, or just inferior
4) too many beers
5) some, or all of the above
 
BasementDweller said:
Some of us that don't have as strong of a physics background still like to talk about stuff. That's what this forum is for.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

BasementDweller said:
Everybody should be free to throw out their thoughts. The layman can sometimes make things more clear to me than the expert. The only problem I have is there are a lot of layman on here that act as if they are experts and they speak with an authority that they really don't have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the issue. Dr. So-and-So said miscues are caused by sea serpents, and a certain (seemingly large) percentage of pool players don't know what really causes miscues and so they can't really say it isn't sea serpents. Some of them chime in and agree. Others say that's ridiculous because it's obviously sunspots. Others jump in and point out that the half-life of Master's blue (pre-flag) is actually 59.7", and thus miscues happen when your cue is too short. We propose thought experiments to point out why the opposing theories can't be right.

It's all a little silly when the answer's both fairly simple, and to me, pretty obvious, but it's getting lost amongst all the voices of authority. I overemphasize once in a while to try to cut through it all.

-Andrew
 
"You don't miscue because of your tip, you miscue because of ain't got no stroke" "Stay away from the edges and learn to stay close to center ball and you won't have any problems" "When all else fails, sell your stuff and take up knitting" - classic Dave Bollman lines

In this case, I think A Touch of Andrew is the Teacher ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top