The Use of BHE - FHE Theory

Scientific calculations aside- each players’ stroke - in and of itself - no matter the cue- each individual’s stroke performance will impart different degrees of spin on the cue ball - which is a variable that only personal experience will truly reveal for that person to make appropriate adjustments.
 
mikemosconi said:
Scientific calculations aside- each players’ stroke - in and of itself - no matter the cue- each individual’s stroke performance will impart different degrees of spin on the cue ball - which is a variable that only personal experience will truly reveal for that person to make appropriate adjustments.
Click to expand...
If different strokes deliver the tip to the same point on the CB at the same angle and with the same force, then the spin will be the same.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If different strokes deliver the tip to the same point on the CB at the same angle and with the same force, then the spin will be the same.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Not true at all because one person’s stroke may be just a poke that really does not spin the cb much at all where a Van Boning stroke imparts tremendous spin even given the same speed of stroke.
Not every stroke spins the cb the same regardless of what you say above / I have been video taping strokes for 30 years - sorry but all your physics aside- great strokes are much more efficient than terrible poking strokes.
Hit two exact same shots at exact same speeds at exact same point on the cb BUT one stroke is pro quality and the other is a terrible poke - I guarantee you the cb does NOT end up at the same location after contacting rails.
 
Common sense will tell you that it is the stroke that makes the difference -otherwise anyone could just hit a cb at at certain spot at a certain speed and achieve position - the effective strokes are what truly move the cb to desired positions bc they impart the desired follow, draw, or side spin most effectively and consistently. The strokes don’t have to look the same- but they have to get that cue tip all the way through the Cb to maximize effectiveness. Pokes just don’t create enough true action from the cue ball
 
mikemosconi said:
Hit two exact same shots at exact same speeds at exact same point on the cb BUT one stroke is pro quality and the other is a terrible poke - I guarantee you the cb does NOT end up at the same location after contacting rails.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. The CB doesn't know or care what the stroke looks like. It only knows where the tip hits, where the cue is pointing, and what speed the cue has at impact. For further explanation and proof, see:


Having said this, a good stroke with "best practices" fundamentals will definitely be much more accurate and consistent, and result in better speed control.
 
dr_dave said:
This is simply not true. The CB doesn't know or care what the stroke looks like. It only knows where the tip hits, where the cue is pointing, and what speed the cue has at impact. For further explanation and proof, see:


Having said this, a good stroke with "best practices" fundamentals will definitely be much more accurate and consistent, and result in better speed control.
Click to expand...
You are so wrong it is ridiculous! The game would be easy if what you say is true - it takes a pro stroke to consistently get desired CB shape precisely bc the stroke is the MAIN dictator of how the CB reacts. Did you ever hear the commentators say “ he put a great stroke on that ball” ? —- when a guy gets great shape off a shot! It is just WRONG information to tell people that any stroke works - really WRONG!
 
mikemosconi said:
You are so wrong it is ridiculous! The game would be easy if what you say is true - it takes a pro stroke to consistently get desired CB shape precisely bc the stroke is the MAIN dictator of how the CB reacts. Did you ever hear the commentators say “ he put a great stroke on that ball” ? —- when a guy gets great shape off a shot! It is just WRONG information to tell people that any stroke works - really WRONG!
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into the heated part of this discussion but I will support Mike to the degree of saying stroke matters.
 
mikemosconi said:
You are so wrong it is ridiculous! The game would be easy if what you say is true - it takes a pro stroke to consistently get desired CB shape precisely bc the stroke is the MAIN dictator of how the CB reacts. Did you ever hear the commentators say “ he put a great stroke on that ball” ? —- when a guy gets great shape off a shot! It is just WRONG information to tell people that any stroke works - really WRONG!
Click to expand...
Sorry man. Physics is physics. Tip offset. Speed. Direction. Mass. That’s about it.

Stroke is important. If you intend to hit the ball exactly at one point but inadvertently hit somewhere else then you are not getting good results. A good stroke delivers to the exact intended target repeatedly.

Things like follow through vs poking are important. Accelerating through the ball is important. Because if you poke the ball, you’re tensing up. You’re adding new muscles. You’re deviating your tip position. And you’re not delivering consistently in a repeatable manner. Everything you take as good fundamentals are good fundamentals. But not because of the action it gives the ball, it’s because of the control it gives the player.
 
ShootingArts said:
I'm not going to get into the heated part of this discussion but I will support Mike to the degree of saying stroke matters.
Click to expand...
I don't think Dave is suggesting that a 'good stroke' or stroke that can be defined as good (e.g. repeatable, delivering to the required specification) is not imperative. A 'good stroke' can look like shit, as long as it delivers all of the necessary requirements to the Cue ball. The stroke is simply the vessel which delivers all of the things Dave suggested... Physics... 'science bitchhh' 🤣 (edit: not calling you a bitch, just quoting a show haha)

So Dave is right, Your stroke could look like utter shit, as long as it delivers the required necessities for doing what it is you intend to do with the ball, it is a 'good stroke'

There are of course methods which give the desired results more often than others, and these usually become copied and evolve into a 'gold standard' or correct method that is then coached or fawned over as being a 'perfect' stroke - Snooker coaching is prime example of this. Cue action and what that looks like, is drilled into young players, and there is not much variation with what is considered 'best practice'.

It absolutely bewildered me how some of the ugliest and most ungainly styles were actually effective methods for winning games of pool.
 
Flakeandrun said:
I don't think Dave is suggesting that a 'good stroke' or stroke that can be defined as good (e.g. repeatable, delivering to the required specification) is not imperative. A 'good stroke' can look like shit, as long as it delivers all of the necessary requirements to the Cue ball. The stroke is simply the vessel which delivers all of the things Dave suggested... Physics... 'science bitchhh' 🤣 (edit: not calling you a bitch, just quoting a show haha)

So Dave is right, Your stroke could look like utter shit, as long as it delivers the required necessities for doing what it is you intend to do with the ball, it is a 'good stroke'

There are of course methods which give the desired results more often than others, and these usually become copied and evolve into a 'gold standard' or correct method that is then coached or fawned over as being a 'perfect' stroke - Snooker coaching is prime example of this. Cue action and what that looks like, is drilled into young players, and there is not much variation with what is considered 'best practice'.

It absolutely bewildered me how some of the ugliest and most ungainly styles were actually effective methods for winning games of pool.
Click to expand...

I think dwell time, tip on cue ball, is far underrated. Dwell time is directly related to stroke. I think we all agree terrible strokes can work, not that they are a good thing. Some strokes that people make work aren't accelerating at contact, are even losing speed. Most instructors look at the most gawdawful strokes but if a player can run a few racks with that stroke they move on to other things.

Most players, including pro's, hit the cue ball late in their stroke or did when I studied video. Hardly a good thing, but if done consistently it works. Hitting a little early or at a true ninety degrees is better.

Back hand english is the easiest to apply and the worst way to apply english. Front hand or roughly 75% front hand, 25% backhand is better. From a performance standpoint a parallel shift is probably best, but it is most difficult to learn.

Ultimately we learn to use the stroke and english we like. In time it becomes the best, for us!

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I'm not going to get into the heated part of this discussion but I will support Mike to the degree of saying stroke matters.
Click to expand...
The stroke is how we deliver the cue tip to the right spot on the CB at the right angle and speed, so of course it's key even if there are differences of opinion about other stroke effects.

pj
chgo
 
ShootingArts said:
I think dwell time, tip on cue ball, is far underrated. Dwell time is directly related to stroke. I think we all agree terrible strokes can work, not that they are a good thing. Some strokes that people make work aren't accelerating at contact, are even losing speed. Most instructors look at the most gawdawful strokes but if a player can run a few racks with that stroke they move on to other things.
Click to expand...
Yes, a pause is something that is necessary and all players incorporate. Even those who think they don't (such as Capito). There is a moment, however brief, preceding the stroke that we mentally ensure alignment. If we practice enough, this becomes embedded in the subconscious, mind and alongside our muscle memory produces the stroke that we have learned. This helps us to asses and impart the dwell/contact time with the CB
ShootingArts said:
Most players, including pro's, hit the cue ball late in their stroke or did when I studied video. Hardly a good thing, but if done consistently it works. Hitting a little early or at a true ninety degrees is better.
Click to expand...
Whatever gets that cue through in a straight line.
ShootingArts said:
Back hand english is the easiest to apply and the worst way to apply english. Front hand or roughly 75% front hand, 25% backhand is better. From a performance standpoint a parallel shift is probably best, but it is most difficult to learn.
Click to expand...
I think Back hand or Front hand are both nonsense, hitting off-line seems to encourage more problems than it will ever fix. Anything besides parallel shift, which I assume just means playing the shot straight through the desired contact point on the CB, seems ludicrous to me. We should play enough hours to understand and account for the throw that our equipment will give us when spin is needing to be applied to the cueball, prior to cueing down on the shot.
ShootingArts said:
Ultimately we learn to use the stroke and english we like. In time it becomes the best, for us!
Click to expand...
100% and that can be said in any sport. Sometimes unconventional, changes the existing perception of accepted 'normal' e.g. Lasith Malinga reshaped the limits of a 'normal'/conventional bowling action.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
The stroke is how we deliver the cue tip to the right spot on the CB at the right angle and speed, so of course it's key even if there are differences of opinion about other stroke effects.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
What are stroke effects? What is a stroke? There is no defined normal, the only fixed standards that can derive the outcome for the CB are as described before. Physics.

I don't know what you mean by stroke 'effects'? Your stroke 'affects' the physical way you interact with the ball. You could twirl It like a baton before every shot as long as you applied the correct physics to the ball - You have a good stroke.

Humans are all shapes and sizes, so how these shapes and sizes deliver the appropriate physics to the CB will vary. A 'good stroke' is purely subjective. A 'good shot' is not, It's physics.
 
JCraig said:
On the use of BHE and FHE, my theory is that unless your bridge length matches the natural pivot length (NPL) of the cue you must use a combination of BHE and FHE to bring the natural pivot point into the aim line of the shot. This is especially true for my Predator Z shaft with a NPL of 18” and my bridge length of 12”. With my bridge length I calculated that I need 5mm of FHE (just a 1mm less than ½ a tip of my 12mm tip) and pivot out the remainder with BHE to the miss cue limit of 5/8”. My spin shot procedure seems to work for me and is fairly simple. For pure left or right spin, at my bridge length, I put my tip at the bottom center of the cue ball move tip with my bridge hand over until the bottom center is almost to the edge of my tip and BHE pivot out to miss cue limit. For top or bottom left or right hand spin I move bridge over a ¼ tip of FHE. FHE is fairly easy calculate through the use of similar triangles. One triangle would be the miss cue limit and the NPL. The other would be FHE and the NPL minus the bridge length. For me, my Z shaft and a miss cue limit of 5/8”:

FHE = (miss cue limit / NPL) X (NPL – bridge length):

FHE = (.625/18) X (18 – 12)

= .208” or 5.3 mm

Now if I owned Cynergy with NPL of 14" my FHE correction would be a little less than 1mm. My shot procedure could be to BHE pivot out to the limit and just think about FHE.


Patrick, Dr Dave what do you think, sound like a plausible theory?

View attachment 760236
Click to expand...
How does one calculate NPL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top