I see. This pretty much sums it up. Thanks
The Stroke Thread
- Thread starter justnum
- Start date
Specific shots for discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR54C1AW034
The video contains some of the shots I am discussing.
The first shot is a low stroke on the CB for draw.
The second shot is a high stroke (elevated cue) on the CB for draw.
The third shot is a center hit with a downward angle cue for the freezer.
The fourth shot is a standard draw.
The fifth shot is an elevated cue on the CB for draw.
The sixth shot produced a draw to the right.
The seventh shot produced a roll to the right.
The eight shot produced a roll to the left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR54C1AW034
The video contains some of the shots I am discussing.
The first shot is a low stroke on the CB for draw.
The second shot is a high stroke (elevated cue) on the CB for draw.
The third shot is a center hit with a downward angle cue for the freezer.
The fourth shot is a standard draw.
The fifth shot is an elevated cue on the CB for draw.
The sixth shot produced a draw to the right.
The seventh shot produced a roll to the right.
The eight shot produced a roll to the left.
Straight thru strokes are ideal for playing pool.
It is possible that a stroke that isn't straight can hit the same contact point that a straight through stroke hits. The difference is that when the cue is stroked by a non-straight stroke it produces an effect on to the cue ball.
For discussion there is the draw and hop shot, which shows that the CB can become airborne, meaning something caused the CB to jump off the table.
There is the roll to the side, which shows the CB can be manipulated from a straight shot and still produce a sideward roll.
The concept between BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact) is that you aim and stroke through the CB as if it were straight, but instead of hitting straight through the CB you stroke through the same point but on a different line through the CB.
Instead of just pushing forward on the cue stick you move it sideways and forward to hit the cue and at the same contact point as if you were to hit straight through it, that is BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact).
The BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact) is a possible explanation for the sideward roll or the draw and hop effects produced by the CB.
It is possible that a stroke that isn't straight can hit the same contact point that a straight through stroke hits. The difference is that when the cue is stroked by a non-straight stroke it produces an effect on to the cue ball.
For discussion there is the draw and hop shot, which shows that the CB can become airborne, meaning something caused the CB to jump off the table.
There is the roll to the side, which shows the CB can be manipulated from a straight shot and still produce a sideward roll.
The concept between BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact) is that you aim and stroke through the CB as if it were straight, but instead of hitting straight through the CB you stroke through the same point but on a different line through the CB.
Instead of just pushing forward on the cue stick you move it sideways and forward to hit the cue and at the same contact point as if you were to hit straight through it, that is BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact).
The BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact) is a possible explanation for the sideward roll or the draw and hop effects produced by the CB.
Last edited:
If you agree fine, if you disagree that is fine too.
If you wish to discuss the details of the concept behind BCEC, beginning contact and ending contact, then it is just hitting the CB through the same point along a different line of stroke to produce an effect on the path the CB makes after collision with an OB.
I am interested in your concepts and theories on how CB motion produced by a CS stroke can be simplified, please feel free to discuss them on the thread.
If you wish to discuss the details of the concept behind BCEC, beginning contact and ending contact, then it is just hitting the CB through the same point along a different line of stroke to produce an effect on the path the CB makes after collision with an OB.
I am interested in your concepts and theories on how CB motion produced by a CS stroke can be simplified, please feel free to discuss them on the thread.
You are a retard.
Go do a simple search on Dr. Dave's sight, swallow your incoherent pride and admit that you are woefully off the mark with this latest drivel.
Shame on you.
Elliot <--- still wondering how it's possible to be THAT ignorant.
You have no independent interpretation of what happens for the CB motion.
Anyone can cite a text, making it easy to understand is the fun part.
If nothing else this is easy entertainment for me.
But you don't know what to think other than what you have been told. You didn't even make an analysis, you are all opinion and no argument.
(Do you even know what retard means?) Stop using language that you are not familiar with, I am sure it was impressive in that movie or song you are familiar with, but it lacks demonstration of knowledge on your part.
If you do have an understanding, NOT a reference to another site or link, then that is what the purpose of the thread, to develop an understanding.
If you have a link or reference your job would be to explain in clear and concise language a summary of the content for the link you provide.
A decent 6th grade writing ability is asking for a lot but I am sure many of you can find the inherent talent to perform the task.
If you can't think of anything else just draw a picture to explain your idea. Or post video of a stroke shot you thought interesting. You can even ask your parents, children, spouse or relative for help. But consider the level of intelligence on the board as in demand for clear and concise language.
If you have a link or reference your job would be to explain in clear and concise language a summary of the content for the link you provide.
A decent 6th grade writing ability is asking for a lot but I am sure many of you can find the inherent talent to perform the task.
If you can't think of anything else just draw a picture to explain your idea. Or post video of a stroke shot you thought interesting. You can even ask your parents, children, spouse or relative for help. But consider the level of intelligence on the board as in demand for clear and concise language.
You keep feeding me so the troll I will feed....
I have a 6th grade experiment for you to complete: watch every video on Dr. Dave's site. Listen, watch, absorb and learn.
When you have completed that, come back here and post intelligent counter points refuting his painstaking analysis. Start with explaining how you were incorrect with all 7 points that Neil listed earlier in this thread and work your way up from there to your BCEC theory.
At that point, the great unwashed of this board will engage you in a meaningful discussion.
Take care and good luck.
Elliot <--- trying to do the honorable thing
So you can't even explain what the site discusses. Your not reliable or a credible source of information.
Next time consider an argument that has logic. If you speak English then you can debate. Because as it is you haven't said anything.
The idea you have is not your own and you have no idea how to debate it. I am just interested in discussion but you lack the tools to begin one.
I can help you.
What is your point? From here we can structure an argument.
My point, dear friend, is that the majority of folks participating in this thread have a very solid understanding of the fundamentals of physics as they apply to the game of pool and, since Dr. Dave's site is widely recognized as an accurate, concise and complete representation of the group's understanding, you should first attempt to catch up to the rest of the group before spouting condescending tirades. I simply cannot understand why you would choose to dismiss out of hand such a rich repository of information.
I am offering you - via my suggestion that you become well acquainted with Dr. Dave's material - a very quick path to enlightenment. Should you take that path, your own game and intelligence will likely benefit. Should you choose the path of ignorance, one can only assume that you enjoy the roll of troll.
Troll on brother.
Elliot <-- troll feeder extraordinaire
Your point is "there is written text about the billiards of physics." I understand I am posting on a forum on a thread I started. I am interested in discussing ideas about stroking.
But since you don't have any ideas we can't discuss anything.
I am familiar with the website but the point of being on a forum is discussion.
If you are here to sell services or products that is fine too, but I am not interested in buying.
It seem if I didn't post then you'd have nothing to talk about. So it seem you have some thoughts on your mind but have trouble expressing them or writing them down without my posts to motivate you. So I am just going to help with your development of an idea, because so far it is all "goto a website and read about it."
In the forum I was thinking someone might have already read it and be able to debate it. But your proving that some people don't have the ability to discuss other people's work they can only cite it.
I would have been fine if you just plagiarized the site for me to debate it. But even then you would need to know which parts of the site are needed for the debate. I won't assume anything about what you know.
The only thing you have displayed is that you know a website has information about the physics of billiards. Other than that you haven't shared any ideas. You have impressive adjectives and an ability to combine nouns with them but nothing relating to a discussion on the effects of the stroke of a cue stick on the cue ball.
It is English 101, don't just copy someone else's work at least paraphrase it to prove you have read it.
Start a new thread, I am interested in discussing stroke for this one.
Are you familiar with forum etiquette because you are showing signs you aren't.
Isn't it obvious the title of the thread is "The stroke thread?" I am interested in discussing the stroke.
Start a thread elsewhere and I might post there.
I'll take that as a no.
You really should try to play the game first before engaging in a discussion you know nothing about.
That is a great line, the first few hundred times people wrote it in a forum.
Did you have any ideas on stroke?
If you need to see some good examples I posted a profile of different types of strokes and the video shows the effect they have on the cue ball motion after collision with an object ball.
OK, I'll bite.
What would you like to debate?
You started this thread by opining that three different strokes are required to induce three types of draw: straight back, freezer (stop shot) and side draw. You were told that there is, in fact, only one stroke required to produce these results, provided that the speed and angle of CB/OB contact are varied appropriately.
How would you like me to guide you further?
Elliot <-- your willing educational servant
Last edited:
In the video link I posted several strokes are shown. Of the different strokes several have a draw effect. Some have more than just a draw effect.
One has a draw effect and a jump. Another a draw and a side roll and one with only side roll. The idea I am evaluating for how to create those effects is called beginning contact and ending contact. The idea that the draw can be produced by different strokes and in combination with other effects indicates that it is worth discussing.
Most interesting is that the stroke need not only be straight on to create a draw effect. Simply the cue stroke can be on a different line and through the same contact point as if it were a straight through shot to produce a draw and another effect.
That would be my idea. Something you would consider writing is "I don't like that idea because ..." or "I was reading a site and it said ... it forces me to disagree with you because..."
(That last paragraph is to help you with beginning an argument against.)
Your idea appears to lack substance. You should develop it further before engaging this group in more detailed discussion.
All you seem to be stating is that two different aim lines with the same draw stroke will produce different draw results.
I think everyone would agree with that. What is unique about your idea? How would you prove it? What tools would help you develop the idea further? How can I use it to improve my game?
Elliot <--- open minded
I will help you with what I said.
Two different stroke lines can produce a draw effect and sometimes other effects. Those other effects are a jump, side roll or a combination of the draw with jump or the draw with side roll.
Specifically that the CB "magic" is caused by the stroke because at the beginning contact to the end of contact a force is being applied to the cue ball by the cue stick.
Knowing how to navigate the CB with all the effects of physics opens the range of positional play for people familiar with the concept, some people already know some may not. I post to see who knows, is familiar with or isn't familiar with it.
Essential to developing an idea is predicting when it happens that is what BCEC (beginning contact and ending contact) is it is a cause with a result. The result being the CB motion of side-draw, side-roll and jump-draw. Unique to my idea is that BCEC is the determining factor in creating side-draw, side-roll and jump-draw.
I am not able to say how to enhance your game, I am not familiar with your limitations or how to expand them.
I am discussing the cause for the effects of CB side-draw, side-roll and jump-draw. Direct your inquiries about improving your game to the "Ask An Instructor" section of the forum.
Last edited: