Using "Center Ball" - is it good advice or a hidden disadvantage?

[Patrick Johnson]

Grab two sticks - 1 LD and 1 high deflection/maple. Now take the LD shaft/stick and line up a shot that will produce a lot of deflection in a maple shaft and shoot it. Now, take the high deflection stick and shoot the EXACT shot with the stick in the EXACT position (i.e. aiming at the same spot on the CB and the same spot on the OB) it was in when shooting with the LD stick and you'll miss every time.

Now translate that into the shot you're thinking, soft masse around a ball. Given the parameters above, if you shoot it one way with an LD it would have to be shot a different way with a HD shaft. That's Patrick's thinking and I agree; however, I don't believe shooting soft with both an LD and HD shaft are much different so in YOUR particular scenario I don't believe you would need to move the cue to adjust between LD and HD. If you were shooting that masse shot hard then yes, the stroke and angle of attack would be different for LD and HD.

Actually, I was responding to the idea that some deflection is desirable in a cue because it's required for some shots. That's simply not true - you could do anything with a (theoretical) no-deflection cue that you can with a normal cue with deflection, simply by aiming a little differently. Deflection is all negative - nothing good or "necessary" about it - it's just unavoidable with sidespin.

pj
chgo

 

[Chili Palmer]

Actually, I was responding to the idea that some deflection is desirable in a cue because it's required for some shots. That's simply not true - you could do anything with a (theoretical) no-deflection cue that you can with a normal cue with deflection, simply by aiming a little differently. Deflection is all negative - nothing good or "necessary" about it - it's just unavoidable with sidespin.

pj
chgo

And I 100% agree with you , nothing you can't do with a maple shaft you can't do with an LD, you just have to do it differently, sometimes

 

[The_JV]

It's just semantics. The shot doesn't "need" squirt to work - it could work without squirt if you aimed it slightly differently. But it squirts whether we "need" it or not, so we use it instead of (or in addition to) adjusting our aim.

What do I mean by "in addition to "? Some shots like this need to go even more "sideways" before swerving back to the target - for those we add a little aiming adjustment to the unavoidable squirt. Again, the squirt isn't "needed" - we could do it all with an aiming adjustment - but the squirt's unavoidable.

pj
chgo

I was trying to sort out spot to jump into the conversation with an example of a shot that utilizes squirt without swerve, but the above covers it. Again, the squirt is a byproduct of the side spin required as PJ explains.

I will say that I have heard of a well regarded professional player switching back to a solid maple shaft for sake of the additional squirt they provide. The logic behind the switch is beyond my abilities to comprehend, but it is what it is...

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I will say that I have heard of a well regarded professional player switching back to a solid maple shaft for sake of the additional squirt they provide. The logic behind the switch is beyond my abilities to comprehend, but it is what it is...

Many players -- maybe most top players? -- have invested years in learning how aiming on spin shots feels with solid maple shafts. Things like that can be very hard to unlearn.

 

[ExilePreacher]

Actually, I was responding to the idea that some deflection is desirable in a cue because it's required for some shots. That's simply not true - you could do anything with a (theoretical) no-deflection cue that you can with a normal cue with deflection, simply by aiming a little differently. Deflection is all negative - nothing good or "necessary" about it - it's just unavoidable with sidespin.

pj
chgo

And I’m not arguing against that. I made it clear in my original post that a) I prefer LD shafts and b) that my point was probably not what the guy meant when he said some shots “almost require” deflection. However I do reject the notion that you can do the same thing I’m describing by merely changing your aim. That’s oversimplification. I’m talking about making a shot with a level cue that otherwise you’d have to either intentionally masse (yes I realize it’s the same thing in essence, I SAID SO IN THE ORIGINAL POST) or intentionally jump. But using the natural deflection is much more accurate than any other method. This is a particular type of shot—a method— and thus in this case deflection is a plus. LD is still more desirable in this method however. If you think you can do this shot by merely changing the aim point you don’t understand what I’m describing. If you were to change the aim point you’d have to elevate. I’m talking about shooting the cue ball as if the blocker isn’t there. You aim to hit the blocker. Normal level cue. If all that’s needed is changing your aim, where should you aim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The_JV]

I’m talking about shooting the cue ball as if the blocker isn’t there. You aim to hit the blocker. Normal level cue. If all that’s needed is changing your aim, where should you aim?

This was kind of the same thing I was going to suggest. I can say that I run into situations constantly when playing 14.1 wherein I have throw an OB into the pocketing line. Some of these shots also require that I miss a blocker by < millimeter to allow the spin induced throw to work it's magic. In these cases I don't aim to miss the blocker. I aim to hit it and use the CB squirt generated by the heavy siding to miss the blocker.

However, as PJ has repeated a few times now. The squirt is a byproduct of the siding. If there was such a thing as a zero deflection shaft, then I wouldn't have to alter aim to generate the blocker miss.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I’m talking about making a shot with a level cue that otherwise you’d have to either intentionally masse (yes I realize it’s the same thing in essence, I SAID SO IN THE ORIGINAL POST) or intentionally jump.

The shot you describe (swerving around the edge of a blocking ball) can't be done with a level cue - if the CB isn't struck at least slightly downward, it won't swerve. It sounds like you think swerve and masse just look similar - they're exactly the same thing (in different amounts), and require exactly the same kind of cueing (in different amounts).

...using the natural deflection is much more accurate than any other method.

I believe it can be for you, but not objectively. Deflection, even a small amount, is estimated, while an aim adjustment can be precisely chosen.

One reason I think we might be miscommunicating is that I'm describing how the shot could be done with a squirtless cue that doesn't exist (to illustrate my point that squirt/deflection isn't needed).

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

I believe it can be for you, but not objectively. Deflection, even a small amount, is estimated, while an aim adjustment can be precisely chosen.

Maybe precisely chosen but nearly impossible to be precisely performed. Both activities involve estimations in an attempt to provide the required results.

I know if I use a full tip of siding, I will get 2mm of squirt. Just like I know if I hit half the OB I will produce a 45 degree cut, (roughly).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...if I hit half the OB I will produce a 45 degree cut, (roughly).

30 degrees, but who's counting?

pj
chgo

 

[Straightpool_99]

Number of world pool championships won using only vertical center ball:

 

[ExilePreacher]

This was kind of the same thing I was going to suggest. I can say that I run into situations constantly when playing 14.1 wherein I have throw an OB into the pocketing line. Some of these shots also require that I miss a blocker by < millimeter to allow the spin induced throw to work it's magic. In these cases I don't aim to miss the blocker. I aim to hit it and use the CB squirt generated by the heavy siding to miss the blocker.

However, as PJ has repeated a few times now. The squirt is a byproduct of the siding. If there was such a thing as a zero deflection shaft, then I wouldn't have to alter aim to generate the blocker miss.

Thank you. This is exactly what I’m describing. And I’m not arguing with PJ on the LD issue. He’s right and I’ve agreed from the start. I’m a Predator purist. Have been since 2005. I don’t doubt PJ’s physics knowledge etc. I’m just saying that using deflection is a valid method for certain specialty shots and that for these shots merely changing your aim isn’t going to work. You’ve basically got a shot that beginners would look at and say it’s impossible. I’ve hustled folks with the same kind of proposition shot. Another case would be using the deflection to thin a ball very close to the cue ball to keep from fouling or to miss a ball almost frozen to prevent fouling. It’s a valid method though in these two cases I admit that changing aim can work. It’s different however when you’ve got to miss one ball and pocket another with extreme throw to manipulate it into the pocket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExilePreacher]

The shot you describe (swerving around the edge of a blocking ball) can't be done with a level cue - if the CB isn't struck at least slightly downward, it won't swerve. It sounds like you think swerve and masse just look similar - they're exactly the same thing (in different amounts), and require exactly the same kind of cueing (in different amounts).

I believe it can be for you, but not objectively. Deflection, even a small amount, is estimated, while an aim adjustment can be precisely chosen.

One reason I think we might be miscommunicating is that I'm describing how the shot could be done with a squirtless cue that doesn't exist (to illustrate my point that squirt/deflection isn't needed).

pj
chgo

That’s possible. It’s difficult for me to even consider an impossible hypothetical, I admit. I can honestly say though that without deflection I cannot even conceive of a way to make the shot I’m describing without intentional masse with elevation or jumping. Usually these are extreme throw shots that can’t be made without spin and hitting the contact point in any other way is beyond me. And as many in this forum will tell you I’m not a novice. I’ve been playing for almost 37 years, was taught by a highly respected beloved professional player (rest his soul) and play at a very high level (if FargoRate is to be believed). Further, while I’m a redneck from a town you could blink and miss I’ve got enough years of higher education (PhD in Philosophy) to prove I’m not a TOTAL idiot (just 50 percent). I honestly mean it when I say I cannot think of any other way to perform the shot I’m describing with a level cue. (Level not in the absolute sense. Obviously there is slight elevation but this is true of virtually every shot. I rarely see anyone perfectly level. I won’t say “never” but extremely rare.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExilePreacher]

The shot you describe (swerving around the edge of a blocking ball) can't be done with a level cue - if the CB isn't struck at least slightly downward, it won't swerve. It sounds like you think swerve and masse just look similar - they're exactly the same thing (in different amounts), and require exactly the same kind of cueing (in different amounts).

I believe it can be for you, but not objectively. Deflection, even a small amount, is estimated, while an aim adjustment can be precisely chosen.

One reason I think we might be miscommunicating is that I'm describing how the shot could be done with a squirtless cue that doesn't exist (to illustrate my point that squirt/deflection isn't needed).

pj
chgo

No PJ I realize they are essentially the same. I’ve said so, go read my post and you’ll see that very admission. But you know very well there is a difference between the natural elevation of the cue needed for normal playing and intentionally elevating to masse. If that’s all you’re getting at then certainly it’s semantics. We have no argument. But in my experience it’s much easier for virtually all players to use their normal mechanics and stroke than elevating to swerve. To the perception of the player it’s even more important. And as I’ve argued many times when these physics questions are discussed, perception is actually more important when it comes to someone learning to play and performing a shot. I can’t teach a student player how to perform a shot by explaining the absolute physics. I can teach them methods however. And in my experience those are the ones that end up strong players. And please don’t take this as me being a “it defies physics” advocate. That is not my intention at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[straightline]

No PJ I realize they are essentially the same. I’ve said so, go read my post and you’ll see that very admission. But you know very well there is a difference between the natural elevation of the cue needed for normal playing and intentionally elevating to masse. If that’s all you’re getting at then certainly it’s semantics. We have no argument. But in my experience it’s much easier for virtually all players to use their normal mechanics and stroke than elevating to swerve. To the perception of the player it’s even more important. And as I’ve argued many times when these physics questions are discussed, perception is actually more important when it comes to someone learning to play and performing a shot. I can’t teach a student player how to perform a shot by explaining the absolute physics. I can teach them methods however. And in my experience those are the ones that end up strong players. And please don’t take this as me being a “it defies physics” advocate. That is not my intention at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can certainly teach 'em to stroke within the lines. Other than WTF is pool?, that might be all there is to teach.

 

[The_JV]

30 degrees, but who's counting?

pj
chgo

lol.... I honestly had no clue what the cut angle would have been, so I appreciate the correction. I do hope the intent was conveyed though.

 

[Catalin]

But using the natural deflection is much more accurate than any other method.

No it's not. It's something that may be more familiar to you, but for someone who has never used a high deflection cue (most people under 30) it would neither be "easy" nor "accurate".

I read your comments and I understand what you mean but you are still wrong. I agree with basically everyone else that there are no shots that can only be done with a high deflection cue or where that cue is desirable, beyond your personal preference. In my country we have a saying: If 10 people tell you that you are drunk, you should go sleep it off

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[The_JV]

I agree with basically everyone else that there are no shots that can only be done with a high deflection cue or where that cue is desirable, beyond your personal preference.

Ah ha... What about a jump shot...?

I'm going to extremes, but if we're going to resort to using absolutes then it's applicable.

 

[ExilePreacher]

No it's not. It's something that may be more familiar to you, but for someone who has never used a high deflection cue (most people under 30) it would neither be "easy" nor "accurate".

I read your comments and I understand what you mean but you are still wrong. I agree with basically everyone else that there are no shots that can only be done with a high deflection cue or where that cue is desirable, beyond your personal preference. In my country we have a saying: If 10 people tell you that you are drunk, you should go sleep it off

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

You obviously read nothing I said. I have made it clear that I’m NOT advocating for a standard maple shaft. I’ve been clear that an LD shaft makes the shot easier. You say I’m wrong but you’re imputing to me THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I’m actually saying. Work on your reading comprehension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExilePreacher]

Grab two sticks - 1 LD and 1 high deflection/maple. Now take the LD shaft/stick and line up a shot that will produce a lot of deflection in a maple shaft and shoot it. Now, take the high deflection stick and shoot the EXACT shot with the stick in the EXACT position (i.e. aiming at the same spot on the CB and the same spot on the OB) it was in when shooting with the LD stick and you'll miss every time.

Now translate that into the shot you're thinking, soft masse around a ball. Given the parameters above, if you shoot it one way with an LD it would have to be shot a different way with a HD shaft. That's Patrick's thinking and I agree; however, I don't believe shooting soft with both an LD and HD shaft are much different so in YOUR particular scenario I don't believe you would need to move the cue to adjust between LD and HD. If you were shooting that masse shot hard then yes, the stroke and angle of attack would be different for LD and HD.

Well shit I agree with that. I don’t see how it could be any other way. But I’m not even touching on the LD vs standard maple issue. I’m a Predator guy all the way. I love LD. And the shot I’m speaking of is easier with an LD. This is because it is so precise that higher squirt can make you miss the contact point due to the swerve not having time to take effect enough. I’m only trying to prove that a certain method of shot making can indeed use the deflection as a benefit. That’s a TYPE OF SHOT, a method. As for the LD vs standard shaft debate I prefer LD and believe everyone should use what they prefer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boogieman]

Let's review:



See why it looks like you think your shot "requires" deflection?

Sometimes it's needed.

pj
chgo

PJ, I also agree with you. I don't always know the technicalities (thanks for educating me) but I know what it feels like. I know some shots seem much easier with a regular non LD cue, is it just me? Maybe, but it works for me at least. I've honed my aim through HAMB so when a different shaft doesn't do what is wired in my body, it annoys me to no end. I can adapt fairly quickly but it's an eye opener when the feel isn't there at first.