why does "pivot english" work

sjm said:
Bob, this thread has my head spinning a little. I am familiar with backhand english, but, like williebetmore, I generally use parallel. My personal take on backhand english it is that mastering it is not very important, but I wonder.
For example, Wayne wrote:



That you can create many cue ball paths with backhand english that can't be created with parallel came as quite a surprise to me.

What is your take on this? Do you concur with Wayne that there are numerous cue ball paths that can only be created with either backhand or parallel, but not both? How important is it to add backhand english to one's game if one doesn't use it?
Click to expand...

Just thought I would chime in with my 2 cents...

Some people in this thread seem to be of the view that backhand english and parrallel english are two different kinds of english that can do different things. The matter as I see it is that they are two different aiming methods for dealing with putting side english on the ball. In the end they both resolve into a certain direction line the cue gets propelled along and a certain offset of the tip on the cue ball. If both techniques are used correctly (compensation wise) to aim for exactly the same shot, then the end result of either parrallel and backhand would be the same cue direction and cue offset. There is nothing that one can "do" on the table over the other, they are just different methods of approaching the same problem, each with their own pros and cons and hopefully, they come to the correct solution!

Cheers!
 
8ballbanger said:
Just thought I would chime in with my 2 cents...

Some people in this thread seem to be of the view that backhand english and parrallel english are two different kinds of english that can do different things. The matter as I see it is that they are two different aiming methods for dealing with putting side english on the ball. In the end they both resolve into a certain direction line the cue gets propelled along and a certain offset of the tip on the cue ball. If both techniques are used correctly (compensation wise) to aim for exactly the same shot, then the end result of either parrallel and backhand would be the same cue direction and cue offset. There is nothing that one can "do" on the table over the other, they are just different methods of approaching the same problem, each with their own pros and cons and hopefully, they come to the correct solution!

Cheers!
Click to expand...

i actually think there's a slight difference in effect when using parallel versus pivot styles. i think parallel drives the cb better because you're stroking through the cb to the line of aim,,,,whereas in pivot english, the stroke is more of a "glancing stroke" and the cb travels off-line of aim to the intended target. for this reason it seems to me that the parallel applied english is "stronger", where the cb takes a sharper path after hitting the ob,,,,,, and in pivot english, the cb glances off the ob more because it doesn't have the force behind it.

anyway, that's what happens when i do both.
 
bruin70 said:
i actually think there's a slight difference in effect when using parallel versus pivot styles. i think parallel drives the cb better because you're stroking through the cb to the line of aim,,,,whereas in pivot english, the stroke is more of a "glancing stroke" and the cb travels off-line of aim to the intended target. for this reason it seems to me that the parallel applied english is "stronger", where the cb takes a sharper path after hitting the ob,,,,,, and in pivot english, the cb glances off the ob more because it doesn't have the force behind it.

anyway, that's what happens when i do both.
Click to expand...

When I said backhand english, I was not talking about moving the backhand glancing to the side in the final stroke, but lining up centre ball, then moving the tip offset on the cue by moving the backhand, then treating this new line as a straight shot and stroke straight through. Because both this method and parallel are resolving into a straight stroke, the end result will be the same (as should the aim line and offset if everything is compensated well using both methods).

I would not recommend moving the backhand left or right during the stroke to anyone. Theres just no way to get consistancy and it is unnecessary.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
That you can create many cue ball paths with backhand english that can't be created with parallel came as quite a surprise to me.

What is your take on this? Do you concur with Wayne that there are numerous cue ball paths that can only be created with either backhand or parallel, but not both? How important is it to add backhand english to one's game if one doesn't use it?
Click to expand...
I think Wayne must have meant what I call "aim-and-swoop" in which the backhand moves sideways on the final forward stroke. I think that technique is best for mediocre players who want to stay that way.

Semih Sayginer takes the ball places you probably cannot imagine without seeing him. He comes straight through the ball. He comes down on the line needed without pivoting.

As I've said before, most people who try to use "aim-and-pivot" either deny it has problems or are unaware of the problems. If you have no idea of the compensation needed for squirt on short, fast shots, maybe the technique can help you, but expect to move beyond it.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think Wayne must have meant what I call "aim-and-swoop" in which the backhand moves sideways on the final forward stroke. I think that technique is best for mediocre players who want to stay that way.

Semih Sayginer takes the ball places you probably cannot imagine without seeing him. He comes straight through the ball. He comes down on the line needed without pivoting.

As I've said before, most people who try to use "aim-and-pivot" either deny it has problems or are unaware of the problems. If you have no idea of the compensation needed for squirt on short, fast shots, maybe the technique can help you, but expect to move beyond it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob for placing this in a proper persepctive. Thanks also to 8Ballbanger and Bruin70 for helping to clarify, too.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think Wayne must have meant what I call "aim-and-swoop" in which the backhand moves sideways on the final forward stroke. I think that technique is best for mediocre players who want to stay that way.

Hmmmmmmmmm! Seems you are changing what I said and then calling me mediocre.

Maybe it is just me but I can get all kinds of better results with aim and pivot especially when following the object ball. I can get to just about anywhere on the table on a straight in shot by following with this method. It isn't possible with parallel.

On straight in draw shots it is the exact opposite, it is almost impossible to spin the cue ball all the way down the table with pivot but it is a piece of cake with parallel.

Don't take an "experts" word for it not being different, try it and see what results you get. (May just be different strokes for different folks.)

Wayne
Click to expand...
 
wayne said:
Hmmmmmmmmm! Seems you are changing what I said and then calling me mediocre.
Click to expand...
I do think that aim-and-swoop is a very bad way to put sidespin on the ball, and will be much more likely to be inconsistent than stroking straight along the chosen, compensated line. Is what I call "aim-and-swoop" what you were referring to when you were talking about backhand english? Did you mean that your hand swerves in or out at the last instant?

In any case, I don't agree with your example, in that it's possible to spin two cushions out of a corner with a straight stroke on a straight-in shot, at least in some cases. I think we would need to both try the same shot on the same table to see if the shot required one or the other technique.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I do think that aim-and-swoop is a very bad way to put sidespin on the ball, and will be much more likely to be inconsistent than stroking straight along the chosen, compensated line. Is what I call "aim-and-swoop" what you were referring to when you were talking about backhand english? Did you mean that your hand swerves in or out at the last instant?

In any case, I don't agree with your example, in that it's possible to spin two cushions out of a corner with a straight stroke on a straight-in shot, at least in some cases. I think we would need to both try the same shot on the same table to see if the shot required one or the other technique.
Click to expand...

_____________________________________________________________

Mr. Jewett are you aware that this is the exact method Willie Hoppe used, swipe across the ball to achieve greater english. As he was the greatest cueist of all time, how do you explain this. Is Mr. Hoppe another one of your confused people? Rama...
 
ramdadingdong said:
_____________________________________________________________

Mr. Jewett are you aware that this is the exact method Willie Hoppe used, swipe across the ball to achieve greater english. As he was the greatest cueist of all time, how do you explain this. Is Mr. Hoppe another one of your confused people? Rama...
Click to expand...

First of all, Mr Reyes is the greatest cueist of all time, I'd say by far.

Nonetheless, Ramda, did you know that the golfer Bobby Jones, one of the top five golfers that ever lived, didn't keep his left arm straight, and didn't recommend it in his instructional series? No teaching pro worth his salt today teaches what Bobby Jones professed to be correct swing fundamentals. Still, without dismissing Jones' swing mechanics as poor or downplaying his achievements, they simply profess that left arm bent is an inferior approach to mastering the golf swing. The teaching profession in golf has come a long way since the 1930's, and so it is with pool.

We needn't dismiss the great achievements of Mr. Hoppe, who, like Jones, did some of his best work in the 1930's, in order to profess a method other than his as the best way to approach mastering the game of pool.

More is known today about mechanics and fundamentals in both golf and pool, and the level of teaching in both is at its highest level ever.
 
sjm said:
First of all, Mr Reyes is the greatest cueist of all time, I'd say by far.

Nonetheless, Ramda, did you know that the golfer Bobby Jones, one of the top five golfers that ever lived, didn't keep his left arm straight, and didn't recommend it in his instructional series? No teaching pro worth his salt today teaches what Bobby Jones professed to be correct swing fundamentals. Still, without dismissing Jones' swing mechanics as poor or downplaying his achievements, they simply profess that left arm bent is an inferior approach to mastering the golf swing. The teaching profession in golf has come a long way since the 1930's, and so it is with pool.

We needn't dismiss the great achievements of Mr. Hoppe, who, like Jones, did some of his best work in the 1930's, in order to profess a method other than his as the best way to approach mastering the game of pool.

More is known today about mechanics and fundamentals in both golf and pool, and the level of teaching in both is at its highest level ever.
Click to expand...


_______________________________________________________________

Yes Hoppe played billiards, but same cue, same chalk, only difference was his ball was a little bigger. The stroke on the follow is the same in both games.

I have many films of Mr. Jones and all his books. His left arm is not bent, it is just not ram rod straight. The greatest teacher of the 80's, Jimmy Ballard, who built Curtis Stranges game to win us opens back to back taught the left arm does not have to be ram rod straight, if you have a little bend in it that was OK.

Hoppe swiped across the ball and I know why because of reading the A.D. Morre thesis on hoppes swing and from decades of using his exact grip. Don Feeney and others teach this method.

I don't, I don't believe in it, I never said I did, I just asked the question. Asking the question does not mean sir I endorse the method. This method is not dated, many in the billiard world are using it today, many in the pool world as well.
 
ramdadingdong said:
_______________________________________________________________

Yes Hoppe played billiards, but same cue, same chalk, only difference was his ball was a little bigger. The stroke on the follow is the same in both games.

I have many films of Mr. Jones and all his books. His left arm is not bent, it is just not ram rod straight. The greatest teacher of the 80's, Jimmy Ballard, who built Curtis Stranges game to win us opens back to back taught the left arm does not have to be ram rod straight, if you have a little bend in it that was OK.

Hoppe swiped across the ball and I know why because of reading the A.D. Morre thesis on hoppes swing and from decades of using his exact grip. Don Feeney and others teach this method.

I don't, I don't believe in it, I never said I did, I just asked the question. Asking the question does not mean sir I endorse the method. This method is not dated, many in the billiard world are using it today, many in the pool world as well.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks for the education.
 
sjm said:
First of all, Mr Reyes is the greatest cueist of all time, I'd say by far.

Hoppe won 100 world titles, in 6 decades, now find out how many world titles efren won and then you have the answer to your question sir. It's all about winning the big ones, the majors, ask any one in Tennis or golf. Winning the low hon lo open or the Peoria classic does not count in the long haul, winning world titles does.
Rama...
Click to expand...
 
ramdadingdong said:
sjm said:
First of all, Mr Reyes is the greatest cueist of all time, I'd say by far.

Hoppe won 100 world titles, in 6 decades, now find out how many world titles efren won and then you have the answer to your question sir. It's all about winning the big ones, the majors, ask any one in Tennis or golf. Winning the low hon lo open or the Peoria classic does not count in the long haul, winning world titles does.
Rama...
Click to expand...

Obviously, Hoppe's record speaks for itself. Let's just meet halfway and say that each was the king of his own era and leave it at that. I guess we missed something special, but at least we're lucky enough to get to watch Efren. Let's make the most of the opportunity.
Click to expand...
 
sjm said:
Obviously, Hoppe's record speaks for itself. Let's just meet halfway and say that each was the king of his own era and leave it at that. I guess we missed something special, but at least we're lucky enough to get to watch Efren. Let's make the most of the opportunity.
Click to expand...
The highest average Hoppe ever had in a tournament was 1.33. In the recent Crystal Kelly Tournament in Monaco, the average for the whole field was 1.755 and the WORST player averaged over 1.33. Carom billiards has come a long way since the 1930s.

A. D. Moore tried to analyze Hoppe's stroke from a series of stop-action photos taken by Gjon Mili with equipment from Harold Edgerton that appeared in Life Magazine. Some of these also appear in Hoppe's "Billiards As It Should Be Played," which is still in print. Sadly, Moore tried to do his analysis without knowing the timing parameters of the equiment and later admitted that one of his main conclusions was wrong. Moore did make some useful observations.

Hoppe was blessed/cursed with a side-arm stroke because he started playing at such a young age. I think we will agree that a side-arm stroke has nothing to recommend it to the adult player. Cochran also started with a side-arm stroke but fixed it at some point in his career. There are those who feel Cochran was a better 3-C player than Hoppe, and Hoppe certainly didn't dominate 3-C. Cochran came straight through on the stroke, or so I was told by Bud Harris.
 
Earlier in this thread someone was trying to say how different reactions were obtained using pivot english versus parallel english.

Actually they are identical. Both methods, given the same bridge length will lead to the exact same cue angle position, point of contact on the cue ball etc. It is simply a difference in allignment method to the same point.

Parallel cueing is not actually parallel. It just means be allign differently.

Swoop, or swipe as I like to call it, brings in another variable. It may be advantageous on a high deflection cue or when needing extreme side. But rarely is this so.
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
Earlier in this thread someone was trying to say how different reactions were obtained using pivot english versus parallel english.

Actually they are identical.


Ok. Here is an experiment for you. Let's see if you get identical results.

Using maximum pivot and maximum parallel english, draw the ball back to the rail and see where the cueball ends up. The results in this shot are staggeringly different for me, with the parallel English the cueball spins way down table, with the pivot it barely goes anywhere. Following, is opposite in results for me, I can spin the cue ball anywhere on the table with pivot but get nowhere near the same result with parallel.

The people who teach pivot English would get a good laugh from someone saying it is identical to parallel.

Wayne
Click to expand...
 
'pivot English'

The simple way to explain it is when you move your grip hand & "pivot" the bridge hand, you are adjusting for the deflection your going to get with the english. This is why you line the shot up with no english first. It doesn't work on all shots that need extreme english, but is very effective on many shots.
 
There is no 'magic' formula in adjusting for deflection when applying side spin to the cue ball. You all need to understand how to adjust and then adjust based on your own stroke. If I apply a certain amount of left spin on the cue ball, and I adjust my aim a certain amount to the left, by whatever means (pivot, shift, etc), I can tell you exactly how much I adjusted but it will not work for you. Similarly, you can tell me exactly how much you adjust for a certain amount of english, and it will not work for me. We have different strokes. We have different sticks, we bridge differently, we hold the butt of the cue stick differently, we come through the cue ball differently, etc. It is important to understand the fundamentals here. If you use left english, you need to adjust your aim more to the left to account for the deflection. Exactly how much is something that you need to practice and figure out for yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that these systems are bad. They are okay if you understand what you are supposed to be getting out of them. You shouldn't treat it as an exact science and listed to the system blindly. These systems should be used as a general rule of thumb and try to understand the basic principal that the system is teaching.

Line up a certain shot and try to make it with left spin. If you miss it, compensate your aim and keep doing this until you make the ball. Once you make it, line it up again and try to see how much you are adjusting your aim. This will give you an idea of how much YOU have to adjust. Try this with different speeds on the cue ball. You will notice that the harder you hit, the more you have to adjust.

I started by saying that there is no 'magic' formula for learning how to adjust to side spin. Actually there is. Understand the general idea of how you need to adjust and then put in some time practicing on your own.

Good Luck.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top