Understanding Cue Shaft Flexibility

We have pretty much beat this discussion to death without anyone changing an opinion. I would rather miss any amount I miss from center. Others would rather miss from a location off of center. Which they couldn't find without knowing where center was first! But I digress. An interesting discussion. Had I not done the testing to support my beliefs I would probably have went with the "touch of" theory. My tests show misses of cue ball contact point to be less than many seem to believe, From maybe high C, certainly B players upwards. No idea how that translates to fargo ratings.

Until I do something to correct vision I am starting to stink on a nine footer. Fair on a Valley barbox, still pretty stout on a seven foot Diamond although I wouldn't tackle a pro on anything given a choice!

Anyway, thanks to all for an interesting discussion. Pretty obvious that any method can work for better players that have the consistency needed.

Hu
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Introducing spin variables where they aren't needed doesn't sound perfectly reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
Do you choose to hit all pure stop shots center ball with enough force to skid the CB to the OB, or cue below center and hit it softer to time the kill..? Blanket statements are foolish.
Patrick Johnson said:
So the possible outcomes are:
- on target
- left of target
- right of target

Pretty much like any method - same number (and magnitude) of ways to miss.
Click to expand...
Wrong... List goes like this:
-On target (aimed shot, center CB)
-Left of target (result of intented english)
-More left of target (result of excessive english)

The problem within this discussion is that you're forcing your own ideological concept of aiming into my method of potting a blind cut. You refuse to accept the concept that my aim is toward an extreme that I know I cannot exceed with the application of english and subsequent throw. Worse case scenario is I cue to error toward center ball and OB follows the shot line to the extreme. The odds are far greater that I hit a random amount of english and miss the extreme.

There's two separate concepts here. We're discussing one but your applying logic from another to justify your stance. The actual discussion isn't about aim. It's about the method of cueing for a known spin rather than center ball. I've illustrated how I follow that method when performing blind cuts, that do not require any other CB control. Now whether or not you think cueing for a 'relatively known' (either center or definitive direction of rotation), over a 'potentially unknown' (center ball or 1 of 2 directions of rotation) is a good idea is one thing. Something you're really not addressing. You're fixated on the dynamics of aiming and the +/- of missing the target. You incorrectly have assigned the shot with induced throw as the target. It is not. The target is the extreme. I'm aiming to hit that extreme, and then throwing to some other location away from that target.

All that said, and there is still the possibility that my initial target has been misjudged and I am actually hitting it thicker than intended. Maybe that's what you're hanging your hat on...? Of course the extremely likely induced throw will still pot the ball or rattle in off the extreme. However, we risk tumbling down the 'what if' rabbit hole. Once that happens, then we might as well introduce CTE
 
Funny thing. I went between two of my most radically different cues in the past couple of days, both I built.

Cue 1 is a bird's-eye forearm with cherry points and cherry handle, weighs 15oz, 12mm shaft with long taper. I love the cue and would be the last one I would sell.

Cue 2, curly maple with purpleheart points recut with curly maple, handle is ph with cm stripes (4 segment radial billet) cored. Weighs almost 20oz with a 13mm shaft, short taper.

I was over-drawing with the cue 2. It was likely partially the weight factor, but I want over playing shape on other shots.
 
GoldCrown said:
Here is the foremost authority. Professor Irwin Corey... Forward him the subject and he'll keep it simple
Click to expand...
Well, I aim the object ball to a target, it's final resting point. Which is often a pocket, where there's no maximum for speed. The minimum is critical. However, what was the topic?
So knowing the target allows the choice for contact ball to ball point to be chosen. Then decide how to get whitey there. With the proper speed and spin. Both of which can change the reaction even with perfect contact. Once my calculations are done. I seek to make it happen. My observation of the first contact interaction (tip to whitey) provides critical feedback. Well observation of the entire path to the second colision is data rich as well. Slight curvature is at times needed. Knowing just how much is the special sauce developed in practice. The cueball object ball colision gives feedback as well. When I am Focused and on my game, I see the rotational transfer or lack or exaggeration due to surface condition of balls. All data. 🤷‍♂️
What was the topic? Oh well.
 
GoldCrown said:
Here is the foremost authority. Professor Irwin Corey... Forward him the subject and he'll keep it simple ....
Click to expand...
Him and Pat Paulsen would have made a great presidential ticket this last election. Sadly, they are no longer with us...

1743436944578.png
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Call it what you want. The fact is that stroke errors send the CB left or right of where you want it to go (and therefore the OB right or left of where you want it to go), by the same amount, whether you try to hit it dead center or off center.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Stroke error also imparts different rotation to whitey. Seeing how it comes off my cue tip tells me if there was stroke error. Knowing if it's a calculation error or a stroke error is HUGE (spreadhands). Knowing can help right the ship. If I get another shot. 🤷‍♂️
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Call it what you want. The fact is that stroke errors send the CB left or right of where you want it to go (and therefore the OB right or left of where you want it to go), by the same amount, whether you try to hit it dead center or off center.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Definitely, but you're still ignoring the actual conversation. Which is the benefit of erring to application of known spin, rather than a random occurrence of either. Where talking about the concept of erring with english. Not how aiming works.

Once you comes to terms with that, then you can move on to how erring in that way can improve potting %. Once we get there, we can discuss how I choose my target, how erring improves my overall accuracy and rather than suffering with a random +/- from target, I enjoy ++/.

You're so fixated on being 'right' that maybe you are refusing to consider that there's a concept/method that may improve your success rate. The other possibility is that I have no concept of what I'm doing. Wouldn't be the first time I've been told that...lol. However it could be that you simply have nothing else to learn. ;) Welcome to your plateau...
 
Last edited:
The_JV said:
Definitely, but you're still ignoring the actual conversation. Which is the benefit of erring to application of known spin, rather than a random occurrence of either.

Once you comes to terms with that, then you can move on to how erring in that way can improve potting %.
Click to expand...
You're never gonna win with him. He'll keep firing til you agree or quit.
 
garczar said:
You're never gonna win with him. He'll keep firing til you agree or quit.
Click to expand...
That's the best part... I'm not disagreeing with him. At least not on the topic he keeps fixating on...lol

I think Patrick is under the notion that he can emulate a robot's performance during play. Hard truth is we aren't such machines. Fortunately there are hacks to improve success despite 'the human condition'. Not saying what I choose to do is the end all to be all. Just what works for me...
 
The_JV said:
That's the best part... I'm not disagreeing with him. At least not on the topic he keeps fixating on...lol

I think Patrick is under the notion that he can emulate a robot's performance during play. Hard truth is we aren't such machines. Fortunately there are hacks to improve success despite 'the human condition'. Not saying what I choose to do is the end all to be all. Just what works for me...
Click to expand...
well said.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What’s the difference?
Click to expand...
The former is methodology of purposely striking the CB to one side of the center line to avoid unwanted opposite english. The latter (within the scope you've been parroting) is how aim can potentially suffer from a random +/- of desired target.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So the error you’re talking about is only about the direction of spin? Not where the shot goes?
Click to expand...
When I use the term 'erring' in the context you quoted. It's in reference to a known deviation (in direction) from CB center line.

In context:
Rather than aim for center line tip placement. I err toward outside english on cuts to blind pockets.

By "blind pocket" I mean a pocket in which I desire to pot the OB but cannot see when focusing on the OB during the shot.
 
The_JV said:
When I use the term 'erring' in the context you quoted. It's in reference to a known deviation (in direction) from CB center line.
Click to expand...
Me too. We just differ on the likely outcomes (maybe that’s where you get the mistaken impression I’m talking about aiming).

Like you, I’ve been talking only about the effect of stroke error - pointing out that your (and CJ’s) way doesn’t improve the outcome physically/geometrically. I agree confidence in your method is important, but others here might benefit from knowing the “geometric reality”.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Me too. We just differ on the likely outcomes (maybe that’s where you get the mistaken impression I’m talking about aiming).

Like you, I’ve been talking only about the effect of stroke error - your (and CJ’s) way doesn’t do that physically/geometrically. I agree confidence in your method is important, but others here might benefit from knowing the “geometric reality”.
Click to expand...
If you could cite the post wherein I claimed a geometric falsehood, I will quickly omit the offending comments and add include edit notes as to not discredit your post. Should I hold my breath...?...lol

I have been discussing what I consider a benefit of erring toward a side of the CB. ...and how I use the resulting induced OB throw to compensate a tendency I have to hit blind cuts thick. Nothing about changing physics or altering the reality of geometry. I know you will not accept this challenge but please in your next reply, paste in a quote in which I do. ;)
 
The_JV said:
..cite the post wherein I claimed a geometric falsehood,
Click to expand...
Isn’t your claim that “choosing a side” rather than trying for center ball increases your odds of making the shot? Simple geometry says it doesn’t.

Again, I recognize that confidence can trump geometry - but it doesn’t change it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top