some advice please

[softshot]

Play safe against yourself ... THEN DIG OUT!!

.. the better you are the harder it will be....

 

[quanz]

In this video you pretty much roll everything, which shows a good pattern play lead to a simple runout. I agree playing 9 ball will test your stroke further. You'll need a lot more kind of stroke to run a rack perfectly.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cornerman]

Look at how hard they hit the ball, maybe then you will realize how little top they are playing. A tip above center hitting hard will put lots of top. Show me the videos of these guys playing top! I would love to see it.

I can hit and squat all day and I don't do it playing top.

Top professional players have been shown to aim low and hit top. The spin on the cueball (the measles ball) shows it as does freeze frame video. Da_rookie aimed low and hit top. There really isn't much more to say on this. There was just a great thread on it in the last two weeks with freeze frame shots of video specifically with Shane Van Boening.


I'm not interested in discussing how high they or he hit. That's not in question. That's just semantic posturing. You pointed out to the original poster that he is aiming low and hitting high. I said that's exactly what pros do. It's been shown.

Fred

 

[da_rookie_77]

My only suggestions would be to evaluate your stroke and work on cue ball control during the break. Experiment with trying to get rid of the up and down motion in your stroke.

Your pattern play seems sound. Hey, you got out in one inning. I agree with others that it's difficult to measure your ability from one rack.

Best of luck.

i have actually worked on this part before but found that forcing myself to do something that didnt feel natural caused me to miss so i went to a few different guys and they all said my stroke was smooth with no up and down during the shot it was only on my backstroke im not proving you wrong because i could be doing it now i dont play as much as i used to bt thank you and everyone for helping me out

 

[Eric.]

Top professional players have been shown to aim low and hit top. The spin on the cueball (the measles ball) shows it as does freeze frame video. Da_rookie aimed low and hit top. There really isn't much more to say on this. There was just a great thread on it in the last two weeks with freeze frame shots of video specifically with Shane Van Boening.


I'm not interested in discussing how high they or he hit. That's not in question. That's just semantic posturing. You pointed out to the original poster that he is aiming low and hitting high. I said that's exactly what pros do. It's been shown.

Fred

I couldn't disagree more about hitting above center to squat the CB.

While it can be done using some top, and some guys do (i.e. JoeT), I don't agree that it is the "only" or "most common" way to get the CB to squat with forward rotation.

I've always felt that most of the CB's forward rotation is picked up from hitting the head ball while airborne. Being airborne, having force behind it and hitting another round object above the equator is where the CB gets the forward spin, IMO.

Here's yet another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV28zAJKGtg

Now, I know Liz Ford isn't considered a "top player", but her break in the vid is enough to show what I'm saying. In slow mo, you can see he breakshot, hitting the CB with center/stun (and a tiny bit of accidental left). When the CB hits the 1 ball, it has the tiniest of forward roll from the friction of the cloth, but hits the 1 above center, then has significantly more forward spin after contact.


Eric

 

[Cornerman]

I couldn't disagree more about hitting above center to squat the CB.

While it can be done using some top, and some guys do (i.e. JoeT), I don't agree that it is the "only" or "most common" way to get the CB to squat with forward rotation.

This will just muddy the current conversation, but it should be at least agreed that even though most professionals aim low, they actually hit higher on the cueball at their break stroke. Agree?

Here's the great post on this http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1480786&postcount=18. You can see the actual path of the cuetip as it hits high on the cueball.

I've always felt that most of the CB's forward rotation is picked up from hitting the head ball while airborne. Being airborne, having force behind it and hitting another round object above the equator is where the CB gets the forward spin, IMO.

I careful watch of this video actually proves my point correct, and your point incorrect. 1:12 show the cueball airborne on impact and clearly shows the cueball spinning before and after impact. There doesn't look to be any way a forward spin can be transferred, even though the cueball is airborn.

The numerous spin transfer (ball-to-ball from collision) discussions over the years have always shown that the spin transfered from ball to ball is relatively small due to the low friction, but large enough to affect bank shots. Certainly, there's not enough to see the spin we see on break shots. The vast majority of the force transferred is through the centers of the ball, I believe.

Fred

 

[TX Poolnut]

i have actually worked on this part before but found that forcing myself to do something that didnt feel natural caused me to miss so i went to a few different guys and they all said my stroke was smooth with no up and down during the shot it was only on my backstroke im not proving you wrong because i could be doing it now i dont play as much as i used to bt thank you and everyone for helping me out

I agree that it's important to experiment, but when you find what works, sometimes you go with what works. If you already toyed around with your stroke, I'd go with what works. Cheers!

 

[Eric.]

This will just muddy the current conversation, but it should be at least agreed that even though most professionals aim low, they actually hit higher on the cueball at their break stroke. Agree?

Your statement confuses the issue. Most top players do seem to aim low and hit higher BUT not necessarily above the equator.

Here's the great post on this http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1480786&postcount=18. You can see the actual path of the cuetip as it hits high on the cueball.

That's not a great example, Fred. It's hard to tell from those type of photos what is going on. I can't tell conclusively that the cuetip hit the CB above center. Also, in the next frame, the shaft/cue tip appears to have warped downward(before the shaft touches the table), which would hint toward a possible below center hit (deflecting downward)



I careful watch of this video actually proves my point correct, and your point incorrect. 1:12 show the cueball airborne on impact and clearly shows the cueball spinning before and after impact. There doesn't look to be any way a forward spin can be transferred, even though the cueball is airborn.

Umm, no, Fred. You haven't proven anything. If you look a few seconds earlier, you will clearly see Liz's CB stunning/sliding forward before the camera switches to a new angle. At impact, the CB is still sliding, may have a TINY bit of forward rotation, which I feel may have been picked up by cloth friction, and clearly hits the 1 ball above the equator.*Edit- check the vid starting at :45

The numerous spin transfer (ball-to-ball from collision) discussions over the years have always shown that the spin transfered from ball to ball is relatively small due to the low friction, but large enough to affect bank shots. Certainly, there's not enough to see the spin we see on break shots. The vast majority of the force transferred is through the centers of the ball, I believe.
See below...

Fred

Fred, I'm no science dork, but doesn't a body in motion tend to want to stay in motion?

If a round object, hits another round object head on but slightly airborne, doesnt force/CB energy cause the CB to want to force itself forward? Also, if that airborne, round CB continues to try to force itself forward agasint another round object, won't energy cause the CB to continue to climb forward and upwards?

That's why I feel the CB can pick up forward spin on an airborne impact.


Eric >never stays at a Holiday Inn Express

 

[Ken_4fun]

i wouldn't call 8 ball an easier game. i just think that playing it by yourself kind of cheats you out of the safety part of the game. in the end game 8 ball safety play is important

Here is why it is an easier game, and not as good for practice. With 6 or so balls left after a break, you have alot, (while not infinite) ways to run the rack so position is not a key item that is getting improved significantly by practice.

IMO, #1 importance in playing is speed, then position. Eight ball while a great game, does not require it in the same degree as 9 ball.

The second reason as you mentioned above, comes into play in 8 ball as well as 9 ball. But most decent players who get ball in hand in 8 ball should be out, again based on the almost unlimited number of ways to run the rack.

Ken

 

[Cornerman]

This will just muddy the current conversation, but it should be at least agreed that even though most professionals aim low, they actually hit higher on the cueball at their break stroke. Agree?

Your statement confuses the issue. Most top players do seem to aim low and hit higher BUT not necessarily above the equator.

You agree that that most player aim low and hit higher. That's an agreement. That should be enough. You are open to the idea that the cueball is actually hit above the equator.

Here's the great post on this http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpo...6&postcount=18. You can see the actual path of the cuetip as it hits high on the cueball.

That's not a great example, Fred. It's hard to tell from those type of photos what is going on. I can't tell conclusively that the cuetip hit the CB above center. Also, in the next frame, the shaft/cue tip appears to have warped downward(before the shaft touches the table), which would hint toward a possible below center hit (deflecting downward)

You can't agree that the clearly shown cueball path is above center? The path in the cuetip/cueball collision frame shows the entire path of the cuetip as it hits the cueball. The next frame is after the cueball is long gone!! If that still isn't proof enough, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think the photo is obvious proof.

{A} careful watch of this video actually proves my point correct, and your point incorrect. 1:12 show the cueball airborne on impact and clearly shows the cueball spinning before and after impact. There doesn't look to be any way a forward spin can be transferred, even though the cueball is airborn.

Umm, no, Fred. You haven't proven anything. If you look a few seconds earlier, you will clearly see Liz's CB stunning/sliding forward before the camera switches to a new angle. At impact, the CB is still sliding, may have a TINY bit of forward rotation, which I feel may have been picked up by cloth friction, and clearly hits the 1 ball above the equator.*Edit- check the vid starting at :45

The video starting at 45 seconds is NOT the same break shot as the close up at 1:12, and it's not the same as the break shot with all of Liz in view. Her fingers are underneath the cushion at the 51 second mark. At your referenced 45 second mark, the tips of her fingers are in clear view. These are two different shots. That's why it's important to examine just 1:12. You can see the spin prior to impact and immediately after impact. There is no additional spin added at the collision. In fact, you see a decrease in forward spin at 1:25 unless they slowed the video down right at impact.

If you can get a hold of a video that shows no spin prior to impact, and forward spin after impact, then you'll prove yourself correct. I'm certainly open to that.

Fred, I'm no science dork, but doesn't a body in motion tend to want to stay in motion?

Yes, this is why the cueball has to be spining prior to hitting the pack. The only "motion" it has prior to hitting the pack is linear and rotational. The linear is stopped by the pack of balls.

If a round object, hits another round object head on but slightly airborne, doesnt force/CB energy cause the CB to want to force itself forward? Also, if that airborne, round CB continues to try to force itself forward agasint another round object, won't energy cause the CB to continue to climb forward and upwards?

If that were the case, then the cueball would climb up, over, and forward. The cueball is going backwards in this case. Therfore, no climbing, no "up and forward." The collision at 1:12 shows no climbing forward. It's just collision. The cueball goes backwards consistent to what you expect in this airborn collision with the same spin that it came in with if not a slightly less spin.


Consider the same collision, but as a cut shot instead of the airborne shot. It depends on the friction between the two objects. We've examined spin transfer from cut shots (cut induced spin) ad nauseum on these forums, and there's barely a revolution transfered to either cueball or object ball. That's because there isn't a high amount of friction to get a significant torque component. The force with two round object smashing into each other is mostly directed down the line of centers. That's why most people aim down the centers of the cueball/object ball collision when aiming for a pocket.

The little force transfered into torque/spin/moment is dictated by the friction force between them. That's why we put chalk on a tip. That's why we have throw.

Fred <~~~ glad not to be a science dork

 

[dr_dave]

CB hop and squat physics and videos

Fred and others,

FYI, I have some good explanations of this stuff, along with some super-slow-motion video links here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#hop​

Check it out.

Regards,
Dave

This will just muddy the current conversation, but it should be at least agreed that even though most professionals aim low, they actually hit higher on the cueball at their break stroke. Agree?

Here's the great post on this http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1480786&postcount=18. You can see the actual path of the cuetip as it hits high on the cueball.



I careful watch of this video actually proves my point correct, and your point incorrect. 1:12 show the cueball airborne on impact and clearly shows the cueball spinning before and after impact. There doesn't look to be any way a forward spin can be transferred, even though the cueball is airborn.

The numerous spin transfer (ball-to-ball from collision) discussions over the years have always shown that the spin transfered from ball to ball is relatively small due to the low friction, but large enough to affect bank shots. Certainly, there's not enough to see the spin we see on break shots. The vast majority of the force transferred is through the centers of the ball, I believe.

Fred

 

[poolplayer2093]

actually i used the 3 to combo in a stripe but you cant see do to lack of a good camera so i couldnt widen out the view to see ther whole table

so you were solids and used a solid to combo in a stripe and continued shooting?

 

[Eric.]

You agree that that most player aim low and hit higher. That's an agreement. That should be enough. You are open to the idea that the cueball is actually hit above the equator.


You are twisting things. Specifically, I said that I agree a lot of pros do start low and hit higher. I didn't agree that most hit above the equator.



You can't agree that the clearly shown cueball path is above center? The path in the cuetip/cueball collision frame shows the entire path of the cuetip as it hits the cueball. The next frame is after the cueball is long gone!! If that still isn't proof enough, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think the photo is obvious proof.

If you feel those SVB break pics are clear and conclusive, then your eyes are better than mine.

The video starting at 45 seconds is NOT the same break shot as the close up at 1:12, and it's not the same as the break shot with all of Liz in view. Her fingers are underneath the cushion at the 51 second mark. At your referenced 45 second mark, the tips of her fingers are in clear view. These are two different shots. That's why it's important to examine just 1:12. You can see the spin prior to impact and immediately after impact. There is no additional spin added at the collision. In fact, you see a decrease in forward spin at 1:25 unless they slowed the video down right at impact.

How do you know that it isn't the same break shot? That's inconclusive too. One thing is for certain, she hit "a" break shot with center/stun and a tiny bit of left AND... the overhead shot of the CB hitting the pack shows a CB with left spin as it hits the 1. Same break shot?

If you can get a hold of a video that shows no spin prior to impact, and forward spin after impact, then you'll prove yourself correct. I'm certainly open to that.

[/color] Yes, this is why the cueball has to be spining prior to hitting the pack. The only "motion" it has prior to hitting the pack is linear and rotational. The linear is stopped by the pack of balls.

If that were the case, then the cueball would climb up, over, and forward. The cueball is going backwards in this case. Therfore, no climbing, no "up and forward." The collision at 1:12 shows no climbing forward. It's just collision. The cueball goes backwards consistent to what you expect in this airborn collision with the same spin that it came in with if not a slightly less spin.


Consider the same collision, but as a cut shot instead of the airborne shot. It depends on the friction between the two objects. We've examined spin transfer from cut shots (cut induced spin) ad nauseum on these forums, and there's barely a revolution transfered to either cueball or object ball. That's because there isn't a high amount of friction to get a significant torque component. The force with two round object smashing into each other is mostly directed down the line of centers. That's why most people aim down the centers of the cueball/object ball collision when aiming for a pocket.

The little force transfered into torque/spin/moment is dictated by the friction force between them. That's why we put chalk on a tip. That's why we have throw.

Fred <~~~ glad not to be a science dork

I stopped replying to the rest of your post. I've made my point clearly, previously.

All I can say regarding your opinion is that I don't agree with it, so... fair enough.


Eric

 

[poolplayer2093]

Here is why it is an easier game, and not as good for practice. With 6 or so balls left after a break, you have alot, (while not infinite) ways to run the rack so position is not a key item that is getting improved significantly by practice.

IMO, #1 importance in playing is speed, then position. Eight ball while a great game, does not require it in the same degree as 9 ball.

The second reason as you mentioned above, comes into play in 8 ball as well as 9 ball. But most decent players who get ball in hand in 8 ball should be out, again based on the almost unlimited number of ways to run the rack.

Ken

i'd actually say that speed control is more important in 8 ball than in 9 ball, expecially on the bar box. on the bar box things get tied up a lot and you often have to bump balls to continue the run.

don't get me wrong i love 9 ball and i played that and just about only that for about 3 years. but i've been playing bar box 8 ball now for about 10 months (league) and i've developed more respect for the game.

 

[Cornerman]

IHow do you know that it isn't the same break shot? That's inconclusive too. One thing is for certain, she hit "a" break shot with center/stun and a tiny bit of left AND... the overhead shot of the CB hitting the pack shows a CB with left spin as it hits the 1. Same break shot?

Her fingertips are in full view at 45 seconds (slight left spin with no forward spin). Her fingertips are under the cushion at 51 seconds. Both shots are therefore different. It's no coincidence that both shots also have left spin on them. So, having the overhead shot at 1:12 with left spin is no surprise.

Fred

 

[Eric.]

Her fingertips are in full view at 45 seconds (slight left spin with no forward spin). Her fingertips are under the cushion at 51 seconds. Both shots are therefore different. It's no coincidence that both shots also have left spin on them. So, having the overhead shot at 1:12 with left spin is no surprise.

Fred

Fred. Fred? I was referring to the overhead camera shot of the CB hitting the rack. Taht CB has left spin on it and there is NO WAY of knowing if that breakshot is related to the other breakshots.


Eric

 

[dr_dave]

You agree that that most player aim low and hit higher. That's an agreement. That should be enough. You are open to the idea that the cueball is actually hit above the equator.

You are twisting things. Specifically, I said that I agree a lot of pros do start low and hit higher. I didn't agree that most hit above the equator
...
I feel the CB can pick up forward spin on an airborne impact.

Eric.,

It seems there is agreement that for the CB to squat after bouncing back from the rack of balls, it must have topspin. I agree with Fred that the topspin must be on the CB before impact with the rack. If a stunned ball hits the lead ball slightly above center, it can pick up a tiny amount of topspin (as you suggest), but not enough to make a difference, IMO. I don't have a specific video showing this (I'll add it to my list), but I think the other videos I have do offer some insight. I have links and discussion here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#hop​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

Fred. Fred? I was referring to the overhead camera shot of the CB hitting the rack. Taht CB has left spin on it and there is NO WAY of knowing if that breakshot is related to the other breakshots.


Eric

Sigh...

There's no reason to think any of them are the same shot considering that we already know that the first two (at 45 and 51 seconds) are not the same shot.

The side shot in 1:12, you can clearly see that the cueball has follow on it prior to hitting the pack. Do you not see that???

At the 45 second mark, there is no forward spin on it for the entire lenghth that the shot is in view. It only has left.

The overhead shot at 1:03 has some kind of spin in addition some follow prior to hitting the pack. It looks like a hair of left.

The overhead shot at 1:19 is not the same as the 45 second shot as well, as it also has follow prior to hitting the pack with what might be a hair of right.

Fred

 

[Eric.]

The overhead shot at 1:03 has some kind of spin in addition some follow. It looks like a hair of left.

The overhead shot at 1:19 is not the same as the 45 second shot as well, as it also has follow with what might be a hair of right.

Fred

Which brings me full circle; I said in my orignial reply that I felt that there appeared to be a tiny amount of follow that could have been picked up by cloth friction, not necessarily the shooter hitting above center.

It's hard t otell the rate of spin or amount of follow in the slo mo vid. The cb only turns a tiny amount, from what we can see. Someone can assume that the CB slid there, picking up just enough cloth friction to turn the cb a half turn from start to finish. Again, hard to tell if it is the result of someone hitting the CB with follow.


Eric >follow?

 

[Eric.]

Eric.,

It seems there is agreement that for the CB to squat after bouncing back from the rack of balls, it must have topspin. I agree with Fred that the topspin must be on the CB before impact with the rack. If a stunned ball hits the lead ball slightly above center, it can pick up a tiny amount of topspin (as you suggest), but not enough to make a difference, IMO. I don't have a specific video showing this (I'll add it to my list), but I think the other videos I have do offer some insight. I have links and discussion here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#hop​

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

If a cb "cuts" an object ball, effectively hitting it off center, the cb picks up "cut induced spin", no?

How is the angle of an airborne cb hitting the head rack ball above center(airborne) any different?


Eric