WRISTS - The "hidden power catalyst" of a great stroke or "just along for the ride"?

And, by the way, going back to something said earlier, I wanted to add another quote to this exchange:

swest said:
And another thing on this whole squirt/swerve cancellation thing that has been under discussion -

You are not cancelling squirt by inducing swerve, because the cue ball has been driven off the straight line path to its target by virtue of the squirt. All the induced swerve can do is bring the cue ball back across that straight line, not back on that straight line. You are correct but before it can go across the 'straight' line it has to meet that 'straight' line & that is where CJ (& I) want it to make contact with the object ball

In other words, it is a misunderstanding to suggest that by shooting down on the ball when applying left or right spin, you can create swerve that will negate the effect of the squirt.
Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:
Negate? No. Offest? Yes, as can be done with the forward momentum-spin-distance ratio.

Best Regards,
Click to expand...

The following is one of the reasons I used the word negate:

CJ said:
You understand, so you're obviously an advanced player, Masayashi, at the correct speed, curve cancels out deflection.
Click to expand...

I think the implication is there, and could be misunderstood.
 
Things are starting to get clear....very clear indeed.

mosconiac said:
Thanks for this...it clarifies your motives. Scott was also contesting/challenging CJ's coaching efforts. You've made it clear that you two are teaming up on CJ to discredit him...and ultimately retain the status of Scott's business.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about this "angle". It did seem like a "tag team" match. :wink:

It didn't make sense that just a couple of people would get so irrationally upset and bitter about me talking about techniques used by champion players.

Things are starting to get clear....very clear indeed. "The Truth is the Teacher"
 
this will take a few hours on the table, so be patient with yourself

Pay Up Sucker said:
I can see you are involved in to many individual discussions here and its hard for you and i see i am on track with my discussions with you but you are not lol. I will change it up and try and help you :)

ok, so you are saying pro's are the cueing low in there practice strokes and that helps them keep the downward stroke and that helps in the top of the tip technique, correct lol?

top of the tip technique is another way to say "pinning the ball", correct lol? :) or are they different?
Click to expand...

If you put your tip square up to the center it would be contacting the center of your tip. When you put your tip below center, and keep the same cue angle the top of the tip is contacting the cue ball.

When you hit the cue ball with this angle and using the top of your tip it gives you a different type hit. This hit, we road player call "Pinning" and it is a more precise way to play. There's more benefits once you get the hang of this and I'll answer questions until you understand it better.

Sometimes it's best to exagerate the normal way of doing things so you can get the "feeling" for new techniques. I suggested you try to cue the ball low and then make it follow with a firm "Hand/Fingers" stoke.

This is JUST to give you the feeling, but it's going to make the necessary changes you will need to make to experience what I'm describing. This is a VERY advance technique, and I was told by beginners they wanted me to share, so I am.

Understanding this will take a few hours on the table, so be patient with yourself and I'll try to help you the best way I know how.....without actually being there. :wink:
 
I just needed you to clear a couple things up for me, which have now. I have tried this the other day and picked up the technique very easily. I was able to get follow but i hit slightly above center cue ball with a downward hit, i did not bother to attempt to go lower than that. I will try again and see how low i can go. I noticed the preciseness of the technique has huge potential. It opened up so many more contact points on the cue ball is what i noticed.

Now for me this would be a situational technique because i dont have the patients to be that precise on each and every hit (you must know what i mean lol) this is what i noticed lol this will be added to my arsenal and pulled out when needed though ;)
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
Sorry, but I don't feel that the burden of proof is on me. I've already provided more than enough videos, instructional articles, and a physics-based proof that back up my claims. I've also tried everything out at the table, which I encourage you and others to do. I think if somebody wants to claim or insist my statements and advice are incorrect, the burden of proof should be on them.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

That was quite a lot of information, most of which i read before.
But the proof on the bouncing ball, friction, graphs, etc, was new.
Very nice. Thank you for the info.

Needless to say, i am not really concerned with what that data presents.
It's just data. I know what i see on the table, regardless of why it happens.
Thank you for your efforts though.
but I am not going to bust out any proofs as that would fry my brain if i had to dig into the archives of my physics knowledge.
What is it? The coefficient of friction = mu x the normal?

It's nice to be encouraged to play pool to try things out, but i've already logged in enough time on the table.
I am certainly not going to try and proof the jacked up draw shot, where the cueball is actually coming down when striking the object ball, and bouncing backwards off of it as it starts to draw.

Much in the same way that some people breaking in 9ball, jack up so that the cueball is airborne when striking that 1 as it comes down.

Do you have explanations for what happens with that type of phenomena on your site? (not trying to be sarcastic, just your site is just to damn big)

Also, the other things i wanted to ask are, do you have some sort of index for the elasticity of the polymer used in the billiard balls? Their bounciness?
The elasticity of centennials, vs aramith pros, vs the "pea" balls, or even ivory balls and how those materials transfer energy and bounce off of each other?

Maybe info on some other factors such as switching out the cueball that comes with the set that is the same weight, and replacing it with a lighter ball, and how that affects shots?

Cause it could be that some of the phenomena observed by pool players all over the world, is a result of something simple, like cueball wear, and the subsequent loss of cueball weight when striking an object ball that is not out of round, and heavier.
Maybe combining this with the "elasticity" factor of polymers, might help explain things better, because the data used in all your proofs, while valid, would have to be adjusted to compensate for those new factors.

That would be interesting information if you have it as certain types of balls, seem to feel "bouncier" vs other sets of balls. I am wondering how that and weight difference, would effect a lot of these topics and the physics equations that go along with them.
 
Last edited:
CJ Wiley said:
I was wondering about this "angle". It did seem like a "tag team" match. :wink:

It didn't make sense that just a couple of people would get so irrationally upset and bitter about me talking about techniques used by champion players.

Things are starting to get clear....very clear indeed. "The Truth is the Teacher"
Click to expand...

How fitting for this thread. Make up crap, and watch everyone buy into it. There's no "tagging up to discredit you" going on AT ALL. You are doing a good enough job of that yourself. Ask yourself this- what possible motive could anyone have to discredit you, other than what you are actually saying?? That's right, there is NONE.

edit: According to post #883, since hitting with the top of the tip below center of the cue ball is a VERY advanced technique. I will mail a $50 bill to the first person posting a picture that clearly shows a convex, normal length tip, on a full cue, on a pool table hitting the cb below center with the lower part of the tip. And, it has to be something "normal", no putting the cb on the lip of a pocket and shooting up through the net of the pocket.
 
Last edited:
SUPERSTAR said:
Also, the other things i wanted to ask are, do you have some sort of index for the elasticity of the polymer used in the billiard balls? Their bounciness?
The elasticity of centennials, vs aramith pros, vs the "pea" balls, or even ivory balls and how those materials transfer energy and bounce off of each other?
Click to expand...

Not exactly what you are looking for, but the table below gives a COR range between .92 and .98 for a ball-to-ball collision.

What are approximate values for pool equipment physical properties?

ball diameter: 2.25 in

ball mass: 6 oz

ball mass moment of inertia: 2/5 mR2

ball-ball coefficient of friction (m): 0.03-0.08

ball-ball coefficient of restitution (e): 0.92-0.98

ball-cloth coefficient of rolling resistance (m): 0.005 - 0.015

ball-cloth coefficient of sliding friction (m): 0.15-0.4 (typical value: 0.2)

ball-cloth spin deceleration rate: 5-15 rad/sec2

ball-rail coefficient of restitution (e): 0.6-0.9

ball-table coefficient of restitution (e): 0.5

cue-tip-ball coefficient of friction (m): 0.6

cue-tip-ball coefficient of restitution (e): 0.71-0.75 (leather tip), 0.81-0.87 (phenolic tip)

Typical cue ball speeds for a range of shots:

touch: 1.5 mph
slow: 3 mph
medium-soft: 5 mph
medium: 7 mph
medium-fast: 8 mph
fast: 12 mph
power: 20 mph
 
Using standard carom methods would certainly not work with this cue ball.

SUPERSTAR said:
That was quite a lot of information, most of which i read before.
But the proof on the bouncing ball, friction, graphs, etc, was new.
Very nice. Thank you for the info.

Needless to say, i am not really concerned with what that data presents.
It's just data. I know what i see on the table, regardless of why it happens.
Thank you for your efforts though.
but I am not going to bust out any proofs as that would fry my brain if i had to dig into the archives of my physics knowledge.
What is it? The coefficient of friction = mu x the normal?

It's nice to be encouraged to play pool to try things out, but i've already logged in enough time on the table.
I am certainly not going to try and proof the jacked up draw shot, where the cueball is actually coming down when striking the object ball, and bouncing backwards off of it as it starts to draw.

Much in the same way that some people breaking in 9ball, jack up so that the cueball is airborne when striking that 1 as it comes down.

Do you have explanations for what happens with that type of phenomena on your site? (not trying to be sarcastic, just your site is just to damn big)

Also, the other things i wanted to ask are, do you have some sort of index for the elasticity of the polymer used in the billiard balls? Their bounciness?
The elasticity of centennials, vs aramith pros, vs the "pea" balls, or even ivory balls and how those materials transfer energy and bounce off of each other?

Maybe info on some other factors such as switching out the cueball that comes with the set that is the same weight, and replacing it with a lighter ball, and how that affects shots?

Cause it could be that some of the phenomena observed by pool players all over the world, is a result of something simple, like cueball wear, and the subsequent loss of cueball weight when striking an object ball that is not out of round, and heavier.
Maybe combining this with the "elasticity" factor of polymers, might help explain things better, because the data used in all your proofs, while valid, would have to be adjusted to compensate for those new factors.

That would be interesting information if you have it as certain types of balls, seem to feel "bouncier" vs other sets of balls. I am wondering how that and weight difference, would effect a lot of these topics and the physics equations that go along with them.
Click to expand...

You have several points that are very valid. I used to grab a cue ball when I went in a new pool room where I knew I'd be gambling. I would hold it in my fingers and had a system to measure it and then look for other "playing characteristics".

I remember playing in Kentucky at a small pool room where they used the "popcorn" cue ball (I think that's what they called it). Before the match I had "measured it" with my hand and where I usually used my middle finger, this time had to use my ring finger to wrap around it was so small. I still remember how long it took to get used to it because it "bounced" off the object ball after contact. Using standard carom methods would certainly not work with this cue ball.

Now they have the "measle ball" and it also isn't like regular "red circle" or "blue circle/dot" balls, it's about 2 grams heavier than the balls I have at home. It pays to know these things or you'll be in for a LONG night playing someone that's used to the equipment.
 
We've talked a lot about different techniques, but not about this one in particular.

DTL said:
CJ Wiley So with that said said:
BELOW [/I]center and use your hand/wrist/fingers to make the top edge of your cue go up (using your shooting hand/fingers) to produce topspin on the cue ball.

Think in terms of putting topspin on a basketball by hitting up on it BELOW it's center. You wouldn't hit the basketball HIGH on the ball to produce maximum topspin you would "brush up on the ball", LOW to HIGH. END QUOTE.



So, your "swiping" the cue ball? If so, is this the same as "pinning".

I think Earl does this (swipes the CB) a lot with right/left spin and that's why he can get some much action on the CB.
Click to expand...

No, you are referring to something different, but Earl does spin AND Pin his cue ball. We've talked a lot about different techniques, but not about this one in particular. I'll bring it up next time I see him and see what he thinks about when he's "twirling his stone".
Click to expand...
 
One things for sure, how many champions would want to wade into a forum where they will be bombarded with so much flak? I think you will find their goal is to run off anyone they see as a threat to them financially or their ego. There is no more motive I can see for being so rude to anyone about their way of doing something. They also have to reinforce their pro's can't teach myth. I'm sure its true that some pro's don't make good teachers but I don't believe for a second its the majority as some would hope you believe. This is much more than just running off CJ, this is to also keep anyothers away!
 
CJ Wiley said:
You have several points that are very valid. I used to grab a cue ball when I went in a new pool room where I knew I'd be gambling. I would hold it in my fingers and had a system to measure it and then look for other "playing characteristics".

I remember playing in Kentucky at a small pool room where they used the "popcorn" cue ball (I think that's what they called it). Before the match I had "measured it" with my hand and where I usually used my middle finger, this time had to use my ring finger to wrap around it was so small. I still remember how long it took to get used to it because it "bounced" off the object ball after contact. Using standard carom methods would certainly not work with this cue ball.

Now they have the "measle ball" and it also isn't like regular "red circle" or "blue circle/dot" balls, it's about 2 grams heavier than the balls I have at home. It pays to know these things or you'll be in for a LONG night playing someone that's used to the equipment.
Click to expand...

Well, I know that when I used centennials, or raschigs, they played a certain way.
I also know that when they first started using aramith pros everywhere, that they played like a set of superballs. Very VERY bouncy.
As a matter of fact, it almost seemed like it was easier to draw, and harder to follow with the aramith pros, and that was before the measle ball.
As if they were more elastic, and it seemed that there was more "grab time" and that you could throw balls like crazy, and that it seemed like they "bounced" off of each other more, which might explain the draw/follow phenomena observed.
I remember having several discussions with pros about this, when one guy had his own set of centennials, to compare with the aramith pros, where people would compare different shots and their ease or difficulty, where all involved in the discussion, noticed different reactions between sets of brand new balls.
And this despite the objections of some watching, that insisted that the plastics were identical because of the same parent company.

We won't even discuss how with the diamond smart tables, how they switched out the aramith cue ball that came with the set, for the red circle because of that white light sensor thing that sends whitey to the up table ball return, and the carom/draw conditions that caused.

I mean, hard data might be a good tool to explain some things, but I thing it sometimes fails to explain some of the observations on the pool table because it is too concrete.
I don't see any comparison between different sets of balls and their physical reactions, when there is probably some validity to the potential different polymers used.
I only see a list of "approximations" for physical properties on the website, which doesn't seem to account for the differences in materials, such as the frictions of nappy mud cloth vs slick granito "M" cloth, and how different polymers might react differently on those.
Just like how an ivory cue ball has way WAY more traction on the table doing all things spin, then any polymer cue ball could dream of doing.
Obviously, if you were to do a comparison of draw shots, of an ivory cue ball, and a polymer cue ball that was crafted to the same size and weight, the ivory ball would draw 10 times better.
But unless the physics specifically focused on the materials used and how that changes everything, it would fail to explain why.
Materials definitely matter.
 
CJ Wiley said:
There appear to be three different techniques for the wrist to assist the pocket billiards stroke. The first one is the wrists don't do much at all, the second is they cock up as you hit the cue ball and finish the stroke and the other is the wrists uncock down as the cue ball is struck and the follow through is completed.

The way I play is definitely with the wrists cocking down as I contact the cue ball. I have been committed to this technique the last couple of days and it's amazing the results. The thing about my technique is I can pre cock my wrists very precisely and that was how I consistently produce powerful stoke shots with such accuracy. This, ironically is what I've been struggling with the most. I seemed to have lost my "power source" that effortlessly produced pin point accuracy when striking the cue ball.

Many of you will not benefit from this information (because the way you use your wrists work fine for you), and others will benefit immensely when you're still searching to improve your stroke and accuracy.

I personally found a missing part to my "personal puzzle" and I'm surprised I didn't "real eyes" how important this technique was for me. Sometimes the simplest answers complete the most complex problems {for myself}.

For some reason my "reasonable" mind says "use outside english", however a "Touch of Inside" produces best results, and my mind says "don't use the wrists", however uncocking my wrists like I'm using a hammer is most effective, and my mind says "root against my opponent" when pulling for my opponent works best. The key to life seems to be making myself do {at times} what I least "naturally" want to do. As I get "more experienced" I see that unfolding in many areas.

The Moral of the story? "Reasonable" thoughts and techniques can often be the wrong thoughts and techniques to reach the highest levels. To separate yourself you must be "Unreasonable" at times.


CJ just want to run this by you, not sure if you are in agreement here or not, in my opinion, wrist does not provide additional power, it provides cueing efficiency of which it is perceived as additional power. By having loose wrist it guarantees loose grip of butt of which it allows the shooter to use cue weight to deliver efficient power, in lieu of muscle assisted stroke. Also ensure cue butt to remain dangling at 90 degrees as if your are holding butt with rubber band.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
backplaying said:
One things for sure, how many champions would want to wade into a forum where they will be bombarded with so much flak? I think you will find their goal is to run off anyone they see as a threat to them financially or their ego. There is no more motive I can see for being so rude to anyone about their way of doing something. They also have to reinforce their pro's can't teach myth. I'm sure its true that some pro's don't make good teachers but I don't believe for a second its the majority as some would hope you believe. This is much more than just running off CJ, this is to also keep anyothers away!
Click to expand...

You believe that, because that is how YOUR mind works. It has been explained several times, but you refuse to accept the answer because it doesn't fit the mold of what you would do. In fact, you are way off base. The one being the rudest in here is the one you are trying to defend.

As to the pros can't teach part- most of them can't. Simple fact. Look at this example- you are a master at walking (am assuming here that you can in fact walk quite well). You now have a class of people that have trouble walking, and you decide to teach them how to walk. How many people that can walk very well, and are masters at walking, can explain to someone else how to walk? Extremely small number comes up. Once you get past the very basic part of bending your knee, lifting your foot, move one foot in front of the other, and put your foot down, then repeat with the other leg, past that part you are lost.

So, would someone telling you that you have no clue how to teach someone how to walk offend you? Probably not. Unless your ego is so huge that you think that just because you can do something, you can also teach it better than someone who can't. Even if that someone is a doctor who has studied the art of walking for years.

Any A player can do anything any pro can do on the table with one exception. And that exception is consistency. Up to a certain point, consistency can be reliably taught. After that point, it is ALL about how ones subconscious mind works. That is best taught through repetition. Some people naturally have more use of the subconscious than others. Those are the ones that you see excel at things. The ones every one calls "naturals". They are able to achieve a higher level of consistency than most of us.

As far as running off for financial reasons, where do you get that from? It doesn't even make any sense. Most of those not agreeing with CJ aren't even instructors, so they have zero to lose. The actual instructors that have spoken up, wouldn't lose a penny if CJ sold a dozen DVD's to every poster on here and each of their family members each got a dozen also. In fact, it would probably increase their business!

To the ego part, there is only one posting with that, and it is the one you want to defend. CJ himself stated how hard it is to put things into words. He is very correct in that. To be able to do that, you have to be able to disect how things actually work, and why they work that way. Something he has no use of except for writing explanations. So, naturally, he actually sucks at it. That's not derogatory in any way. It just is what it is. CJ might very well be able to SHOW someone how to do something, as he has stated, that is much easier to do. Hence, go buy his DVD where he shows it. For writing explanations, until he accepts the fact that what he THINKS he is doing isn't necessarily what he actually IS doing, and understands at least the basics of how the balls react, he will be totally lost in trying to explain how to do something to someone else. And will keep coming up with explanations that make no sense in reality.
 
Last edited:
SUPERSTAR said:
dr_dave said:
Here's what I have in the cue elevation draw effects article:
Some people think that with an elevated cue, the CB will be airborne during most of the shot, and therefore won’t be losing any spin on the way to the object ball (OB). The airborne part is true, especially for fast speed shots, because the cue elevation drives the CB into the table causing the ball to hop and bounce on the way to the OB. It is also true that the CB doesn’t lose significant spin while it is airborne (because there is no friction between the CB and the cloth). However, the CB loses significant spin during the hops, including the first hop when the CB is driven down into the table. The more you elevate the cue, the less spin the CB will have when it gets to the OB, for a given tip offset and cue speed.​

A more detailed explanation and a physics-based proof can be found here:

WARNING: this document is not intended for a general audience. Full understanding requires a solid math and physics background. However, the plots on the 2nd to last page and the conclusions on the last page are fairly easy to understand. Check them out.
Click to expand...
... the proof on the bouncing ball, friction, graphs, etc, was new.
Very nice. Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...
You're welcome ... and thank you.

BTW, I'll answer your other questions in follow-up messages.

Regards,
Dave
 
CB squat and hop

SUPERSTAR said:
... some people breaking in 9ball, jack up so that the cueball is airborne when striking that 1 as it comes down.

Do you have explanations for what happens with that type of phenomena on your site?
Click to expand...
First of all, it is better if the CB is not airborne when it strikes the 1-ball. If the CB hops significantly, that represents wasted energy. To get less hop, you need the right cue elevation and/or distance for a given break speed. If you are getting too much hop, you can change the CB spot (to change the distance) or change the cue elevation slightly so the CB lands just before the 1-ball instead (for a given break speed). That will result in maximum energy being delivered into the rack of balls. FYI, this topic is covered in detail (including video demonstrations) here:
Check it out.

Enjoy,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top