Shaft type and amount of draw.

I've seen a lot of really good players hit shots with incredible spin/speed ratios that don't seem to be explained by cue velocity alone.
Click to expand...

Cue velocity alone doesn't explain it. The other factor, and the main variable in player performance, is the ability to consistently hit farther from centerball without miscuing (while hitting hard).

This is all very well known. You're reinventing the wheel.

pj
chgo
 
Neil said:
... bet him he could put an object ball on the spot, shoot from the kitchen, pocket ithe ob, and draw the cb to the side rail to where it hit the rail on the kitchen side of the 2nd diamond. While using an unaltered, except for chalk BROOMSTICK! ...
Click to expand...
If I had to do this, I'd get a lead-filled object ball. The alternative is to shoot the shot as a masse. If it was a masse shot, the broomstick is not such a disadvantage. If he shot it with a flat stroke, the equipment was gaffed.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If I had to do this, I'd get a lead-filled object ball. The alternative is to shoot the shot as a masse. If it was a masse shot, the broomstick is not such a disadvantage. If he shot it with a flat stroke, the equipment was gaffed.
Click to expand...
The equipment was not gaffed, Elldridge would have skinned him alive, and there were too many onlookers. To be honest, I don't remember if he was standing fairly upright when he shot. I don't see ANY way it could be done with a level stroke. You'd be lucky to hit center ball.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Cue velocity alone doesn't explain it. The other factor, and the main variable in player performance, is the ability to consistently hit farther from centerball without miscuing (while hitting hard).

This is all very well known. You're reinventing the wheel.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

A lot of things were very well-known, until they weren't. Forgive me for not buying the company line without more evidence -- it just doesn't sit right with me.
 
"kind of tip = makes no difference" I will wager on this... I see you are changing statements a little now to make more since. A little more and I will almost agree with you. Equipment has an effect on the game. It will effect some players more than others, but it makes a difference. I was just going by the first few lines on your first post... And for someone with your rep in pool, it surprised me. I thought good equipment would be in the lesson plan.

If you want to wager on the quote... I think I can scrape up a dollar or two, cause that looks like you are saying any tip, not just the difference between good tips and good cues or maybe we are both in the middle of a misunderstanding on each others post.
 
Scott Lee said:
Jim...When the contact time is 1 or 2/1000's of a second, the arguements you put up to justify increases in dwell time between tip and CB are moot. The difference is so infinitesimally small, it can't even be measured (let alone noticed by the naked eye), without the aid of high speed photography, like what was done in the Jacksonville experiments. ...
Click to expand...
Scott, I'm not sure if your post is directed at me. If so, I agree that attempting to increase the dwell by "accelerating through" is not going to gain you much of anything.

Jim
 
In response to Mullyman:
The CB was 2 diamonds away from pocket. I cannot see the table my computer seems to have developed a problem.

A couple of guys hit bunch of balls and most of the time one shaft draws further for them than the other. The best results with one cannot be duplicated with the other. The solution apparently is ? ?learn to draw?.

I took the example of the draw but it was the same for all types of shots.

Thanks to all that responded on topic. :)
 
mikepage said:
This is off the subject of this thread, but ....

I think we have two different ways of viewing this sensitivity thing.

Both are of the form

Assuming fixed AAAA, ball speed is least sensitive to BBBB when condition CCCC is met.

For Jewett,
AAAA = maximum stick speed
BBBB = errors in forearm angle at impact
CCCC = the intended forearm angle at impact has zero force

For Jal,

AAAA = maximum force during the stroke
BBBB = errors in stroke timing
CCCC = the force at impact is at a particular spot past maximum at impact

Both seem to me to be true statements as far as they go. Their value though depends on

--- whether AAAA, the thing that's assumed fixed, is really something we're trained to readily fix at a certain value.

--- whether BBBB/CCCC refer to a variable we readily control.


I think Jal's interesting approach suffers under this kind of analysis.
Click to expand...
I'm not really following. I agree that there are issues of timing accuracy and speed control, although "accelerating through" does tend to reduce such errors from a purely physics, not physiology point of view. And I'm not advocating any particular stroke style. "Coasting through" is a good way to shoot, but it doesn't necessarily yield the most cue speed.

mikepage said:
I think it's the time integral of the force and not the maximum value of the force that we're trained to summon at a certain value. What we know how to do is get the stick going at a certain maximum speed, and we intuitively use more force when we use a shorter backstroke and less force when we use a longer backstroke. I don't think summoning a certain maximum force is what we're good at.

I don't think Jal's "timing" variable, essentially the period/frequency of the force sine function is a reasonable variable that is under our control. I think the timing is too tied to the stroke geometry.
Click to expand...
Yes, how much control we have over the timing is a critical issue. It would be nice to see accelerometer graphs of pendulum strokes when the player is attempting to change it. I do believe you have some latitude there.

I did do an experiment where I moved my grip back on the cue so that I would be accelerating at impact (ie, making contact before my forearm reached the orthodox position. My maximum draw distance increased in a noticeable and significant way. I think that in this position, some early force is sacrificed in favor of shifting the peak to a later time and spacial location. All else aside, this should increase cue speed over having the peak at the halfway point, timewise.

Jim
 
Does this all mean $5 shaftwoods are as good as $20 shaftwoods as long as they are straight?
 
Bob Jewett said:
This depends on what assumptions you make about the maximum. I assume that a player with experience can set his bridge and body position to achieve maximum velocity at impact. If he does that, he will achieve more stick speed at impact than someone who sets up for 113 degrees and uses the same power in the shot. Further, I'll claim on limited info that good players do set up for impact at maximum velocity.

I look at it this way: if you take your player who intends to hit at 113 degrees and you slyly move the cue ball forward while he's not watching so he actually hits at 180 degrees, he will hit the ball harder. He will see this large improvement in ball speed, and within a few shots he will be setting up a little farther back from the ball and hitting it harder with the same stroke.
Click to expand...
I agree, but think the answer might be more elusive.

Let's assume a pure sine function for simplicity, and that it's possible to adjust your stroke length over a very wide range. Once you decide on a bridge length then, the optimal phase angle becomes 113 degrees, so you adjust your stroke length accordingly. But having made a decision about that (stroke length), the optimal bridge length now becomes such that impact occurs at 180 degrees (as you point out). If you then re-adjust your bridge length, the optimal phase angle becomes 113 degrees again...and on and on. It's a conundrum that prohibits us from simultaneously setting both of them at optimum...as far as cue speed is concerned.

Practical limitations prevail, but is it bridge or stroke length? If you include what can be done by dropping your elbow, as per Mike Massey on his power draws, you can probably then generate enough stroke length such that bridge length is the limiting factor. In that case, hitting at an earlier phase angle than 180 degrees should yield more cue speed (though 113 degrees is almost certainly out of the question since it requires a very, very long stroke...and we don't execute pure sine functions anyway).

Not trying to be difficult, just discussing.

Jim
 
i'll probably get flamed, but i'll live.

here's a few things about this subject that don't quite add up to me.

1. I know for a fact i'm not the only person in the universe that remembers that back in the day when meucci was making decent cues, you could really spin the crap out of the cueball without trying nearly as hard. And max spin with the same meucci could give another cue's max spin the 6 ball.

2. When all of these high speed camera tests were done, who was providing the stroke? I'd like the same test done again using sombody like Larry Nevel or Mike Massey or {insert godlike stroke here} & compare the results.

My reasoning is like this...although a robot can do the same thing everytime, it can only do it in a robotic like manner, like a pendulem. The most fantastic strokes i've ever seen in my life were not pendulem strokes. That's not to say a pendulem stroke can't be in the top 99% it certainly can. It's just that there's a BIG difference in the remaining 1%.

3. Sombody earlier in this post when referrng to the high speed camera tests said that 1/1000th of a sec & 2/1000th of a sec didn't make any difference on the cueball. I don't understand this. I realize that it's only 1/1000th of a second difference, but it's in contact with the cueball TWICE AS LONG!!!

I guess what i'm asking is this, alot of people know how to put alot of spin on the cueball. Why is it that a select few (very few) people are able to put an almost super-human amount of spin on the ball???
 
asn130 said:
i'll probably get flamed, but i'll live.

here's a few things about this subject that don't quite add up to me.

1. I know for a fact i'm not the only person in the universe that remembers that back in the day when meucci was making decent cues, you could really spin the crap out of the cueball without trying nearly as hard. And max spin with the same meucci could give another cue's max spin the 6 ball.
Click to expand...

We've all seen such claims.

...And we've seen people swear you can get more spin with a whippy shaft

---And we've seen people swear you can get more spin with a stiff shaft

---And we've seen people swear you can get more spin with a soft tip

---And we've seen people swear you can get more spin with a hard tip

[..] The most fantastic strokes i've ever seen in my life were not pendulem strokes. That's not to say a pendulem stroke can't be in the top 99% it certainly can. It's just that there's a BIG difference in the remaining 1%.
Click to expand...

What those stroke phenoms can do is deliver the tip to a very narrow spot at a high speed. Whether they do this with a pendulum stroke or not doesn't really matter.

3. Sombody earlier in this post when referrng to the high speed camera tests said that 1/1000th of a sec & 2/1000th of a sec didn't make any difference on the cueball. I don't understand this. I realize that it's only 1/1000th of a second difference, but it's in contact with the cueball TWICE AS LONG!!!
Click to expand...

I think that was Scott Lee, and while I can't speak for him, here's what I think he means. For a given shot (given contact spot and stick velocity), the only reason one tip is in contact longer than another is the first tip is softer. In other words, whether the person delivering the stick is pushing on the stick or pulling on the stick or flicking his wrist or extending his arm or putting his body into it is not going to affect this contact time in any significant way.

You might say, well of course it matters if he's pushing or pulling; he'd be changing the force during the contact time keeping the tip on the ball longer or pulling it off sooner. And that sounds reasonable. But the magnitude of the force a human is able to apply here pales in comparison to the force of the tip on the ball that comes from the speed of the stick.

So the you might say if the soft tip is on the ball 20% longer or 50% longer than the hard tip, doesn't it do something different because of this. The answer is still no. The speed ans spin of the ball come from a force acting over a time. And it turn out when the time is longer the force is smaller by exactly the right amount to make the net effect the same.

So this is the sense that the contact time doesn't matter. Except for small subtleties, a person can't affect the contact time, and the net result on the cueball is the same for two sticks that give different contact times.

I guess what i'm asking is this, alot of people know how to put alot of spin on the cueball. Why is it that a select few (very few) people are able to put an almost super-human amount of spin on the ball???
Click to expand...

I think you should watch these videos

http://pl.cuetable.com/showthread.php?t=958

and then ask the good-looking celebrity panelist who happens to be posting in this thread.
 
asn130 said:
i'll probably get flamed, but i'll live.

here's a few things about this subject that don't quite add up to me.

1. I know for a fact i'm not the only person in the universe that remembers that back in the day when meucci was making decent cues, you could really spin the crap out of the cueball without trying nearly as hard. And max spin with the same meucci could give another cue's max spin the 6 ball.

2. When all of these high speed camera tests were done, who was providing the stroke? I'd like the same test done again using sombody like Larry Nevel or Mike Massey or {insert godlike stroke here} & compare the results.

My reasoning is like this...although a robot can do the same thing everytime, it can only do it in a robotic like manner, like a pendulem. The most fantastic strokes i've ever seen in my life were not pendulem strokes. That's not to say a pendulem stroke can't be in the top 99% it certainly can. It's just that there's a BIG difference in the remaining 1%.

3. Sombody earlier in this post when referrng to the high speed camera tests said that 1/1000th of a sec & 2/1000th of a sec didn't make any difference on the cueball. I don't understand this. I realize that it's only 1/1000th of a second difference, but it's in contact with the cueball TWICE AS LONG!!!

I guess what i'm asking is this, alot of people know how to put alot of spin on the cueball. Why is it that a select few (very few) people are able to put an almost super-human amount of spin on the ball???
Click to expand...

I remember thoses meucci days like they were yesterday and yes they could give other sticks the 6 ball when spinning the rock. They were just a little inaccurate for most, whippy son of a guns.


As far as very few people being able to spin or draw the CB like a super hero

I believe it is:
Impeccable timing
Dead level stroke
God given ability

Sort of the same reason AROD/Manny and a select few others swing a baseball bat like everybody else and the balls jumps off it like the bat is aluminum and everybody else is using wood.

I can bet the guys who can put crazy draw or spin on the ball don't sit home and do all the formulas I have seen on this thread about draw and CB contact time.
 
just about a...I agree with you here! Some people are just BETTER at doing what they do. If you ask Efren how he does what he does, he'll say: "I don't know! I just DO it!" That pretty much covers the elite group you're talking about...and why they cannot 'teach' it to someone. What we instructors try to do, is help the other 99% of MORTALS to develop a more consistent approach, and why we maintain that particular cues/shafts/tips do not make a significant difference in overall ability to perform...for most people.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

just about a said:
As far as very few people being able to spin or draw the CB like a super hero

I believe it is:
Impeccable timing
Dead level stroke
God given ability

Sort of the same reason AROD/Manny and a select few others swing a baseball bat like everybody else and the balls jumps off it like the bat is aluminum and everybody else is using wood.

I can bet the guys who can put crazy draw or spin on the ball don't sit home and do all the formulas I have seen on this thread about draw and CB contact time.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So what?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Just making a point that the very best rarely need to get into the fine details. They are naturals. Sometimes we can suffer from Analysis/Paralysis. Sometimes all we need to do is practice till it comes to us as natural as possible.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Does this all mean $5 shaftwoods are as good as $20 shaftwoods as long as they are straight?
Click to expand...

Depends how you define "good".

What it does mean, is $5 shaftwoods will allow you to produce as much draw as $20 shaftwoods, as long as you can produce as good a stroke with each.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top