Tips for shooting jacked up off the rail or over a ball

[Pidge]

And if they also get good instruction in that sport's "science", they can be better at it in less time.

Suit yourself, but why argue against others having the benefit of knowing what's really happening?

pj
chgo

I'm not arguing, this is more of a civil debate... Quite the rarity on here. I agree that having the knowledge of the physics behind pool early enough into a players development can drastically improve the time it takes to progress. But at the same time for your average Joe it can complicate matters and hinder their learning due to confusion and misinterpreted information. I know and have experienced the benefits of sites and material from people like yourself, Neil, Dave and Bob and wish I knew this when I was first starting out. All you have to do is take a lesson from Ronnie or Hendry to realize they don't have a clue about the physics, but have both reached ridiculous levels of play in their careers down to hard work on the table. Who knows, if your mind was in Ronnie's body he could have been twice as good.

 

[Neil]

I'm not arguing, this is more of a civil debate... Quite the rarity on here. I agree that having the knowledge of the physics behind pool early enough into a players development can drastically improve the time it takes to progress. But at the same time for your average Joe it can complicate matters and hinder their learning due to confusion and misinterpreted information. I know and have experienced the benefits of sites and material from people like yourself, Neil, Dave and Bob and wish I knew this when I was first starting out. All you have to do is take a lesson from Ronnie or Hendry to realize they don't have a clue about the physics, but have both reached ridiculous levels of play in their careers down to hard work on the table. Who knows, if your mind was in Ronnie's body he could have been twice as good.

One thing you aren't taking into account, and many on here seem to make the same mistake, is that Ronnie isn't on here. And, there is only one Ronnie. When Pat, Dr. Dave, any qualified instructor on here makes a post, it is to the actual readership on here.

No one is saying that Ronnie needs the added info, he obviously doesn't. But, the vast majority of the rest of us do. So, for some to constantly compare any instruction to the elite of the elite all the time, is just missing the entire point.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't believe in instruction of specifics like you suggest. I'm old fashioned and believe if one has the fundamental techniques required to play a sport then all they have to do is play the sport enough and they can be good at that sport. So the only instruction I have ever paid for has been fundamental lessons. If a player understands the science behind a given task, but can't execute the fundamental requirements, what good is their knowledge? Likewise if a player has exceptional fundamentals but knows nothing of the physics behind pool and why their fundamentals are exceptional, could that player play good pool? Ask some of the best players in the world if you are struggling to find the answer.

:thumbup2::thumbup2:

 

[Pidge]

One thing you aren't taking into account, and many on here seem to make the same mistake, is that Ronnie isn't on here. And, there is only one Ronnie. When Pat, Dr. Dave, any qualified instructor on here makes a post, it is to the actual readership on here.

No one is saying that Ronnie needs the added info, he obviously doesn't. But, the vast majority of the rest of us do. So, for some to constantly compare any instruction to the elite of the elite all the time, is just missing the entire point.

True, no one of Ronnie's calibre is on here. Then again, how many Physics students are on here? The day any of the physics experts learn to present their findings in a way that can capture the majorities attention and keep them interested is the day that AZ starts producing future Ronnie's.

 

[Neil]

True, no one of Ronnie's calibre is on here. Then again, how many Physics students are on here? The day any of the physics experts learn to present their findings in a way that can capture the majorities attention and keep them interested is the day that AZ starts producing future Ronnie's.

Actually, a ton of that is on here. It's just that many are too lazy to actually read it, let alone practice it. I agree that sometimes the science part gets rather deep. And, to honest, I don't read all of that either. Some of it is just over my head.

But, even that has it's place because some on here enjoy it. And, it does lead to new insights into what happens.

If people on here would just learn the basics of the science, such as 30 deg rule, 45 deg rule, how to know where a ball will draw to accurately, how far the cb will follow, what spin does and how to adjust for it, ect,, you would be amazed at how much their games would actually improve.

As you probably know, I am now disabled. I can't play for long at all anymore. Many days I can't play at all. However, just practicing the basics for even a rack or two and knowing the BU drills, I can still hold my own for a set or two against local national champions. One of them we have an even record, and one of them I have a winning record against. That's the power of knowing what is happening vs. just guessing from experience. It's not to be underrated at all.

 

[Pidge]

Actually, a ton of that is on here. It's just that many are too lazy to actually read it, let alone practice it. I agree that sometimes the science part gets rather deep. And, to honest, I don't read all of that either. Some of it is just over my head.

But, even that has it's place because some on here enjoy it. And, it does lead to new insights into what happens.

If people on here would just learn the basics of the science, such as 30 deg rule, 45 deg rule, how to know where a ball will draw to accurately, how far the cb will follow, what spin does and how to adjust for it, ect,, you would be amazed at how much their games would actually improve.

As you probably know, I am now disabled. I can't play for long at all anymore. Many days I can't play at all. However, just practicing the basics for even a rack or two and knowing the BU drills, I can still hold my own for a set or two against local national champions. One of them we have an even record, and one of them I have a winning record against. That's the power of knowing what is happening vs. just guessing from experience. It's not to be underrated at all.

I completely agree, the deep stuff does have its readers and it deserves it's place. I just wish the in depth enthusiasts would recognise when all the readers want in a thread is Physics for dummies. Visa versa, I wish the physics dummies would learn to keep their nose out of the enthusiasts threads. I'm guilty just as much as the next guy but I'm learning to only contribute something useful to discussions and I can't contribute on the in depth stuff so I tend to stay clear. It would limit the big arguments we seem to get on here, stop people getting banned as much and improve everyone's experience. I'm not saying you shouldn't enter threads made by me, or me enter threads by you but if we do, respect one another's level of knowledge on matters, try not to patronise and definitively say one is wrong one is right. There is a definitive right and wrong with Physics in pool, I get that but maybe people disagreeing with one another over such subjects should thake a different approach instead of the bull in a China shop approach.

 

[ENGLISH!]

True, no one of Ronnie's calibre is on here. Then again, how many Physics students are on here? The day any of the physics experts learn to present their findings in a way that can capture the majorities attention and keep them interested is the day that AZ starts producing future Ronnie's.

:thumbup2::thumbup2:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Actually, a ton of that is on here. It's just that many are too lazy to actually read it, let alone practice it. I agree that sometimes the science part gets rather deep. And, to honest, I don't read all of that either. Some of it is just over my head.

But, even that has it's place because some on here enjoy it. And, it does lead to new insights into what happens.

If people on here would just learn the basics of the science, such as 30 deg rule, 45 deg rule, how to know where a ball will draw to accurately, how far the cb will follow, what spin does and how to adjust for it, ect,, you would be amazed at how much their games would actually improve.

As you probably know, I am now disabled. I can't play for long at all anymore. Many days I can't play at all. However, just practicing the basics for even a rack or two and knowing the BU drills, I can still hold my own for a set or two against local national champions. One of them we have an even record, and one of them I have a winning record against. That's the power of knowing what is happening vs. just guessing from experience. It's not to be underrated at all.

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

Sorry about your physical issues.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I completely agree, the deep stuff does have its readers and it deserves it's place. I just wish the in depth enthusiasts would recognise when all the readers want in a thread is Physics for dummies. Visa versa, I wish the physics dummies would learn to keep their nose out of the enthusiasts threads. I'm guilty just as much as the next guy but I'm learning to only contribute something useful to discussions and I can't contribute on the in depth stuff so I tend to stay clear. It would limit the big arguments we seem to get on here, stop people getting banned as much and improve everyone's experience. I'm not saying you shouldn't enter threads made by me, or me enter threads by you but if we do, respect one another's level of knowledge on matters, try not to patronise and definitively say one is wrong one is right. There is a definitive right and wrong with Physics in pool, I get that but maybe people disagreeing with one another over such subjects should thake a different approach instead of the bull in a China shop approach.

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

 

[gregcantrall]

Aw come on

I'm not getting upset, it just pisses me off when people take the bait and ruin a perfectly good thread.

Admit it you did not come to this thread to learn. You came to watch the fights. :wink: I went to watch the fights and a hockey game broke out!:grin:

I can't believe that a 98 IQ is near genius.....but then I am not a science guy.

The biggest thing in shooting jacked up off the rail or over a ball is watching your cue tip go into and through the cue ball. This requires a pre shot routine that is rock solid and puts you on the line of aim before you place your bridge on the table.:thumbup:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Admit it you did not come to this thread to learn. You came to watch the fights. :wink: I went to watch the fights and a hockey game broke out!:grin:

I can't believe that a 98 IQ is near genius.....but then I am not a science guy.

The biggest thing in shooting jacked up off the rail or over a ball is watching your cue tip go into and through the cue ball. This requires a pre shot routine that is rock solid and puts you on the line of aim before you place your bridge on the table.:thumbup:

Never Mind. It's pointless to tell the truth here on AZB.

Maybe there are just too many with IQs in the 85 range that lack good reading comprehension.

I said 98 percentile toward genius & NOT a 98 IQ.

 

[Pidge]

Admit it you did not come to this thread to learn. You came to watch the fights. :wink: I went to watch the fights and a hockey game broke out!:grin:

I can't believe that a 98 IQ is near genius.....but then I am not a science guy.

The biggest thing in shooting jacked up off the rail or over a ball is watching your cue tip go into and through the cue ball. This requires a pre shot routine that is rock solid and puts you on the line of aim before you place your bridge on the table.:thumbup:

No, I didn't come to this thread to learn. I have no problems with these shots other than they are one of the most difficult shots in the game. I came to pass on how I shoot these shots and what I've practiced doing over the years to get me where I'm at with these shots.

 

[His Boy Elroy]

Elroy,

I have not participated in a shot making thread in months. In fact, the last time I had any interaction with Rick was back May during the infamous push/pull debate. I don't participate in any of the CTE debates because I don't feel qualified to do so, (unlike some). I tend to quip a one liner to lighten the mood because those threads do get intense.

I don't roam the forums on horseback looking to chatize anyone who deviates from the traditional. However when someone posts something that goes against known scientific evidence, and they have no evidence to support their claim. As a PBIA instructor I feel responsible to reply. The funniest thing about this, is that Duckie is well known to want to measure everything. Ask him his thoughts about hitting a ball with pocket speed. I wanted clarification, and video evidence. Since he is into minutia I figured he measured it.

In fact honestly I don't reply much about instruction any more (don't believe me review my posts) frankly getting into these "debates" with English! is really not worth my time or aggravation. I just as soon have him on ignore. Because these debates go down the same path as all of his interactions go. That has not changed in a few years and two bans.

You too, are no angel yourself so this is laughable that you are making excuses for Ricks behavior, Tell me have you ever apologized to Dr. Dave regarding Billiard U? If I missed it I will apologize to you in advance.

BTW hope you like your GC table now, if you recall my advice to you regarding your Minnesota Fats table was spot on correct.

Tony ---->Just another white knight riding in or horseback.

Tony,
Upon further review, I now recognize that although some might disagree with your opinion in post #19, it was in no way in inappropriatly presented. Also upon further review, although Rick says in post # 22, " I was speaking to Greg in regards to a general contention by some in regards to what he has said in a couple of threads," it would be natural to think before he said that, that he was directing his comments to only you.

I can't speak for Rick, but I can tell you I read your post with jaundiced eyes and had a knee jerk reaction to it that I wouldn't have had with many other posters. Why? Because we had a good rapport before the billiard university thread. You're right in saying you were the one who got me thinking about the quality of my table, which led to my present day G4. Then you turned on me and raked me over the coals in that thread, along with pretty much everybody with the exeption of Rick and Pathetic Shark. I was getting called every name in the book in that thread. I'm still pissed off. Billiard University diplomas were being sold for $200, $175, and $150. I still can't believe it. So Tony, what is pasted below is not an apology from the doc. Nor am I ever gonna apologize to him; but, it is an interesting post from him from 11/2/13

Quote, Dr. Dave:
Even though "His Boy Elroy" was not very nice in this thread (to the point of getting banned), I wanted to thank him for encouraging the Billiard University (BU) to rethink its pricing structure. The BU has decided to streamline our application and video-evaluation process and permanently reduce the prices for the various BU diploma options to try to get more students and instructors interested in applying for diplomas and getting results and videos posted on the official BU alumni website. We didn't want price to be an obstacle while still being able to justify our time and expense.

A printed diploma is now $100, an electronic-only diploma is now $50, and a website-only diploma is now only $25! Hopefully, even people like "His Boy Elroy" won't think these prices are out of line or inappropriate.

FYI, we will be issuing partial refunds to all people who previously paid the higher prices for a diploma. Feel free to contact me for this; otherwise, I will be contacting you soon.

Thanks again "His Boy Elroy!"

If you still haven't tried the BU playing-ability Exams yet, and/or if you haven't posted scores (and videos if available) on the AZB BU thread yet (for free), please consider doing so.

Best regards, and good luck on the exams,
Dave

His Boy Elroy again: Since that day 23 months ago, 2 diplomas have been awarded. One was awarded at the 2014 three day summer boot camp. The other was awarded in July, at this years boot camp. I assume the cost of the diploma is included in the $1000 tuition. ( I have no problem) Not a single other diploma has been purchased since I opened that thread.

When I returned from my ban I purchased the doc's book, " The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards." It's a superb mid- sized paperback. For $14:95 there's 274 pages of pretty much everything I need to know about the physics of pool and then some! It's easy to read and understand and the illustrations are terrific. I recommend it to everybody..........I don't think I'll be apologizing to the doc though........as for the other instructors involved with the doc in this.......We all do really stupid things from time to time in our lives. I'll tell you what! Read my next post. It was from a few months ago and the O.P was asking advice on how to remove excess water from his cloth. Seems his wife was sprinkling the hose outside and she didn't realize there was only a screen on the window.

 

[His Boy Elroy]

If it'll make your wife feel better, tell her about the time I cooked spaghetti. I guess I do it like everyone else. I boil water in a pan, throw the spaghetti in for ten minutes, then I put a strainer in the sink. I throw the boiling water with the spaghetti in it into the strainer. The water all flows through the little holes in the bottom of the strainer and down the sink. I'm left with just spaghetti.
A few years ago I guess I must have been occupied with other thoughts while going through these motions. I put the strainer in the middle of the kitchen table and poured into it the boiling water with the spaghetti in it.
This is why I'm unlike some other posters who use their real names. God, I love writing about my deepest internal troubles in anonymity! ........and no.....I never drink and cook.....or drink and write for that matter!

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

 

[owll]

Here we go again. The same old people bickering like grumpy old men over the same old pointless crap. This could've been a great thread with some really great info for others to test out.

To add to what I've already contributed...

I find it helps to have the cue contact the chest, and on more severe angles of attack the side of the torso. Helps with keeping the cue on line. I also find it easier to aim thick on the pot, for what ever reason I over cut these shots a little.

Most people miss these because of how they raise the cue. It starts out lined up perfectly but the button end goes off line as it's raised. I like to start flat with the cue but make sure my hip contacts my grip, then as I raise up and have my bridge set I simply pull my grip up towards my armpit, this, for my body type anyway, gets the cue perfectly on the line of aim.

If you are jacked up on a shot, and there is air under ball when it contacts object ball, it will overcut the shot. For that reason i always aim to hit these shots a small to medium amount full, and use speed of cue ball, and feel to try match up amount of air under cue ball, to amount of undercut im aiming on.

For jacked up shots, cue ball will always get some air under it.
If cue ball isnt flush with table when it contacts object ball, it will overcut the shot.

(hard to explain without a drawing, but imagine your desired contact point and ball travelling on the desired path, with air under cue ball it will strike the object ball, a little high, and little outside of desired contact point, overcutting the shot)

(second effort...draw a line from pocket thru object ball. normally the contact point to make the object ball is where this line intersects the edge of the ball. Now, still using this line thru object ball, where is the contact point if your cue ball has about 1/4 inch of air under it? the contact point to make the object is still on the same line thru the object ball, but the contact point is no longer at the edge of the object ball, its now about 1/8" up that line thru the object ball. Where do you need to aim to hit that spot 1/8 inch, and 1/8 inch fuller? well you need to aim for a more full hit than normal......MORE HEIGHT UNDER OBJECT BALL, REQUIRES AIM LINE CLOSER TO A FULL HIT)

Alot of experienced players know they have to aim more full on these shots, above is the explanation as to why. This has nothing to do with english, it is compensation for the air under cue ball when it strikes the object ball.

 

[Lou Loulacy]

Referring to the masse effect when you are elevated, I focus very closely on shooting through the center of the cue ball, usually avoiding english. And making sure my follow through goes straight through. Very similar to draw shots in that manner. Straight follow through has improved my elevated shot making greatly.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

This helped me a lot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYSEGQkdBNE

 

[SmoothStroke]

Yes and over 30 years ago it was called a nip stroke at least here in the North East., so what?

If I drive down on a cue as Greg states it "feels' different than shooting straight through for a good reason. It is NOT due to any additional tip contact time as he suggested.

I hope you are not implying that the knowledge I have of the game was just what was told to me by others.

Not the same stroke, a nip is a nip, a short stab, small movement stroke, moving the cue ball 2 inches, although you can clear up on a nip.

Most all top players clear the cue, many clear it with power and draw, and Efren is on top of the list. I learned what clearing is from Steve Mizerak in Petey Margo's Golden Cue, also in the Northeast.
Steve would clear with massive power, and a beautiful stroke, just beautiful.

Here is Earl Clearing, not only is he clearing, he is also swiping across and up. This example does not mean you only clear with power, routine strokes are cleared by many, even Mosconi cleared quite often.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDGvdPR_LHo&feature=youtu.be

 

[Tony_in_MD]

The shot I was first describing in post 19 was when you are jacked up over a ball and the CB is close to an object ball. Some of the message and details of my description was lost in translation in responding to another poster. What I was describing was a nip stroke. Since then I have a poster on ignore, and I have no wish to review his posts.

Clearing the cue as you call it and a nip stroke that I was describing are two different things.

I wish I could have seen Steve play more, I only saw him the last few years of his play before his stroke.

The video of Earl on my bad internet connection is not clear, so I cannot see him swiping the cue well. What I can see is an open bridge and a lot of cue tip speed which he bleeds off with a big elbow drop. Since I cannot see it clearly I cannot tell if he is dropping and swiping after contact or prior. I suspect that if he used a closed bridge you would not see that elevated finish.

I practice a similar shot, but do it with a closed bridge with my hand on the bed of the table. I am sure if I shot this the same way as Earl, my cuetip would do the same. In my opinion this cue motion is not necessary to perform the shot, but it is difficult not to do it with the setup that Earl has.

For shots without a lot of power, I would like to see a video to determine when the upward motion of the tip starts, before contact or after. One way would matter to the CB the other in my opinion would not.

Not the same stroke, a nip is a nip, a short stab, small movement stroke, moving the cue ball 2 inches, although you can clear up on a nip.

Most all top players clear the cue, many clear it with power and draw, and Efren is on top of the list. I learned what clearing is from Steve Mizerak in Petey Margo's Golden Cue, also in the Northeast.
Steve would clear with massive power, and a beautiful stroke, just beautiful.

Here is Earl Clearing, not only is he clearing, he is also swiping across and up. This example does not mean you only clear with power, routine strokes are cleared by many, even Mosconi cleared quite often.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDGvdPR_LHo&feature=youtu.be

 

[Poolplaya9]

I agree that having the knowledge of the physics behind pool early enough into a players development can drastically improve the time it takes to progress. But at the same time for your average Joe it can complicate matters and hinder their learning due to confusion and misinterpreted information.

I disagree. Let me explain why. Our subconscious has majority control of making the shot calculations/decisions and it ultimately controls what we end up doing. It is the more "dominant" over the conscious mind and usually overrides it. Given enough experience, your subconscious learns almost all of the physics and knows what to do whether you conscious mind has the physics right or not. This is why guys including top pros can still play at exceptional levels even with incorrect physics beliefs (obviously they still need the physical skills), because their subconscious has learned almost all the correct physics through experience and it is dominant in making the calculations and decisions and is controlling the shots.

Here are two reasons why I think you will be better if you know the physics though, regardless of your level. Even though the subconscious is good at making the correct calculations/decisions, and at overriding your incorrect beliefs about the physics involved, it isn't quite perfect at it. Sometimes the conflict between what your subconscious correctly knows and what your conscious incorrectly knows will muddy the waters enough or interfere enough to keep your subconscious from being able to completely overrule your incorrect beliefs and do the right thing and this leads to increased shot errors. For example (and these numbers are intended to illustrate a point, not be exact), in cases where you have incorrect beliefs about the physics of a certain shot, your subconscious will still get the physics right and make the right calculation and decision and also be able to overrule your incorrect beliefs say 97% of the time. But when you have the correct physics knowledge, then your subconscious makes the correct calculation and decision 99.5% of the time because it is not having to fight with and overrule the conflicting incorrect information from your conscious beliefs. Those conflicts between what the conscious incorrectly believes and what the subconscious correctly knows inherently leads to the unconscious making additional errors that it would not have otherwise made if that conflict did not exist.

The second reason is that while your subconscious is exceptional at learning the correct physics through experience even when you have some false physics beliefs, I don't believe that it is ever able to learn it all completely and perfectly. Close, but not quite. Maybe it is able to learn say 99% of it through experience alone. That still leaves it prone to making the occasional mistake from lack of knowledge since it was unable to acquire fully 100% of the correct physics knowledge through experience alone. But if you actually know all the correct physics then it doesn't take long before your subconscious knows it all too and then your subconscious will essentially have 100% of the correct physics knowledge instead of slightly lesser amount it was able to pick up solely through experience.

In summation, without the correct physics knowledge I don't think your subconscious is ever able to learn quite all of the correct physics through experience alone (although it still does an amazing job considering and gets pretty close) which leads to occasional errors that would not have occured had you known the correct physics, and probably even more importantly, when there is conflict between what your subconscious does correctly know and your incorrect beliefs it will on occasion impede the subconscious' ability to do its job to make the correct calculation/decision and this also causes occasional errors that would not have occurred had you known the correct physics and the conflict not existed.