swipe/swoop to get more english
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
im starting to read articles on the jacksonville project
this is taken from one of them
Conclusions: How can the above ideas
or insights be applied to a game?
Here's one example: As predicted by
physics, the ball moves off the tip at a
speed faster than the incoming stick.
Fig. 4 proves that the cue makes only one contact
with the cue ball. Total contact time: .001 seconds.
What is not directly predicted is that
this speed-up, which is caused by the
springiness of the tip, is not as large as
the simple calculation says[
i guess this proves that you cant swerve at contact since the cue ball is long gone
can we agree on this??
this is taken from one of them
Conclusions: How can the above ideas
or insights be applied to a game?
Here's one example: As predicted by
physics, the ball moves off the tip at a
speed faster than the incoming stick.
Fig. 4 proves that the cue makes only one contact
with the cue ball. Total contact time: .001 seconds.
What is not directly predicted is that
this speed-up, which is caused by the
springiness of the tip, is not as large as
the simple calculation says[
i guess this proves that you cant swerve at contact since the cue ball is long gone
can we agree on this??
Really? You're the one that all the other knowledgeable instructors and advanced players disagree with on this particular topic (among others)!Yep...I do know who I am...a knowledgeable teacher who has helped thousands of players of all abilities, including pro players. We're both instructors, but when you start saying that Bob's "opinion" is just an opinion...that may be correct. That said, his opinions are unbiased, and based on both facts and experience...rather than "well I think this can work...it just can't be 'proven'". Of course there is high-speed video that is pretty good proof, if you ask me (which of course you won't...LOL).
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Your attitude towards me is both unprofessional and combative and I will not stand for it anymore. If you insist on continuing in this manner towards me I will hold true to my promise. There is plenty of proof on this web site. Watch yourself, Scott.
Contact tip time .0001 seconds.
I don't agree with this entirely and I'll tell you why.
Contact tip time with the QB is determined by quite a few conditions.
1. What type of cloth is on the table. slick or nappy
2. Is the QB polished or dirty
3. Type of tip on the cue. Hard or soft
4. Weather conditions. Hot and humid - cold and dry
5. Speed of the shot stroke
The feeling I get thru the stick to my grip hand then on to my brain says that the cue tip is in contact for a longer period than .0001 seconds. Sometimes, to me, the QB feels like its glued to the tip of the cue.
Have fun. :smile:
John
Kinda reminds me of the person that called the cops because someone didn't pay for their weed.
You MIGHT find a couple of posts, but you better watch out for your posts if you want to play that game.John, it goes back to the saying that you aren't doing what you think you are doing. Science proves it. But, since you don't want to believe all the tests that were done, double, no, triple the time the tip is in contact, better yet, make it 5 times longer. .005 seconds. You still think that is enough time to do anything of any significance, and that your brain can actually pick up that small of a time doing something??
The OP's question wasn't about if "swooping" the cue at contact was the best way to apply sidespin.
It was about if you could get MORE sidespin by "swooping", and the answer is, no. I can make that statement, because of Dr. Dave's video.
If you (or anyone else) can provide a video that shows otherwise, I'd be more than happy to change my mind. However, with the facts we have now, "swooping" the cue at contact does NOT add more sidespin.
Most of this is wrong by the way I understand the shots. Also, the range of contact time is about 0.0008 to 0.0020 seconds. (0.8 to 2 milliseconds)
Well, more or less. The phase of the moon affects the length of time that the tip is on the ball by changing the local gravity slightly. It's just not significant, just as 3 of 5 above are not significant contributors.
As for item 3 above, the contact time goes as about the square root of the hardness of the tip, so if the tip is four times softer, the contact time is about doubled.
For the speed of the stroke, the contact time slightly decreases with increasing shot speed.
But that has little to do with the question at hand. If anyone proposes taking some kind of action just during the time of tip contact, I think they have lost contact with reality. Humans can't react that fast. And if someone is proposing that increasing contact time is a good idea, I think they need to study the subject more.
Thanks for the post Bob.
Personally I could care less about how long the tip is in contact with the QB. I have never really given it a thought. I have more important things to think about during play.
The OP asked and I gave my opinion.
Have Fun :smile:
John
Another can of worms maybe.
Bob, I remember a study you, and or Dr Dave conducted concerning tip hardness and applied spin. I forget all the conclusions but am I correct that the findings were in favor of hard tips but so slight it was rather insignificant? This may have been the same study on contact time vs hardness.
Assuming this study is "proof" with no need for review, it's also proof that contact point is the only thing making the difference?? as has been said here 1000 times here.
I used to be an intentional swooper which lead to steering and a chicken wing stroke that still shows up at times:angry: My thought then was, this is what I'd do in ping pong or tennis, why not a cue ball. I finally figured out, this action in these other games is how you achieve different contact points.
All that said its still hard to let the concept go entirely so my question. Earlier you indicated backhand English is the way to go. Are you saying the angle of attack is also a factor? In other words if contact point is constant but the cue angled at 87deg, more spin can be the result?
The scientific approach can never prove anything in the technical meaning of "prove". The idea is to build a coherent explanation of what's observed and then test the explanation with new experiments. The theory says that if your tip is soft, contact time will be longer and it will ride around the ball farther during contact with side spin. If it rides around too far, you get a miscue. This is the argument for a harder tip. On the other hand, if a softer tip allows you to hit farther off-center without miscuing....
I'm not exactly a proponent of backhand english. I don't use it myself in any normal situation. I do use it to demonstrate pivot point and squirt compensation to students. If you depend on BHE for squirt compensation, you have to adjust your bridge length for the speed and distance of the shot. In particular, you have to use a shorter bridge for faster shots.
If the cue stick is travelling straight, only one angle will get you the hit you need on the object ball.
i dont mean to hijack my own thread but thats an interesting question
Interesting, because Dr. Dave himself doesn't share the same conviction. From the narration at the end of his video:
"I didn't include all of the shots we attempted, I only included the ones that seemed to have the most english.
This experiment is far from perfect, and it's probably not appropriate to draw any strong conclusions, but we didn't seem to be able to generate more english with a swooping stroke."
As Fran states, things are always changing as we learn more. That's science, to not draw firm conclusions based upon a few experiments, but to seek out other ways to investigate the phenomenon at hand.
I might add that in watching Dr. Dave perform this maneuver, he seemed to not really have the technique firmly in his grasp, probably due to his lack of practice time using it. His attempts to swoop the ball seemed weak and lackluster compared to the top players I have watched using this technique. Just for giggles, I'd like to see some video of a great player using a swoop stroke failing to get any extra english beyond what Dr. Dave was able to get with a straight stoke.
As far as timing the swoop to coincide with the exact instant of contact, that isn't what is happening. As has been repeatedly pointed out, that would be impossible to do no matter how long the contact time is. What I do see folks doing is to incorporate a movement of the tip that describes an arc as the cue is also moving forward, not unlike the arc that a spinning CB presents on its surface as in transfers spin during contact with the OB, except in this case there is a much larger arc, and there is chalk on the cue tip as opposed to the relatively (but not completely) frictionless collision between two polished surfaces.
If spin can be transferred between two polished balls, why is it so far-fetched to think a chalked tip moving along a larger arc can do this even better?
One reason why it isn't as simple is as you state is the lag time between brain/spinal column commands and the hit on the ball/proprioception. A player can do something that feels a certain way and thus hit the ball on a slightly different aim point. Wouldn't hitting on a different spot of the cue ball produce a different amount of spin? Of course it would, just like a swoop drives the stick to meet the cue ball at a different angle.
Can you describe a specific test that could demonstrate the utility of swooping?
That might require someone who truly believes in the stroke and has mastered it to a very high level of proficiency. Most of those guys are quite old or dead by now.
FWIW I never even attempted this type of stroke in play because I'm not good enough to control extremes of english. However, after reading this thread, I went down to the table to see what this C player can do with it.
I have a short warmup where I place the CB on the spot, shoot across table at the opposite diamond, and spin the ball into a side or corner pocket depending on if I use right of left english. I can open the angle to the point where I get to the other side of the pocket. Going out beyond that point on the CB with my mediocre stroke creates a miscue in almost all cases (as demonstrated by the position of the chalk mark on my Rempe training ball).
I tried dozens of times to get more spin using a swoop stroke. This was pretty new to me, so I really had to adjust my aiming point and pay careful attention to the timing of the entire stroke. My results were all over the map, with bad accuracy and sometimes no english applied at all. There were a few times, though, when I caught it just right and I over-shot the pocket by nearly a full diamond. That is a huge difference for me.
Now maybe better players can routinely get enough spin on the ball to do that all the time, but I can't. At this point, though, I can see how I definitely can get more spin by swooping. That's all that should matter to anyone, that you get the desired result. I may never use this stroke in a real game, but my natural curiosity will surely lead me to try to perfect it. At that point I will be better able to judge its utility to me. If nothing else, it might become an occasional finesse shot that may be useful to me in 14.1, or on a cluttered 8-ball layout.
I love the predictions that science can make, but I feel that an open mind makes the greatest new discoveries.
That might require someone who truly believes in the stroke and has mastered it to a very high level of proficiency. Most of those guys are quite old or dead by now.
FWIW I never even attempted this type of stroke in play because I'm not good enough to control extremes of english. However, after reading this thread, I went down to the table to see what this C player can do with it.
I have a short warmup where I place the CB on the spot, shoot across table at the opposite diamond, and spin the ball into a side or corner pocket depending on if I use right of left english. I can open the angle to the point where I get to the other side of the pocket. Going out beyond that point on the CB with my mediocre stroke creates a miscue in almost all cases (as demonstrated by the position of the chalk mark on my Rempe training ball).
I tried dozens of times to get more spin using a swoop stroke. This was pretty new to me, so I really had to adjust my aiming point and pay careful attention to the timing of the entire stroke. My results were all over the map, with bad accuracy and sometimes no english applied at all. There were a few times, though, when I caught it just right and I over-shot the pocket by nearly a full diamond. That is a huge difference for me.
Now maybe better players can routinely get enough spin on the ball to do that all the time, but I can't. At this point, though, I can see how I definitely can get more spin by swooping. That's all that should matter to anyone, that you get the desired result. I may never use this stroke in a real game, but my natural curiosity will surely lead me to try to perfect it. At that point I will be better able to judge its utility to me. If nothing else, it might become an occasional finesse shot that may be useful to me in 14.1, or on a cluttered 8-ball layout.
I love the predictions that science can make, but I feel that an open mind makes the greatest new discoveries.
did you notice the chalk mark on the cue ball with the swoop stroke vs your "extreme" miscue limit chalk mark??
That might require someone who truly believes in the stroke and has mastered it to a very high level of proficiency. Most of those guys are quite old or dead by now.
FWIW I never even attempted this type of stroke in play because I'm not good enough to control extremes of english. However, after reading this thread, I went down to the table to see what this C player can do with it.
I have a short warmup where I place the CB on the spot, shoot across table at the opposite diamond, and spin the ball into a side or corner pocket depending on if I use right of left english. I can open the angle to the point where I get to the other side of the pocket. Going out beyond that point on the CB with my mediocre stroke creates a miscue in almost all cases (as demonstrated by the position of the chalk mark on my Rempe training ball).
I tried dozens of times to get more spin using a swoop stroke. This was pretty new to me, so I really had to adjust my aiming point and pay careful attention to the timing of the entire stroke. My results were all over the map, with bad accuracy and sometimes no english applied at all. There were a few times, though, when I caught it just right and I over-shot the pocket by nearly a full diamond. That is a huge difference for me.
Now maybe better players can routinely get enough spin on the ball to do that all the time, but I can't. At this point, though, I can see how I definitely can get more spin by swooping. That's all that should matter to anyone, that you get the desired result. I may never use this stroke in a real game, but my natural curiosity will surely lead me to try to perfect it. At that point I will be better able to judge its utility to me. If nothing else, it might become an occasional finesse shot that may be useful to me in 14.1, or on a cluttered 8-ball layout.
I love the predictions that science can make, but I feel that an open mind makes the greatest new discoveries.
Keith McCready claimed to do it, in both directions...he made a post here on it a few years ago...can't find it, my Google Fu skills aren't cooperating today...
Good point. Sorry to mislead. No, I wasn't using the Rempe ball for this particular exercise. I only know from using it in the past to work on my parallel english at other times that I can't get out to the extremes of the ball's markings without miscueing. Still, the implications of what you are asking might lead to the specific test that Mr. Jewett was referring to. We would still need a player who has completely mastered this stroke to demonstrate the differences, though.
That might require someone who truly believes in the stroke and has mastered it to a very high level of proficiency. Most of those guys are quite old or dead by now.
FWIW I never even attempted this type of stroke in play because I'm not good enough to control extremes of english. However, after reading this thread, I went down to the table to see what this C player can do with it.
I have a short warmup where I place the CB on the spot, shoot across table at the opposite diamond, and spin the ball into a side or corner pocket depending on if I use right of left english. I can open the angle to the point where I get to the other side of the pocket. Going out beyond that point on the CB with my mediocre stroke creates a miscue in almost all cases (as demonstrated by the position of the chalk mark on my Rempe training ball).
I tried dozens of times to get more spin using a swoop stroke. This was pretty new to me, so I really had to adjust my aiming point and pay careful attention to the timing of the entire stroke. My results were all over the map, with bad accuracy and sometimes no english applied at all. There were a few times, though, when I caught it just right and I over-shot the pocket by nearly a full diamond. That is a huge difference for me.
Now maybe better players can routinely get enough spin on the ball to do that all the time, but I can't. At this point, though, I can see how I definitely can get more spin by swooping. That's all that should matter to anyone, that you get the desired result. I may never use this stroke in a real game, but my natural curiosity will surely lead me to try to perfect it. At that point I will be better able to judge its utility to me. If nothing else, it might become an occasional finesse shot that may be useful to me in 14.1, or on a cluttered 8-ball layout.
I love the predictions that science can make, but I feel that an open mind makes the greatest new discoveries.
The first requirement to a test like that is that you make sure you hit the rail in the exact same place everytime. Very easy to curve the cb with a lot of english and have it appear that you got a lot more spin because of where the cb hits the second rail, when in reality, you didn't get anymore spin at all. Just hit the first rail in a different spot.