Question about intentional swerve

ENGLISH! said:
What did SmoothStroke say about the direction of his stroke for the shoot he was talking about?

I asked Greg a question.

You answered nothing that was being asked.

I know what you're doing & others know too.

May God Bless & Help You, Neil.

PS If I'm mistaken & you were truly trying to be helpful in stating the rather obvious in your 1st. paragraph & ???? in your 2nd. paragraph, then I apologize for my mistake.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so do I, I actually provided factual information! God forbid that should happen on here! Oh, the horror of it all!
 
Neil said:
As I said before, I was responding to a particual video clip in a post. Not to all shots on a table. Sorry that keeping up with the actual conversation was lost on you, Rick, and anyone else. Again, just in case you missed it again, my reply was to what was posted in the conversation. Not to any shot imaginable. Sheesh, do try and keep up with the conversations around here and stop putting words into others mouths to try and make them look stupid. It only makes you look stupid.
Click to expand...

Neil,

Perhaps you should try heeding your own advice & perhaps you would not appear as you do to so many. I could tell you stories but I'll just stop here.

May God Bless & Help You, Neil.
Rick
 
Last edited:
If Neil doesn't understand a lever and a fulcrum that is his problem... Realizing a descending butt means an ascending tip..... That is still his problem....

I am talking about minor differences in stoke plane.. Those may be the differences in playing the game at the highest level or just pushing the ball around on the weekend and posting here on AZ..

So far the scientwishts can replicate a level stroke.. Great..... Noone uses that but in the vacuum. Use it in practice?? Better go teach cause you can't do..
 
Colin Colenso said:
A lot of people think they are hitting CCB when they are actually hitting slightly above CCB. This could be because the eyes are looking down on the tip and also possibly because the perception of CCB from the eye position is higher that CCB surface point relative to the line of cue.

Combine this with the fact that a touch of follow quickly turns into natural roll, especially on slow to medium speed shots and I think we can see why people think they are getting follow instantly from lower CB striking.
Click to expand...

True, but that's not so much the point. The appearance/perception is different because the cue ball hop is lessened with a lower striking point on the cue ball. The cue ball stays closer to the table bed and moves forward slightly sooner, giving the shot more spin/stroke with a closer to center angle of address.

Best,
Mike
 
Neil said:
Up until now, I haven't addressed the issue of those talking about using an "up stroke", and how effective it is. Earlier, AtLarge posed a question that went ignored. His question was very relevant to the discussion.

I just checked something on my table, which is a Valley. Laying the butt of the cue on the rail, and the cue extending out on the table, I wanted to check how high the tip was off the table with a level cue. Level being a straight line down the center of the cue. Center of butt to center of tip.

I placed a striped ball at the tip, and checked where the tip contacts the ob with a level cue. As level as it can be since it stopped by the rail from going any lower. With a level cue, the bottom portion of the tip, which is what will contact the ob, is a little above the miscue limit (the stripe) on the ob.

Therefore, unless one has the butt of the cue out on the table, which would result in a very long reach, (cue has to have the butt at least 4" out on the bed to be able to stroke it), one can not even shoot with a level cue, let alone with the tip raised to create an upstroke. And, even if one could, it would result in a massive miscue.

Just because some pro says something works, doesn't mean that one should automatically believe it. especially when it is so easily checked and proven to be false. There are a ton of myths out there that have no basis in reality.

So, on a pool table, you can't use an upstroke. On a billiard table, I don't know. It has larger balls, and I don't know the height of the rails on those.
Click to expand...

There is no qualifier in that statement.

Sorry for the tough 'love' but you need it.
 
Neil said:
Don't really know why I bothered, because you are only going to see what you want to see...but here is a pick of his final stroke, just before he hits the cb. Notice that it is on a level plane with exactly where he hits. His warmup strokes were at about a center ball hit. His final stroke is on line with where he wants to hit.

View attachment 373632
Click to expand...

The ball is gone in that frame.

That proves nothing as to where the cue was at the beginning of contact.

I'm not saying you are wrong in this particular instance as I have only looked at it but once at normal speed.

I'm just saying this is the wrong frame & does not support what you're saying.

I've sold surveillance systems & stills from video can at times can be very misleading as they can be suggestive of something that did not actually happen.

That is why there are 'laws' regarding it in legal proceedings.
 
The Renfro said:
If Neil doesn't understand a lever and a fulcrum that is his problem... Realizing a descending butt means an ascending tip..... That is still his problem....

I am talking about minor differences in stoke plane.. Those may be the differences in playing the game at the highest level or just pushing the ball around on the weekend and posting here on AZ..

So far the scientwishts can replicate a level stroke.. Great..... Noone uses that but in the vacuum. Use it in practice?? Better go teach cause you can't do..
Click to expand...


I agree with most of that & I agree with all of that... for some.:wink:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Colenso View Post
A lot of people think they are hitting CCB when they are actually hitting slightly above CCB. This could be because the eyes are looking down on the tip and also possibly because the perception of CCB from the eye position is higher that CCB surface point relative to the line of cue.

Combine this with the fact that a touch of follow quickly turns into natural roll, especially on slow to medium speed shots and I think we can see why people think they are getting follow instantly from lower CB striking.


True, but that's not so much the point. The appearance/perception is different because the cue ball hop is lessened with a lower striking point on the cue ball. The cue ball stays closer to the table bed and moves forward slightly sooner, giving the shot more spin/stroke with a closer to center angle of address.

Best,
Mike

Another thing that should be considered is the energy difference & the transfer of that energy to the OB.

There are two old one pocket players at the hall I go to & they do quite a little bit or swiping & swooping.

Best 2 You Both,
Rick

PS I'm 61 & calling them old so paint your own picture of them.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Neil,

Perhaps you should try heeding your own advice & perhaps you would not appear as you do to so many. I could tell you stories but I'll just stop here.

May God Bless & Help You,
Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I could not care any less about the stories you and the others make up and tell about me behind my back. I tell the truth on here and provide what facts I know. That you and some others can't handle that is YOUR problem, not mine. I don't spend any time worrying about what some petty gossipers have to say. Simple matter is, you and some others are such pro worshipers that you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of your face.

You want to laugh at the science of the game, go right ahead. It only looks bad on you and those with little minds. What's so sad, is that you and a few others always want to knock real, proven instruction, and cling to the myths that you have heard or even made up.

Too ashamed of your own game to actually put up any videos of you providing any proof of what you say. In fact, never providing any proof of what YOU say other than "your word" which often goes against what is well known science of the game. All you have to fall back on is "45 years of experience, and such and such pro does it). Really sad. Even sadder that you take glory in it.
 
SmoothStroke said:
I posted this about low follow a few years ago.
I said I play low follow and I teach it, starting from the bottom of the cue ball and playing up the ladder.
It's so much easier to control the forward distance needed.
I was told I was crazy and it's impossible, come to Vegas and prove it.
I am still doing it and so are all who learned it, even Efren can do it,,HAHAHA
People still living in the dark ages, scientists.

For the most part we rarely play above center, no reason to.
I am not aiming low and hitting high, I am aiming low and hitting low, it's how you hit it.
Earl also plays a lot of low ball follow.

Sincerely: SS
Click to expand...

SmoothStroke said:
Crazy, I take that as a compliment, thank you.
It's rather easy to play low follow, I think the easiest section of the cue ball to learn how to control.

Have a great day.
Sincerely: SS
Click to expand...

Thanks, for the tips in your pm's!

Best,
Mike
 
The Renfro said:
If Neil doesn't understand a lever and a fulcrum that is his problem... Realizing a descending butt means an ascending tip..... That is still his problem....

I am talking about minor differences in stoke plane.. Those may be the differences in playing the game at the highest level or just pushing the ball around on the weekend and posting here on AZ..

So far the scientwishts can replicate a level stroke.. Great..... Noone uses that but in the vacuum. Use it in practice?? Better go teach cause you can't do..
Click to expand...

Oh, I do understand it. You are still missing the point of it though. I'll give you an example that maybe will open your eyes.

You are on a plane that is falling horizontally...the pilot puts up the flaps and the nose goes up and the tail down. You are in the front of the plane. Are you rising now, or just falling at a slower descent than you were a minute ago? (the wings of the plane is now the fulcrum)

Also, I find it interesting that none of you bothered to try and answer the question I posed...how is that stroke doing anything that a regular stroke can't do, and just what is it doing that can't be done otherwise? What are the benefits of using it?
 
Mikjary said:
True, but that's not so much the point. The appearance/perception is different because the cue ball hop is lessened with a lower striking point on the cue ball. The cue ball stays closer to the table bed and moves forward slightly sooner, giving the shot more spin/stroke with a closer to center angle of address.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Good point Mike!
Upward squirt from a below CCB hit may help the CB gather more cloth contact time earlier in the CB's journey. I also think upward stroking can have a similar effect, in addition to how if changes the effective CCB, lowering it.

So there are several factors to consider, all of which may affect perceptions and conclusions.

Colin
 
Neil said:
Rick, I could not care any less about the stories you and the others make up and tell about me behind my back. I tell the truth on here and provide what facts I know. That you and some others can't handle that is YOUR problem, not mine. I don't spend any time worrying about what some petty gossipers have to say. Simple matter is, you and some others are such pro worshipers that you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of your face.

You want to laugh at the science of the game, go right ahead. It only looks bad on you and those with little minds. What's so sad, is that you and a few others always want to knock real, proven instruction, and cling to the myths that you have heard or even made up.

Too ashamed of your own game to actually put up any videos of you providing any proof of what you say. In fact, never providing any proof of what YOU say other than "your word" which often goes against what is well known science of the game. All you have to fall back on is "45 years of experience, and such and such pro does it). Really sad. Even sadder that you take glory in it.
Click to expand...

As usual, your words are full of mischaracterizations, personal judgements that are incorrect, etc.

You need to realize that in reality science has proven itself wrong many more times than it has proven itself correct. Science is not a stagenet entity. It lives & is ever changing. Thank God that there are open minds that question...everything.

May God Bless & Help You, Neil.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
There is no qualifier in that statement.

Sorry for the tough 'love' but you need it.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. Since we were talking about a certain picture of a shot, I didn't think it necessary to say I was talking about a certain picture of a shot. I really thought everyone on here could keep up with the conversation. Sorry I didn't take into account those that just want to nitpick words in the feeble attempt to make someone else look dumb, and those that aren't capable of keeping up with a conversation.

I'll try and keep you and Duckie in mind next time. Hey! I recently even provided a picture in a post!! That should make it easier for you to keep up, less words. ;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothStroke View Post
I posted this about low follow a few years ago.
I said I play low follow and I teach it, starting from the bottom of the cue ball and playing up the ladder.
It's so much easier to control the forward distance needed.
I was told I was crazy and it's impossible, come to Vegas and prove it.
I am still doing it and so are all who learned it, even Efren can do it,,HAHAHA
People still living in the dark ages, scientists.

For the most part we rarely play above center, no reason to.
I am not aiming low and hitting high, I am aiming low and hitting low, it's how you hit it.
Earl also plays a lot of low ball follow.

Sincerely: SS
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothStroke View Post
Crazy, I take that as a compliment, thank you.
It's rather easy to play low follow, I think the easiest section of the cue ball to learn how to control.

Have a great day.
Sincerely: SS
Thanks, for the tips in your pm's!

Best,
Mike

Hey, SmoothStroke.

Where are my PM tips?

They're mine & I want them.:wink:

Best 2 All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
No, there isn't. Since we were talking about a certain picture of a shot, I didn't think it necessary to say I was talking about a certain picture of a shot. I really thought everyone on here could keep up with the conversation. Sorry I didn't take into account those that just want to nitpick words in the feeble attempt to make someone else look dumb, and those that aren't capable of keeping up with a conversation.

I'll try and keep you and Duckie in mind next time. Hey! I recently even provided a picture in a post!! That should make it easier for you to keep up, less words. ;)
Click to expand...

Neil,

You reap what you sow.

Maybe one day before it's too late you'll 'realeyes' that.

May God Bless & Help You,
Rick

PS I could have used a Forest Gump line but I didn't. I'm trying to 'play' nice with a wounded 'animal'.
 
Last edited:
Actually if you really thought about it you would see how it is possible, and no twilight zone is required.

Just look at the ball from the perspective of the other side.

Like I said earlier you are good for a laugh.


duckie said:
I'm a firm believer that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a drawing that reflects what I posted earlier describing what I cal the CB torque arm.

The arrows represents the cue stick and direction it is moving.

Thing about me is that I bring something to back up what I state. If you can hit below the center of the CB at a downward angle and have the CB rotate counter clockwise and not clock wise, you have just entered the Twilight Zone.

But then again you must have the capacity to understand this first.

And there are no objective points of aim......its all in your head......therefore subjective. There is no way to know if two CTE users are using the same visuals or the same edges of the balls, even though balls don't have edges, one of those pesky scientific thingies, kinda like goes along with thinking you can hit 1/2 a ball when that is impossible, except for in your minds eye, IE subjective.
Click to expand...
 
Neil said:
Oh, I do understand it. You are still missing the point of it though. I'll give you an example that maybe will open your eyes.

You are on a plane that is falling horizontally...the pilot puts up the flaps and the nose goes up and the tail down. You are in the front of the plane. Are you rising now, or just falling at a slower descent than you were a minute ago? (the wings of the plane is now the fulcrum)

Also, I find it interesting that none of you bothered to try and answer the question I posed...how is that stroke doing anything that a regular stroke can't do, and just what is it doing that can't be done otherwise? What are the benefits of using it?
Click to expand...

Your airplane analogy is totally erroneous.

It seems to me that you do not actually have much of a science education but are merely repeating what you've read or heard others say.

But, I could be wrong & you do what you do because you choose to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top