back hand english - a 2nd look?
Tony Mathews
english
using a production cue (it was a Falcon BTW) that had a pivot point that
matched my bridge length (about 11"). I reported at the time that it
seemed very consistent.
Since then a few things have happened.
1) I received a copy of Bert Kinister's "Deflection" tape. I think that
Bert's tapes are very good and I was curious to see what his take on
this matter was. Lo and behold he describes and demonstrates back hand
english! This was taught to him by pro player Tony Robles. Tony says
that Earl Strikland, Nick Varner, Effren and Bustamente use this
technique. Of course Bert states that this goes against all written
advice and that he doesn't understand why it works, but that once
learned, he became convinced that it was a big benefit to using English.
It got me thinking.....
2) I called up a local pro player and had him watch the tape. He said to
me "of course, I use this method myself and I was taught it 30 years ago
by so and so". I asked him to demonstrate to me on the table. 4 hours
later (this was how long it took for me to get the hang of the stroke
and to believe that it really does work) I became a believer!
Flame away guys, but let me relate some of my findings first!
-Back hand english doesn't work with a predator.
- shafts with lowish squirt require a long bridge (the real reason why
the Philippine players use a long bridge! - IMO).
- the FAQ method for testing squirt doesn't truly give you the correct
picture. I keep getting long pivot point numbers that don't pan out
during actual shooting.
Knowing what we now know about the squirt mechanism, I can precisely
tailor a shaft to a players bridge length. Longer pivot point required?
- reduce the shaft end mass (by several methods available) Shorter pivot
point required? increase the shaft end mass (even by increasing the
tip/ferrule diameter).
I found the ideal pivot point for myself by starting with a higher than
normal squirt shaft (for me anyway) and reducing the tip size and
ferrule length until it matched my pivot point.
Advantages? I can now make virtually any spin shot on the table with a
high degree of confidence at various stroke speeds, with any amount of
tip offset, at any distance. The caveat is that very slow strokes will
get swerve into play, but then again I never roll balls with english. It
even works on the Snooker table. This surprised me the most.
I showed this technique to a top Snooker player and he picked up on it
within 10 minutes (not 4 hours like me!). He can now spin the cue ball
around the black ball with impunity.
The accuracy of this technique is dependent on your ability to aim with
center ball (in other words your basic potting skills) and the
relationship to your normal bridge length to the cue pivot point. With
the above mentioned Snooker player, he did not miss a pot regardless of
how hard he stroked or how much side spin he added to the ball.
By the way, I do not consider a 12 - 14" pivot point "high squirt". This
is because I have yet to find a shaft (even a predator) that required
longer than a 16" bridge for the BHE technique, despite the super long
pivot points determined by the FAQ method.
Here is a better test for pivot point that was shown to me by a top pro
player:
Place an object ball on the foot spot.
Place the cue ball on the balk line 2" off of the left rail (then try
the right rail).
Aim to pot the ball with center ball into the right hand corner.
Now pivot your back hand to get over 2 tips of english (your maximum).
Now stroke the cue and see if you pot the ball. To see if you have
sufficient english for this test, if you pot the ball, the cue ball
should scratch in the right hand center pocket (this is extreme juice!).
Virtually everyone I give this test to, when asked to try it with their
normal aiming/compensation, overcut the ball by a ton! even with a
predator. Some miss the object ball completely!
I have let pros try this with their own cue and I have yet to see one
pot the ball on the first or second try unless they use the BHE
technique.
BTW - The correct technique, is to aim with center ball, pull the cue
back slowly, and then swerve the cue off-line into the english on the
forward stroke. Every teacher will cringe at this (I know I did, still
do!) and say it can't be. But you have to witness a top player do this
and marvel at the accuracy with which they can pot spin shots time after
time.
Another caveat - if you can pot with center ball at 50%, then you can't
expect to pot with english at any better than 50%. Good potters will see
immediate benefits to their game. They can now add english with
confidence.
Keep in mind, this is very "cue/player" specific. It took me awhile to
find a shaft that worked for me and I make the damn things! But when it
works, wow does it work!
Let the flame-a-thon begin.........
Tony
Deno J. Andrews
isn't going to work over time for I have done so already. But I will
say one thing about it: Placebo Effect
I really believe that if you were to have studied your shot making
statistics over the last year, and would study your shot making
statistics over this year with your new secret weapon, you would quickly
realize that your shot making probably hasn't improved beyond your
normal curve. I think in about a month or so, your game will realize
all the shortcomings of the BHE technique and you will be back to
searching.
The problem is that people that fall for this kind of stuff are
typically the people who spend their time searching for an easier way to
learn the game instead of spending that time doing drills and really
learning the game. A bigger problem is that these players usually do
not know about the mechanics of the game and can't immediately see how
nutty the techniques are they are swearing by this time. Well time
after time, these players are back in a year with another secret weapon
and the last one is nowhere to be found. Everything you said about
potting balls with the same aim point for a center ball hit doesn't jive
because while BHE may sometimes cancel out squirt, never do you take
into account OB throw. So if you aim with a center ball and guarantee
the cue ball hits the same spot with english, the OB will throw off the
line and not pot on longer shots. So for sure what is happening is that
you are adjusting without knowing it and you are experiencing the
placebo effect big time.
I predict in a month or so you will be back to normal. Let us know. If
you are still on the high, maybe if you ever get to Chicago or I ever
get wherever you are, I will show you several shots demonstrating the
failures of this technique.
Deno J. Andrews
gide...@my-deja.com
tony.m...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> -Back hand english doesn't work with a predator.
> - shafts with lowish squirt require a long bridge (the real reason why
> the Philippine players use a long bridge! - IMO).
> Knowing what we now know about the squirt mechanism, I can precisely
> tailor a shaft to a players bridge length. Longer pivot point
required?
> - reduce the shaft end mass (by several methods available) Shorter
pivot
> point required? increase the shaft end mass (even by increasing the
> tip/ferrule diameter).
> BTW - The correct technique, is to aim with center ball, pull the cue
> back slowly, and then swerve the cue off-line into the english on the
> forward stroke. Every teacher will cringe at this (I know I did, still
> do!) and say it can't be. But you have to witness a top player do this
> and marvel at the accuracy with which they can pot spin shots time
>after time.
Tony,
Given that you accept that BHE depends on the specific pivot point for
each shaft, and depends on bridge length (something some BHE advocates
do not accept), can you explain why you think the "last minute swerve"
is necessary, as opposed to the static "aim and pivot" method? If you
have actually found the pivot point, then "aim and pivot" should work
equally well, without the error-inducing last minute corrections.
Regards,
Gideon
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Richard Iachetta
> Advantages? I can now make virtually any spin shot on the table with a
> high degree of confidence at various stroke speeds, with any amount of
> tip offset, at any distance.
Tony,
The thing that first convinced me about BHE was a simple test. I
repeatedly put the cueball on the head spot and shot directly
at the foot spot (the circle on the table where the first ball in the
rack goes). I shot it several times with centerball to check my stroke
and the cueball rolled over the center of the circle. I then tried to
shoot in the same line applying varying amounts of left and right english
the traditional way, i.e. shooting the same direction (parallel to the
long rails) but just shifting the whole stick left and right. Of course
the cue ball deflected. It would no longer roll over the center of the
circle but would only partially do so (not very much for extreme
english).
Then I tried the same thing several times with varying amounts of back
hand english. I.e. I pivoted the tip around my bridge hand to apply
english left or right and shot that new line. To my astonishment, the
cueball rolled right over the center of the circle every time. I'm
not talking close here -- it was as on target as the center ball shots.
And I could apply lots of english (very noticable when it rebounds off
the rail) and it still went over the center of the circle!
Perhaps people are right that this wouldn't work with a different cue or
bridge length -- I haven't really tried so I won't speculate. Also, Deno
is certainly right that you may have to take object ball throw into
account depending on the shot speed and cut angle. But having to account
only for OBT is far better than trying to account for OBT *and*
deflection at the same time.
--
Rich Iachetta
iach...@us.ibm.com
I do not speak for IBM.
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
> The problem is that people that fall for this kind of stuff are
> typically the people who spend their time searching for an easier way to
> learn the game instead of spending that time doing drills and really
> learning the game. A bigger problem is that these players usually do
> not know about the mechanics of the game and can't immediately see how
> nutty the techniques are they are swearing by this time.
Well I wouldn't put myself in that category Deno! I understand the mechanics
and I did not want to even try this technique a year ago. I don't consider it
a "magic bullet" or even a "secret weapon". As to the long term effects of
this technique, I spent a few hours yesterday with a man who has used this
method for over 30 years. I guess it should wear off any moment now? And he is
an excellent player and has remained so for 30 years.
The main reason for my investigation of this technique was to try to
understand a little more of the physics behind squirt. I have found that this
method is not for everyone, nor is it for every circumstance on the table.
Also, the technique to be effective really requires a good match between cue
and player. As for not taking in to account object ball throw, well at certain
speeds the object ball throw and the cueball swerve can cancel out. Lower
speeds than that and swerve will dominate. This technique works best for
speeds just below a medium stroke and up.
I am still investigating, and testing but I appreciate your input.
Tony
Michael Chesser
that "The correct technique, is to aim with center ball, pull the cue back
slowly, and then swerve the cue off-line into the english on the forward
system" video. Are these the same concepts?
Michael Chesser
Tony Mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A530651...@sympatico.ca...
Ken Bour
among those who believe that squirt is a function of shot speed. To claim
that the BHE works at many different speeds (other than slow, which he
acknowledges introduces swerve), suggests that something else may be at work
here that needs to be understood.
I normally think of Tony as a critical thinker and careful poster. Even
though his statements about BHE sound a little "Houlish," his claims merit a
fair hearing.
Ken Bour
[SNIP]
Tony Mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
> I agree with Gideon on this point; furthermore, I'm pretty sure that Tony is
> among those who believe that squirt is a function of shot speed. To claim
> that the BHE works at many different speeds (other than slow, which he
> acknowledges introduces swerve), suggests that something else may be at work
> here that needs to be understood.
>
Well actually I would say that to be correct, squirt is relatively independant
of shot speed. However, there are (at least!) 3 different effects that occurr
when we use sidespin. 1) squirt, 2) object ball throw, and 3) swerve
#1 is relatively speed independant, #2 and 3 are very speed dependant. This is
why I think that people believe that squirt varies with speed. It is hard to
seperate the various effects. To eliminate throw, you can try shooting up the
table between 2 balls with sidespin at various speeds. Throughout a very usable
range of speeds, the BHE will compensate for the squirt. Hit slowly though and
the cueball will swerve in the direction of the applied english.
>
> I normally think of Tony as a critical thinker and careful poster. Even
> though his statements about BHE sound a little "Houlish," his claims merit a
> fair hearing.
>
>
Thanks Ken! Believe me I would have put money on myself being the last person to
buy into this technique. But at the same time, I feel that I have to try things
out for myself.
Regards,
Tony
Tony Mathews
Michael Chesser wrote:
> I hesitate to get into a discussion with good pool players, but this idea,
> that "The correct technique, is to aim with center ball, pull the cue back
> slowly, and then swerve the cue off-line into the english on the forward
> stroke." sounds just like Buddy Hall's "tuck and roll" from the "clock
> system" video. Are these the same concepts?
>
>
Yes, the exact same concept. Buddy uses this method, but I have always found
his explanation a little vague.
Tony
Tony Mathews
gide...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Given that you accept that BHE depends on the specific pivot point for
> each shaft, and depends on bridge length (something some BHE advocates
> do not accept), can you explain why you think the "last minute swerve"
> is necessary, as opposed to the static "aim and pivot" method? If you
> have actually found the pivot point, then "aim and pivot" should work
> equally well, without the error-inducing last minute corrections.
>
Well the last minute swerve is not neccessary per say. I have tried it both
ways. And both work. However, the key to hitting a ball well with sidespin
is to maintain a smooth fluid stroke at all times. Too many players that I
see tend to poke at the ball with English or hit a little timidly. For some
reason, when you use the last minute swerve, you tend to hit the ball more
like you would with center ball, that is with a smooth long follow through.
Also, this method seems to give a very solid hit on the cue ball. Not like a
"glancing" blow at all.
Why not give me a call Gideon, and we can get together and I can demonstrate
to you the technique in person. Then you could post your impressions as an
unbiased observer.
Tony
gide...@my-deja.com
tony.m...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Why not give me a call Gideon, and we can get together and I can
>demonstrate to you the technique in person. Then you could post your
>impressions as an unbiased observer.
I'd be happy to. Nothing I like better than shooting and talking about
pool. However, I don't know that I will be the best observer, in that
I am still trying to figure out how to compensate for English in the
first place.
Ken Bour
Our resident experts have maintained for some time that squirt does not vary
with shot speed. I think they are dead wrong and have said so on many
occasions over the years. Both Shepard and Jewett have started to move away
from this position, if I am understanding their more recent comments, and
acknowledge that speed may influence squirt.
Let's see if an experiment will help us out.
Set up a straight-in shot to a corner pocket with cueball and object ball
about 1 diamond apart and object ball about 1.5 diamonds from a corner.
Aiming at the horizontal center of the cueball, with a LEVEL CUE STICK,
shift the entire cue parallel to the right (or left) edge of the cueball.
Now shoot straight and very SOFTLY -- pocket speed. There should be
virtually no swerve since you are hitting level and on the center axis nor
will there be much squirt (if my theory is correct). You may make this ball
in the corner. Now reset the balls and, this time, after shifting parallel,
shoot VERY HARD. I predict that the cueball will squirt noticeably further
to the opposite direction causing the object ball to miss the pocket by a
much wider distance.
That's the experiment. I'd be curious as to your results, analysis, and
interpretation.
Ken Bour
"Tony Mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A5451D3...@sympatico.ca...
Bob Jewett
> Aiming at the horizontal center of the cueball, with a LEVEL CUE STICK,
...
This means that the center of the tip is the same distance from the cloth
as the center of the rubber bumper. How do you arrange this? How do you
hold the stick?
--
Bob Jewett
Ron Shepard
>from this position, if I am understanding their more recent comments, and
>acknowledge that speed may influence squirt.
I don't know what I have said lately that would lead you to that conclusion. I
cannot see any dependence on shot speed when I do the aim-and-pivot squirt
test. That doesn't mean there isn't any, it is just small enough so that I
can't see it.
>Let's see if an experiment will help us out.
>
>Set up a straight-in shot to a corner pocket with cueball and object ball
>about 1 diamond apart and object ball about 1.5 diamonds from a corner.
>Aiming at the horizontal center of the cueball, with a LEVEL CUE STICK,
>shift the entire cue parallel to the right (or left) edge of the cueball.
>Now shoot straight and very SOFTLY -- pocket speed. There should be
>virtually no swerve since you are hitting level and on the center axis nor
>will there be much squirt (if my theory is correct). You may make this
>ball
>in the corner. Now reset the balls and, this time, after shifting parallel,
>shoot VERY HARD. I predict that the cueball will squirt noticeably further
>to the opposite direction causing the object ball to miss the pocket by
>a
>much wider distance.
>
>That's the experiment. I'd be curious as to your results, analysis, and
>interpretation.
I don't understand why you say that there will be no swerve on the slow shot.
I think there will be swerve for the slow shot, there will be none (or very
little) for the fast shot, so you will see a difference in where the cue ball
hits the object ball.
I'm not sure exactly what kind of experiment would show this. Maybe I'll tape
some wax paper to my table again to see if I can follow the ball trajectories.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tony Mathews
Tony Mathews wrote:
>
> Yes, the exact same concept. Buddy uses this method, but I have always found
> his explanation a little vague.
>
>
I forgot to add that the "tuck and roll" technique are analogous to back hand
english, but that the clock system is not.
Hope I didn't confuse you!
Tony
Tony Mathews
Richard Iachetta wrote:
> Tony,
>
> The thing that first convinced me about BHE was a simple test. I
> repeatedly put the cueball on the head spot and shot directly
> at the foot spot (the circle on the table where the first ball in the
> rack goes).
>
> Then I tried the same thing several times with varying amounts of back
> hand english. I.e. I pivoted the tip around my bridge hand to apply
> english left or right and shot that new line. To my astonishment, the
> cueball rolled right over the center of the circle every time.
Yes I have tried this myself and it works as you describe, except if you try
to slow roll the ball with english. Then the cueball curves back in the
direction of the side spin. This is swerve.
> Perhaps people are right that this wouldn't work with a different cue or
> bridge length -- I haven't really tried so I won't speculate.
Well it can theoretically work with any cue as long as the pivot point and
bridge length coincide.
> Also, Deno
> is certainly right that you may have to take object ball throw into
> account depending on the shot speed and cut angle. But having to account
> only for OBT is far better than trying to account for OBT *and*
> deflection at the same time.
>
I agree with this. Object ball throw can be a problem if you are a "speed"
player, that is a player that uses varying stroke speeds to play position. A
lot of the very best pro 9 ball players are what George Fels called "tip"
players. That is a player that uses a near constant stroke speed and varies
the location of the tip/cueball hit to control the cueball travel distance.
With a near constant stroke speed for most shots, problems with object ball
throw, and swerve are largley eliminated. Bert Kinister mentions this in his
tape.
Watch the great players hit the ball. Nearly every hit is at the same stroke
speed. The Phillipine players are masters at this. I was blown away by Dennis
Hatch a few years back here in Toronto. I watched him run rack after rack
with the same hit on the cueball nearly every time. And he used very little
draw! Mostly follow or center ball mixed in with side spin. He was using a
Dishaw cue at the time (without a Predator FYI).
thanks for the input,
Tony
Tony Mathews
Your test to try to prove that speed affects squirt doesn't really hold true
Ken. For one thing, you cannot hit centerball with a truly level cue except
perhaps on a Snooker table out in the middle. On a pool table the rails are
higher than center ball so you will get some elevation. Therfore swerve will
happen when you stroke softly with english. You would see the squirt effect
clearly at slow speed with a frictionless surface (not pool cloth!).
So instead of less squirt, you are observing squirt followed by swerve back in
the direction of the english. It may look like less squirt, but it is not.
The fact that this affects your aim is clear and undisputed. At slow speed you
need to aim thinner with outside english and thicker with inside as compared to
a high speed stroke. But it is not due to varying squirt.
That is why back hand english is troublesome at slow speeds. On a Snooker table
with directional cloth the squirt/swerve phenomena is very pronounced! You can
watch the ball go out with the squirt and back towards the english even with
what you feel is a level cue.
Tony
Michael Chesser
tape was not done in a very professional manner. But what was weird was how
all the sudden, right towards the end, Buddy just interjects this incredible
concept about english. So there is no confusion on my part, the clock
system has nothing to do with how, exactly, one applies english. It is just
amazing to see Buddy Hall, one of the greatest players of our time, for 30
seconds just espouse this theory of how to apply english with minimal
deflection, which I had never seen written or heard of.
I had seen a lengthy thread here previously on back hand english, but I
hadn't realized what they were talking about. I can see how the
nomenclature "tuck and roll" is not all that descriptive, although he is
clearly referring to some sort of wrist twisting or rolling at the moment of
impact. Why is this method of applying english referred to as "back hand
english"?
Michael Chesser
Tony Mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A559B29...@sympatico.ca...
Otto
> I agree with this. Object ball throw can be a problem if you are a "speed"
> player, that is a player that uses varying stroke speeds to play position.
A
> lot of the very best pro 9 ball players are what George Fels called "tip"
> players. That is a player that uses a near constant stroke speed and
varies
> the location of the tip/cueball hit to control the cueball travel
distance.
> With a near constant stroke speed for most shots, problems with object
ball
> throw, and swerve are largley eliminated. Bert Kinister mentions this in
his
> tape.
>
> Watch the great players hit the ball. Nearly every hit is at the same
stroke
> speed.
This concept of "stroke speed" was stressed to me by my instructor. We spent
considerable time determining "my stroke speed". We also spent extensive
time talking about the difference of playing as a 'tip' player Vs playing as
a speed player. He strongly recommended I attempt to work towards being
a'tip' player and using my stroke speed as much as possible.
I understand the concept but being able to apply it is much more difficult.
I do find that when I am able to play near my stroke speed and use tip
position for control my consistency does improve.
Otto
Bob Jewett
> Why is this method of applying english referred to as "back hand
> english"?
It's not. At least so far here, "back hand english" has referred to the
the technique of aiming without side spin, then -- Without moving your
bridge!!! -- moving the tip over for as much side spin as you want and
then coming straight back and straight through. This is also called
"aim and pivot" which I think is a better name.
This mislabeled "tuck and roll" business is more accurately called "swerve
to the side at the last momemt english." I suppose it can be made to work
with a lot of practice, but why throw a need for critical timing into
all your spin shots? Frankly, I don't believe that Hall uses this method
routinely, but I'll try to watch the next time I see him play. Usually
his game is a model of simplicity.
--
Bob Jewett
MarkO
A little while back you posted an extensive post that you summarized as
'$700 worth of lessons in a nutshell'. If you have it still would you
repost it? I have a friend that would find the info very useful. TIA
Mark0
"Otto" <nospamOtt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_0m56.19712$bU.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Otto
"MarkO" <po...@mailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:t5cj0a5...@corp.supernews.com...
> Otto,
>
> A little while back you posted an extensive post that you summarized as
> '$700 worth of lessons in a nutshell'. If you have it still would you
> repost it? I have a friend that would find the info very useful. TIA
I remember the post but do not remember the date or subject title? Do you
know either of those?
If not I have another idea.
Last spring I took a pool school course from a BCA certified instructor and
posted what I learned during my lessons. It was a lot of information in a
short period of time.
If anyone here is interested I will repost the synopsis of all my lessons. I
need to review them and make some changes but I have been meaning to go back
over them and repost. I'll be sure and title the lessons so those who were
here last spring/summer won't be bored with them.
Otto
patrick...@my-deja.com
> ... Why is this method of applying english referred to
> as "back hand english"?
Actually, it's more often referred to as "bullshit".
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Tony Mathews
Michael Chesser wrote:
> Why is this method of applying english referred to as "back hand
> english"?
>
Well actually on this NG "back hand" english can be interpreted as any method of
compensating for squirt by the pivoting of the cue about the bridge hand with
your back hand. But the method that I was shown and that Buddy advocates advises
moving the cue to the new tip position at the last moment. And I agree with you,
he drops a bomb at the end of the tape without a proper explanation. Check out
Bert Kinnister's deflection tape for a complete treatment of this technique.
Tony
Tony Mathews
patrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > ... Why is this method of applying english referred to
> > as "back hand english"?
>
> Actually, it's more often referred to as "bullshit".
>
Back hand bullshit? Or Bhb?
In all seriousness the method does work. It is not a panacea, but a
useful technique. If I hadn't seen some pros using it with my own eyes I
would remain a doubter.
Look at the Science behind it. For every cue there is a theoretical
pivot point. If your bridge length and pivot point coincide, then during
the application of side spin, the pivot will compensate for squirt. I
think that you need to be a fairly accomplished player with a solid
stroke before you can get this to work. All this method is, is a way to
easily compensate for squirt. It doesn't work for every cue and bridge
length, but when matched it works very consistently.
Some time ago Ron Shepard argued that for breaking you should use a cue
with the pivot point that coincides with your bridge length. This way if
you accidently apply sidespin, you will still hit the head ball dead on.
I believe that Mike Page got him onto this. I was skeptical. So I went
through a bunch of house cues until I found one with the correct pivot
point. I then tested Ron's hypothesis. He was right. (When is Ron ever
wrong?)
You yourself Patrick said that such a cue was good for breaking, but too
squirty for playing.
That got me thinking...
Why? Wouldn't you want the same automatic compensation for your playing
cue?
So I tried it. And it works. And if you understand the physics behind it
it has to work.
No mumbo jumbo, no voodoo, no magic, but physics.
And it works because squirt is very nearly speed independant. When used
by a "tip" player with a near constant stroke speed, it makes the game
a lot easier to play. No worry about deflection, throw or swerve. Just
aim with center ball and then pivot to the amount of side spin that you
want. ( You really have to "lock in" that center ball aim though). The
physics takes care of the adjustments for you.
A useful technique IMO, but best attempted by an accomplished player
with a mature stroke.
Tony
Ken Bour
conclusion. I
> cannot see any dependence on shot speed when I do the aim-and-pivot squirt
> test. That doesn't mean there isn't any, it is just small enough so that
I
> can't see it.
I thought I recalled reading a moderating comment on this subject recently.
Maybe it was something like what you just wrote, i.e., there is a "small"
effect. Maybe I interpreted that, incorrectly, as a change of position.
[SNIP the experiment]
> I don't understand why you say that there will be no swerve on the slow
shot.
> I think there will be swerve for the slow shot, there will be none (or
very
> little) for the fast shot, so you will see a difference in where the cue
ball
> hits the object ball.
To you and Bob J... I have to acknowledge that I cannot get the cue
precisely level. The tilt is modest, but there is some angle downward on
both shots and it would certainly be enough to introduce swerve. Having
said that, when I attempt the slow shot, I do not "see" much perceptible
cueball swerve although I would have to conclude that there may be a small
amount (Ron, sound familiar?). When I shoot hard, the cueball squirts
about 30-45 degrees (that's a guesstimate depending on how hard I swing), if
the cueball and object ball are about 1.5 diamonds apart.
What you seem to be suggesting is that, on a slow shot, the squirt starts
off on a 30-45 degree trajectory and the swerve pulls it back 20-30 degrees
over 1.5 diamonds. Maybe so. It doesn't appear to happen to the naked
eye. Normally, to get that much observable swerve, I have to jack up
considerably more.
> I'm not sure exactly what kind of experiment would show this. Maybe I'll
tape
> some wax paper to my table again to see if I can follow the ball
trajectories.
I hope that you will follow up on your experiment. I would really like to
understand these phenomena.
Tony really summarized the PRACTICAL effects well: when applying extreme
center sidespin (normal stick elevation) and shooting hard, you must aim for
a much fuller hit on the object ball (to accommodate the squirt) than when
shooting softly. The difference in aim adjustment will correspond to the
stick's squirt characteristics and will be maximized when shooting very hard
vs. very soft.
The reason that the above statements are true remains unclear to me but I am
willing to be persuaded that it is the countereffects of swerve and squirt
and not the shot speed that is the dominant factor.
Ken Bour
patrick...@my-deja.com
[backhand english works with the right stick]
I was talking about "tuck and roll" english (presumably an even less
reliable version of "swooping" BHE), not "fixed" (aim-and-pivot) BHE.
As for "fixed" BHE, I don't think anybody has denied that pivoting on
the PP would theoretically work. The theory is obvious, but so are its
drawbacks. For one thing, it's prone to aiming error because players
don't bridge at exactly the same spot every time. This alone can
produce aiming errors of 1/16" per foot or more.
For another, it restricts the range and accuracy of your sidespin.
These aren't all of the drawbacks.
Basically, the method is inherently sloppy, trading accuracy for
convenience. It requires more unconscious adjustment in order to make
shots, and I think that's going in the wrong direction.
Pat Johnson
San Pedro
Ron Shepard
>with the pivot point that coincides with your bridge length. This way if
>you accidently apply sidespin, you will still hit the head ball dead on.
>I believe that Mike Page got him onto this. I was skeptical. So I went
>through a bunch of house cues until I found one with the correct pivot
>point. I then tested Ron's hypothesis. He was right.
Yes, this was Mike's idea. I was skeptical too. Anther aspect of this idea of
using a squirty break cue to advantage is to use a rounded, rather than flat,
tip on your break cue. This was also contrary to my thinking at the time Mike
made is first arguments in favor of using a squirty cue.
>(When is Ron ever
>wrong?)
Uh, ask my wife. :-)
>You yourself Patrick said that such a cue was good for breaking, but too
>squirty for playing.
>That got me thinking...
>Why? Wouldn't you want the same automatic compensation for your playing
>cue?
Here are the essential differences. On the break shot you are always trying to
hit the cue ball right in the center with no sidespin. On other shots, you
sometimes want centerball hits and you sometimes want sidespin. On the
breakshot you are always hitting with near maximum speed. Maybe you back off
the speed a little bit in order to keep control of the cue ball, but generally
the shot is fast enough so that no signficant swerve occurs. On other shots,
you sometimes hit hard, sometimes medium, sometimes soft, sometimes with an
elevated cue, sometimes with a more level cue, and so on, and accounting for
swerve is important, and different on all these shots.
My point here is that on normal shots, there are many possible variables that
can affect how you aim. Anything you can do to eliminate or reduce the effect
of these variables simplifies the process and improves the accuracy and
consistency. Reducing squirt, and the need to compensate for it, is one of
these things.
The break shot does not have all these variables.
Does this mean that a squirty cue is necessarily worse for a particular player?
Not necessarily. I think it depends on the individual player. Consider some
hypothetical player who has a natural ability to adjust for swerve very well,
who does not use aim-and-pivot, and who cannot adjust for squirt very well;
such a player probably would be better off with a low squirt cue. Or, consider
a player, perhaps one with a physical disability, who has a very swoopey
stroke; such a player would be better off with a squirty cue, with the pivot
point near the bridge length, that reduces the effects of his swoop. It may
not solve all his problems on all shots, but it will help on some shots and it
won't hurt much on the others, so the squirty cue benefits his game in an
overall way.
I believe that I'm in the middle somewhere between the two above extremes. On
normal shots, I think I'm more like the first player, and reducing squirt helps
my overall aiming and success rate. But on the breakshot, I'm more like the
second player, and a squirty cue helps compensate for my largest stroke flaw.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Deno J. Andrews
> A useful technique IMO, but best attempted by an accomplished player
> with a mature stroke.
A player with a mature stroke needs no technique like this. I think
this is more accurate for a player with no stroke and no desire to
achieve one. There are just as many problems with this technique as any
technique, it is just that some feel it is the secret weapon...but yet,
hardly any of those players are using it to climb the ranks. That says
something about how well the technique really works. If it is really as
accurate as all of you say, why then do you still miss? With this sort
of technique, shot making should be a pretty consistent thing, but yet
it is not with almost all of the players I have seen trying to use this
technique.
Deno J. Andrews
John Collins
"Deno J. Andrews @ix.netcom.com>" <"deno<REMOVE> wrote in message
news:3A576713...@ix.netcom.com...
> Tony Mathews wrote:
> > A useful technique IMO, but best attempted by an accomplished player
> > with a mature stroke.
>
I disagree. I think that this nethod should be taught as early as possible.
I have seen an APA 3 jump to a five in 14 days after being shown this
technique. She reported to me just last night that she ran her first rack
of eight ball using the BHE method.
> A player with a mature stroke needs no technique like this. I think
> this is more accurate for a player with no stroke and no desire to
> achieve one. There are just as many problems with this technique as any
> technique, it is just that some feel it is the secret weapon...but yet,
> hardly any of those players are using it to climb the ranks. That says
> something about how well the technique really works. If it is really as
> accurate as all of you say, why then do you still miss? With this sort
> of technique, shot making should be a pretty consistent thing, but yet
> it is not with almost all of the players I have seen trying to use this
> technique.
>
> Deno J. Andrews
Why do excellent players using other methods miss balls? Because as you
have said, there is no holy grail of pool perfection. BHE is another method
of achieving the same results. Now that I know what it is I am observant
when I see others using it.
My absolute apologies for not delving into this subject at more length.
Over the last few months a lot of local players that I have shown this to
have indeed climbed through the ranks and improved their shotmaking, aiming,
position play and general understanding of the dynamics involved. They
attribute this rapid growth to the BHE and Ball to Ball Aiming techniques.
This is stuff that is not taught or understood by many who teach and so the
general populace is not informed of this type of approach to aiming and
application of spin.
Whether you believe in the techniques or not Deno there are lot's of players
that either conciously or unconciously use these techniques with excellent
results.
John
lfigueroa
she went from a three to a five, but will she ever progress much further?
Even if she does, she will eventually find that's she has limited how far
she can progress with this technique and will never achieve her full
potential going this route.
It's dead end.
Lou Figueroa
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:SUO56.8964$5V6.5...@news.uswest.net...
Tony Mathews
lfigueroa wrote:
> I think Deno's point is that "excellent results" is a relative term. Sure
> she went from a three to a five, but will she ever progress much further?
> Even if she does, she will eventually find that's she has limited how far
> she can progress with this technique and will never achieve her full
> potential going this route.
>
> It's dead end.
>
This is nonsense! This technique is merely a way to enable a player to get
consistent results when using English. Many of the top Pros use it.
I am going to state what I believe to be true as clearly as I can:
-Every cue produces squirt when the cue ball is struck to the left or right of
center.
-Some cues produce more than others.
-The Predator 314 shaft produces less squirt than many other production cues.
-When using side spin, every player must account for squirt in their aiming
process.
-I don't believe that there is a magic stroke or mechanical technique that
eliminates squirt. -Squirt is a function of the cue dynamics, (and the amount of
tip offset) and will depend upon the weight of the cue ball (heavy bar box ball
will squirt less than a standard ball etc.).
-Squirt will not depend upon speed, cloth type, how you feel that day etc.
-Your technique determines the accuracy with which you can strike a specific
contact point on the cue ball. This will vary from day to day, and improving
your technique will go a long way to improving accuracy.
-Swerve will depend upon speed, cloth type, humidity etc.
-Object ball throw will depend upon speed, ball friction (influenced by
humidity)
-If I hit the cue ball at precisely 1 tip right of center (3:00) and Deno hits
the ball in the exact same place with the same cue, we will both get the same
amount of squirt. No amount of stroke magic, or special hit will change this.
But, Deno will think that he achieved less squirt, because he has developed his
eye to compensate. The only way to prove this would be to set up an experiment
where we filmed the results from above, and measured the angle of our cues at
cue ball impact (relative to the aiming line) and measured the amount of cue
ball deviation from the cue stick direction. I think that based on this
criteria, the squirt will remain the same. However, from Deno's visual
perspective, he will have eliminated squirt.
I agree with him 100% that there are no short cuts to developing a sound
technique. The pivot and aim method is not a short cut in my opinion. When the
cue dynamics and the player are matched, it can become a part of a sound
technique. And if you aim and then pivot, you can still follow through in a
straight line. Even with a low squirt cue and perfect technique, you still have
to allow for squirt when using side spin. Technique won't eliminate squirt, or
even minimize it, and belief in this is a dead end that will get you nowhere.
(See I can play this game too!).
I played a few sets recently with Canadian Snooker champion Jim Wych. Jim has
what is regarded as near flawless technique. He is also a phenomenal 9 ball
player. The cue that I built him for 9 ball has a specific amount of squirt. We
adjusted the shaft on the cue until it played virtually the same as his Snooker
cue plays on the Snooker table. So that when he switches from Snooker to 9-ball
he can use the same compensation for squirt. With all of his previous 9-ball
cues, Jim told me that he needed several weeks on the 9-ball table to adjust his
eye for the different ball reactions. He knows that great technique doesn't
eliminate an inherent built-in cue dynamic. You have to train your eye to match
your cue.
Now he needs only a few hours on the table to get the feel of the balls before
competing at 9-ball.
No magic strokes please!
Tony
lfigueroa
I've enjoyed several of your posts, but must confess that I've never heard
anything about you as cue maker. Ergo, I have to take your claims about
fine tuning this squirt thing down to a science with more than a few grains.
But in any case, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and not call your
position nonsense.
Lou Figueroa
"Tony Mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A592CAD...@sympatico.ca...
Deno J. Andrews
> I disagree. I think that this nethod should be taught as early as possible.
> I have seen an APA 3 jump to a five in 14 days after being shown this
> technique. She reported to me just last night that she ran her first rack
> of eight ball using the BHE method.
This is not impressive. In my years of teaching, I have found that
really weak players advance quickly until they reach a certain level.
It's like driving a car and doubling its speed...it is much easier for a
car to go from 10mph to 20mph than it is to go from 75mph to 150mph (in
fact, some cars can't even achieve 150mph- they use BHE :) What
happened to this woman is that she went from 10mph to 20mph, and while
that is commendable, the level still leaves something to be desired and
cannot really be used to prove a point about how well a technique works.
> Why do excellent players using other methods miss balls? Because as you
> have said, there is no holy grail of pool perfection. BHE is another method
> of achieving the same results. Now that I know what it is I am observant
> when I see others using it.
Exactly, it is another technique that has the very same problems as any
other technique. But by trusting and using this technique, you
purposely forget all there is to learn about good mechanics and you are
perfectly willing to accept bad mechanics into the game because you
think this will fix all. Well guess what, in order to use BHE
consistently, you are going to need the mechanics to back it up and to
be able to pivot without fault (which almost nobody can do). A big
reason this technique will not work over time is because the players who
want to use this are the players who want to ignore learning good stroke
and good mechanics...and those players are doomed to fail anyway.
Anyone with good mechanics and a good stroke need not this technique or
any other magic technique to apply spin on the ball. Mainly because it
is not hard at all to do it accurately!
> Over the last few months a lot of local players that I have shown this to
> have indeed climbed through the ranks and improved their shotmaking, aiming,
> position play and general understanding of the dynamics involved.
Who? And I can't believe that they know more about position, or the
dynamics involved.
> attribute this rapid growth to the BHE and Ball to Ball Aiming techniques.
> This is stuff that is not taught or understood by many who teach and so the
> general populace is not informed of this type of approach to aiming and
> application of spin.
When one of these players reaches the elite out of the number of them
whom use this technique, be sure that it is because they are the one out
of thousands who can use this technique while subconsciously adjusting
to make it work. Everyone else will plateau. This technique has been
taught for several years, and mostly by those who were never or could
never reach high levels...and there is a reason for that.
> Whether you believe in the techniques or not Deno there are lot's of players
> that either conciously or unconciously use these techniques with excellent
> results.
It has nothing to do with belief. I know how the technique works; I
have tried it and worked with it for several hours. It's just that, and
maybe because of my experience and knowledge, I can look past the
immediate excitement and see the downfalls. There is no doubt that the
technique adjusts for squirt. But for the multiple reasons previously
stated by me, the technique surely has as many if not more problems than
the conventional method. Therefore, I choose conventional because it
allows the player greater knowledge of the factors involved thus making
them better and more informed players over time.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
lfigueroa wrote:
>
> I think Deno's point is that "excellent results" is a relative term. Sure
> she went from a three to a five, but will she ever progress much further?
> Even if she does, she will eventually find that's she has limited how far
> she can progress with this technique and will never achieve her full
> potential going this route.
>
> It's dead end.
Exactly.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
>
> This is nonsense! This technique is merely a way to enable a player to get
> consistent results when using English. Many of the top Pros use it.
Who? And forget about Efren- his mechanics are so unique that they
almost cannot be studied with any sort of accuracy. And you say many,
so I am expecting more than just a few players.
> -Every cue produces squirt when the cue ball is struck to the left or right of
> center.
> -Some cues produce more than others.
This is true if studied by the same robot, etc.
> -The Predator 314 shaft produces less squirt than many other production cues.
This is true for some cues, but I also asked them to compare predator
with my carom cues...and they wouldn't go anywhere near doing it or even
discussing this. So yes, they may produce less squirt than meucci or
mali or whatever, but cues like Lambros easily compete with their
numbers.
> -When using side spin, every player must account for squirt in their aiming
> process.
If that player has faulty mechanics yes...but more accurately, every
player must account for object ball throw from cue ball spin or speed.
This is something nobody can change...but squirt can be reduced to a
very controllable level while still using alot of spin.
> -I don't believe that there is a magic stroke or mechanical technique that
> eliminates squirt. -Squirt is a function of the cue dynamics, (and the amount of
> tip offset) and will depend upon the weight of the cue ball (heavy bar box ball
> will squirt less than a standard ball etc.).
You are right that there is no magic stroke...but a good stroke is that
which eliminates all sorts of drama and unneeded forces- which is the
hardest to achieve.
> -Squirt will not depend upon speed, cloth type, how you feel that day etc.
> -Your technique determines the accuracy with which you can strike a specific
> contact point on the cue ball. This will vary from day to day, and improving
> your technique will go a long way to improving accuracy.
> -Swerve will depend upon speed, cloth type, humidity etc.
> -Object ball throw will depend upon speed, ball friction (influenced by
> humidity)
And dirt...
> -If I hit the cue ball at precisely 1 tip right of center (3:00) and Deno hits
> the ball in the exact same place with the same cue, we will both get the same
> amount of squirt.
Absolutely wrong. And I will get more spin than you will too (probably-
unless you have a really good stroke)
>No amount of stroke magic, or special hit will change this.
True. It is not magic. It is a stroke that has eliminated all unneeded
muscle from influencing the cue.
> But, Deno will think that he achieved less squirt, because he has developed his
> eye to compensate.
I don't know how you measure squirt...but I use jigs and have to send
the cue ball through limits and then have the cue ball spin off the rail
to certain points to guarantee I was using max english. Pat Johnson has
seen some of this type of experimentation, but not to the extent of my
satisfaction.
> The only way to prove this would be to set up an experiment
> where we filmed the results from above, and measured the angle of our cues at
> cue ball impact (relative to the aiming line) and measured the amount of cue
> ball deviation from the cue stick direction. I think that based on this
> criteria, the squirt will remain the same. However, from Deno's visual
> perspective, he will have eliminated squirt.
Don't you think this has been done already? I will tell you one thing
about pool players vs billiard players. Most pool players can't spin
the ball as much as most billiard players. Spin is used in almost 100%
of billiard shots and at all speeds. And more than running english...I
am talking two, three tips and max. Billiard players know more about
applying spin to a ball because it is a major part of our game.
Billiard cues are designed to aid in moving around billiard balls
accurately. Average billiard players have better strokes than average
pool players. Is it possible that because spin is so much more a part
of billiards than pool that maybe the accumulated knowledge in billiards
regarding spin and stroke is more comprehensive than it is in pool?
> technique. The pivot and aim method is not a short cut in my opinion.
We disagree...it is a shortcut that will disable many players in the
grand scheme of things.
> when cue dynamics and the player are matched, it can become a part of a sound
> technique.
Talk about magic...this is cue maker sales talk.
> to allow for squirt when using side spin. Technique won't eliminate squirt, or
> even minimize it, and belief in this is a dead end that will get you nowhere.
Technique can reduce squirt (it will not totally eliminate it- but it
will reduce it significantly). Belief contrary to this is a dead end.
> No magic strokes please!
Again, it is the opposite of magic. But you won't understand as most
who try to actually purify their strokes fail and never understand.
Those are the players who search endlessly for magic potions and secret
weapons, and who almost always search their lives for it never achieving
the level of their desire.
Deno J. Andrews
nya...@my-deja.com
tony.m...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> I played a few sets recently with Canadian Snooker champion Jim Wych.
Jim has
> what is regarded as near flawless technique. He is also a phenomenal
9 ball
> player. The cue that I built him for 9 ball has a specific amount of
squirt. We
> adjusted the shaft on the cue until it played virtually the same as
his Snooker
> cue plays on the Snooker table.
How did you do this?
John Collins
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9O166.19976$7f3.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I think Deno's point is that "excellent results" is a relative term. Sure
> she went from a three to a five, but will she ever progress much further?
> Even if she does, she will eventually find that's she has limited how far
> she can progress with this technique and will never achieve her full
> potential going this route.
>
> It's dead end.
>
> Lou Figueroa
>
I agree about "excellent" being realtive to perception. As for your other
questions the answer is I don't know. How many people learn your way and
never reach their full potential. Actually full potential is relative to
perspective as well. BHE and Lesser Known Aiming techniques are not dead
ends, what they are is other ways to achieve the ultimate goal of pocketing
balls consistently. You and Deno and anyone else can argue all day about
whether these systems really allow achievement of this objective or not and
the fact is you cannot prove that it does not while those that believe in
these systems have stated repeatedly that not only has their game improved
but that others have also shown improvement as well. Either we are all
living under mass delusion propogated by the use of the internet or we are
all liars.
John
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <YDo66.205$NN3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> perspective as well. BHE and Lesser Known Aiming techniques are not dead
> ends, what they are is other ways to achieve the ultimate goal of pocketing
> balls consistently. You and Deno and anyone else can argue all day about
> whether these systems really allow achievement of this objective or not and
> the fact is you cannot prove that it does not while those that believe in
> these systems have stated repeatedly that not only has their game improved
> but that others have also shown improvement as well. Either we are all
> living under mass delusion propogated by the use of the internet or we are
> all liars.
John, nobody is saying the technique doesn't achieve some results. The
point of it is that there are as many drawbacks if not more than learning
the conventional way which teaches the student about squirt, instead of
using a technique to hide it. You see, as soon as you change your cue
stick, or your bridge length changes or whatever, your entire technique
falls apart and becomes inaccurate, whereas learning the conventional way
will actually give the student the confidence of knowing exactly what is
happening.
If you don't think your technique is affected by different cues and
different bridge lengths, you really are living under mass delusion :) So
if your technique falls short as quickly as changing your bridge, you can't
possibly make an argument of consistency over the conventional way of
adding english.
There is no doubt that you and certain others are finding some success with
the technique. You have played and you know about the game and potting
balls. With this technique, you are your subconscious with more ammo and
will most likely use your previous knowledge to make subconscious
adjustments. And hey, if it works- mazeltov. But I think anyone who takes
a close look at the use of BHE will quickly understand that it has as many
flaws as any technique out there...and the main problem is that you are not
even learning anything about the mechanics of cue/ball interaction by using
it. At least the conventional way teaches you while you go...but the BHE
has you aiming at a blind spot and it only works with a certain bridge
length and cue stick. Changing any one of those things changes the whole
technique. So if you want to be a one stick-one bridge- one stroke player,
then this technique will probably work for you and you will be a dominant
player. However, the chances of having matches that only require those
limited variables are slim to none.
Me, personally, I would rather understand exactly where I am aiming and
why- based on my knowledge of stroke and squirt, etc. To me, there is no
worse thing a player can do than to aim blindly into space and believe
he/she has an understanding of the game. It's like looking at the receiver
on the right and throwing to the receiver on the left...yeah it works every
once in a while, but there's a reason why it's not done often by the best
quarterbacks.
Deno J. Andrews
lfigueroa
one thing to be cruising along bopping balls in. But it's another when the
pressure is on, everyone is watching, the cheese is on the line, and a very
dicey shot is coming up. This is not the time to have to be worrying about
the timing this system demands, along with everything else.
Lou Figueroa
"Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:93d914$u78$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
John Collins
> I think Deno's point about the system's inherent unreliability is key.
It's
> one thing to be cruising along bopping balls in. But it's another when
the
> pressure is on, everyone is watching, the cheese is on the line, and a
very
> dicey shot is coming up. This is not the time to have to be worrying
about
> the timing this system demands, along with everything else.
>
> Lou Figueroa
I don't think this has that much to do with timing. This is only a
different way to approach the same problem which is pocketing balls and
getting shape. If you learn this way then it becomes as automatic as any
other way to play the game. The only inherent unreliability in pool,
billiards or any other sport is the human element. Even an unlevel table is
reliable, if you know which way it rolls. You could just as easily say that
the ghost ball method is unreliable because we all don't execute perfectly
using it. I mean if I miss a ball it must be because the system is bad,
right?
You guys can say whatever you want about the flaws but the results speak for
themselves. Your combined experience dwarfs mine so I couldn't possibly be
right. I agree to disgree. For myself and those I have shown BHE and Ball
to Ball aiming to in person, we are convinced that these methods work and
that they are reliable under pressure.
John Collins
Deno J. Andrews
In article <DAH66.1568$aU3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> You guys can say whatever you want about the flaws but the results speak for
> themselves. Your combined experience dwarfs mine so I couldn't possibly be
> right. I agree to disgree. For myself and those I have shown BHE and Ball
> to Ball aiming to in person, we are convinced that these methods work and
> that they are reliable under pressure.
Again, it's got nothing to do with right and wrong. And nobody ever said
you wouldn't be able to get results using the technique. The point is that
it is no easier than the conventional method, and is probably harder in the
end. It's just that the placebo effect is in full force and right now you
are not really studying the problems with the technique. One day maybe you
will and you will see that aiming blindly into space is not the best thing
for your game and you may go back to the conventional method. You may be
pocketing balls like crazy right now, but who knows, when you change cues,
or need to use different length bridges or whatever, you may witness what I
and Lou and others have witnessed...that the technique has major problems,
at least as many as the conventional method. But right now you are looking
past all of those problems maybe because you are making more balls than
ever before. But I guarantee, one day, it will start...you will try to
improve upon your knowledge of the game and try to do things better, and
you will see that not knowing where you aim and why you aim there is
dangerous.
I a just hoping you will see my point before you waste several years
incorporating a technique into your game that will limit your playing
level. If anything, at least try to discover the flaws with the technique
so that you will understand what's happening when it doesn't work for you.
But as I have always said, if you are happy and convinced the technique
will work for you and you are satisfied with the level of knowledge of the
game you will get using the technique...then Mazeltov. Go with it. Faith
goes a long way; confidence in something may give your subconscious all it
needs to adjust without you knowing about it and make the shots and
position. And if you are in that boat...you are probably a pretty tough
player, and that's hard to argue down. So I won't try.
Deno J. Andrews
don...@earthlink.net
<nospamOtt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Otto, I saw one of your posts on the lessons and it was EXCELLENT!
Plesase post anything more like that . Thanks a ton.
Hambo
John Collins
> ----------
> In article <DAH66.1568$aU3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
> <inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> > You guys can say whatever you want about the flaws but the results speak
for
> > themselves. Your combined experience dwarfs mine so I couldn't possibly
be
> > right. I agree to disgree. For myself and those I have shown BHE and
Ball
> > to Ball aiming to in person, we are convinced that these methods work
and
> > that they are reliable under pressure.
>
> Again, it's got nothing to do with right and wrong. And nobody ever said
> you wouldn't be able to get results using the technique.
Yes you did. You have said that people using this system will probably fold
under pressure. You agreed with Lou when he said that BHE is a dead end.
To me this means that youare saying that users of backhand english will not
get the same results as users of ghost ball/contact point methods.
The point is that
> it is no easier than the conventional method, and is probably harder in
the
> end. It's just that the placebo effect is in full force and right now you
> are not really studying the problems with the technique.
I disagree. I can see the problems as well as the benefits. I also find
that switching styles is very difficult. I think it would be better to
learn this from the early stages and I also believe that a lot of young
players already do it subconciously before they are deprogrammed into ghost
ball/contact point techniques.
One day maybe you
> will and you will see that aiming blindly into space is not the best thing
> for your game and you may go back to the conventional method.
Who said anything about aiming blindly into space???
You may be
> pocketing balls like crazy right now, but who knows, when you change cues,
> or need to use different length bridges or whatever, you may witness what
I
> and Lou and others have witnessed...that the technique has major problems,
> at least as many as the conventional method. But right now you are
looking
> past all of those problems maybe because you are making more balls than
> ever before.
Why would I be making more balls than ever before if something were not
right? What placebo effect are you referinng to? This is not an experiment
and I have actually taken the real medicine. I am at least a good a player
as you or Lou even though I am a bit rusty. If I say I am making more shots
than ever before it's because I am hitting the ball in the right spot to do
so. What's wrong with that? Or is making balls and running out not the
object of pocket billiards?
But I guarantee, one day, it will start...you will try to
> improve upon your knowledge of the game and try to do things better, and
> you will see that not knowing where you aim and why you aim there is
> dangerous.
>
I have been improving on my knowledge for about twenty years. Without the
benefit of a bevy of world championship caliber players to mentor me either.
I know exactly where I aim and why no matter what system I am using.
> I a just hoping you will see my point before you waste several years
> incorporating a technique into your game that will limit your playing
> level. If anything, at least try to discover the flaws with the technique
> so that you will understand what's happening when it doesn't work for you.
I understand perfectly why it works and when it doesn't. Just like I
understand when I miss a shot using ghost ball/contact point. As I have
said a zillion times the variable is the human element.
> But as I have always said, if you are happy and convinced the technique
> will work for you and you are satisfied with the level of knowledge of the
> game you will get using the technique...then Mazeltov. Go with it. Faith
> goes a long way; confidence in something may give your subconscious all it
> needs to adjust without you knowing about it and make the shots and
> position. And if you are in that boat...you are probably a pretty tough
> player, and that's hard to argue down. So I won't try.
>
I won't pretend to have your in depth knowledge of billiards and the
techniques used. I do have the benefit of knowing several top European
players, attending many tournaments in Germany, being shown a lot of things
on the billiard table by people like Torbjorn Blomdahl who lived about
thirty minutes from my house, people like Christian Rudolph, one of
Germany's strongest three cushion players. I have and use all of your
different bridges and I have been playing twenty years. Still I thought I
knew everything about "how" to play. Hal taught me that I don't. He opened
my eyes to a different approach to pocketing balls and playing position.
What I and others have experienced is not based on faith but real results.
We know it works, we recognize BHE english when we see it utilized. Neither
you nor I are top notchers in our respective disciplines, so I submit that
we cannot really know what top players think and do and what styles are
prevalent among them. That said, the only thing we can do is continue to
speculate and postulate. You have the advantage being in Chicago where a
lot of great players congregate. Like I said before though, that's my story
and I'm stickin' to it!
John 8-))
> Deno J. Andrews
lfigueroa
Certainly you'll grant that it can take a long time to find out a road
you've taken is a dead end. That's all I'm saying (and I think Deno is
too): that you could go tooling along for quite some time with this and not
find out 'twas such until, as Deno has said, you've wasted years of effort.
If you could really "see the problems as well as the benefits" you wouldn't
now be happily on the road to pool perdition. If you could really SEE the
problems, you would understand that when Deno talked about aiming into
space, he wasn't just using a manner of speech -- to use this, you've got
to literally: aim blindly into space.
And, as to the "I am at least a good a player as you or Lou..." according
to my scouting reports, you are wrong on both counts :-) and very much so in
Deno's case. (As I may have mentioned before, I get out your neck of the
woods once in a while, and know folks your way :-)
And lastly, if Hal has opened your eyes, then we may conclude that, truly,
we are talking about 'the blind leading the blind."
Lou Figueroa
ready for the jump to hyper space
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:gLN66.2598$aU3.3...@news.uswest.net...
Tony Mathews
lfigueroa wrote:
> Tony, why is my opinion nonsense and yours constitute word from on high?
Sorry Lou, I just got carried away! No offense was intended. My "opinions" are
not word on high. I have never claimed that they were. They are my opinions to
the best of my current knowledge. That is all. But to say unequivocally that
this technique is a dead end also sounds like word on high!
>
>
> I've enjoyed several of your posts, but must confess that I've never heard
> anything about you as cue maker. Ergo, I have to take your claims about
> fine tuning this squirt thing down to a science with more than a few grains.
> But in any case, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and not call your
> position nonsense.
>
I wasn't really calling your position nonsense, just the absolute claim of
something (anything) being a "dead end" . With our current imperfect knowledge,
I don't think that any of us can make this claim with absolute certainty. And
you are welcome to take anything that I or anyone else on this NG says with a
more than a few grains! That is your right. I report my current findings and
ideas for the purposes of discussion and rebuttal. I don't claim to have all of
the answers, but I would assume that you will keep an open mind?
Tony
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
>
> Who? And forget about Efren- his mechanics are so unique that they
> almost cannot be studied with any sort of accuracy. And you say many,
> so I am expecting more than just a few players.
Effren is one of them, but I am not sure that his mechanics are so unique. Many of the
other players from his country have learned his technique. My understanding is that
Earl Strikland, Buddy Hall, Tony Robles, Nick Varner and Francisco Bustemante use this
method. And last night I watched a tape of the World 9 ball championships from Cardiff
and I caught Fong Pang Chow using it on many occasions. I am sure that there are more,
but these guys seem like decent players to me? (LOL)
>
>
> > -Every cue produces squirt when the cue ball is struck to the left or right of
> > center.
> > -Some cues produce more than others.
>
> This is true if studied by the same robot, etc.
Agreed, it would be hard for a human to be as consistent.
>
>
> > -The Predator 314 shaft produces less squirt than many other production cues.
>
> This is true for some cues, but I also asked them to compare predator
> with my carom cues...and they wouldn't go anywhere near doing it or even
> discussing this. So yes, they may produce less squirt than meucci or
> mali or whatever, but cues like Lambros easily compete with their
> numbers.
>
Again I agree 100% As you can see I did say "production cues" and Mike Lambros makes a
better cue than any production cue IMO. Actually I talked with Alan McCarty of
Predator and he informed me that he did test some Carom cues! And yes they did beat
(or approximate) the 314 shaft. In fact his own statement was "the more conical the
taper the better". I asked why not make a shaft with something closer to a billiard
taper? And the answer was of course, marketing. He didn't feel that the conservative
pool community would accept something other than their precious "pro" taper!
>
> > -When using side spin, every player must account for squirt in their aiming
> > process.
>
> If that player has faulty mechanics yes...but more accurately, every
> player must account for object ball throw from cue ball spin or speed.
> This is something nobody can change...but squirt can be reduced to a
> very controllable level while still using alot of spin.
Even with the best mechanics squirt will occurr to some degree. That is all I meant.
Even a "controllable level" implies some squirt, so you would still need to allow for
it in aiming.
>
>
> > -I don't believe that there is a magic stroke or mechanical technique that
> > eliminates squirt. -Squirt is a function of the cue dynamics, (and the amount of
> > tip offset) and will depend upon the weight of the cue ball (heavy bar box ball
> > will squirt less than a standard ball etc.).
>
> You are right that there is no magic stroke...but a good stroke is that
> which eliminates all sorts of drama and unneeded forces- which is the
> hardest to achieve.
>
This I agree with. Every player should keep working on their stroke at all times.
Getting that "pure" hit that you see the best players achieve is the goal for every
player.
>
> > -Squirt will not depend upon speed, cloth type, how you feel that day etc.
> > -Your technique determines the accuracy with which you can strike a specific
> > contact point on the cue ball. This will vary from day to day, and improving
> > your technique will go a long way to improving accuracy.
> > -Swerve will depend upon speed, cloth type, humidity etc.
> > -Object ball throw will depend upon speed, ball friction (influenced by
> > humidity)
>
> And dirt...
Yes dirt too!
>
>
> > -If I hit the cue ball at precisely 1 tip right of center (3:00) and Deno hits
> > the ball in the exact same place with the same cue, we will both get the same
> > amount of squirt.
>
> Absolutely wrong. And I will get more spin than you will too (probably-
> unless you have a really good stroke)
>
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think that we know enough yet to answer this with certainty.
I once discussed this with Robert Byrne and his position was that since so many
different techniques can produce good results, that it follows that there are many
ways to achieve this. He felt that the physics of the cue stick cue ball interaction
don't care who or how you hit the ball, as long as the same contact point, tip to ball
friction and cue speed are present (same cue). And I am well aware of your position on
this matter. And to be honest I don't know enough yet to say who is right or wrong. So
we are left with opinions.
>
> >No amount of stroke magic, or special hit will change this.
>
> True. It is not magic. It is a stroke that has eliminated all unneeded
> muscle from influencing the cue.
Again I agree. A good stroke strives to take any unwanted motion and effort from it.
>
>
> > But, Deno will think that he achieved less squirt, because he has developed his
> > eye to compensate.
>
> I don't know how you measure squirt...but I use jigs and have to send
> the cue ball through limits and then have the cue ball spin off the rail
> to certain points to guarantee I was using max english. Pat Johnson has
> seen some of this type of experimentation, but not to the extent of my
> satisfaction.
O.k. can you E-mail me with more info on your set-ups? I would like to try some of
this for myself. Also if you have any of the data from your testing I would be
interested in looking at it. I have an open mind Deno, and I am willing to have it
changed.
>
>
> > The only way to prove this would be to set up an experiment
> > where we filmed the results from above, and measured the angle of our cues at
> > cue ball impact (relative to the aiming line) and measured the amount of cue
> > ball deviation from the cue stick direction. I think that based on this
> > criteria, the squirt will remain the same. However, from Deno's visual
> > perspective, he will have eliminated squirt.
>
> Don't you think this has been done already?
Good! Can I get details?
> I will tell you one thing
> about pool players vs billiard players. Most pool players can't spin
> the ball as much as most billiard players. Spin is used in almost 100%
> of billiard shots and at all speeds. And more than running english...I
> am talking two, three tips and max.
Of course I agree with this. Pool is played more consitently when you eliminate any
unwanted or unnecessary spin.
> Billiard players know more about
> applying spin to a ball because it is a major part of our game.
> Billiard cues are designed to aid in moving around billiard balls
> accurately.
I have actually built some 3 cushion cues and I am impressed at how well they work for
their intended use. And yes they squirt less than most pool cues. I actually think
that a billiard cue could be used for 9 ball with good results.
> Average billiard players have better strokes than average
> pool players. Is it possible that because spin is so much more a part
> of billiards than pool that maybe the accumulated knowledge in billiards
> regarding spin and stroke is more comprehensive than it is in pool?
Yes I will accept that nobody knows more about spin than the 3C players. I often use
3C players and thier cues as examples to refute pool players who insist that a
flexible shaft generates more "juice" than a stiff shaft. I get this even from the
pros.
>
>
> > technique. The pivot and aim method is not a short cut in my opinion.
>
> We disagree...it is a shortcut that will disable many players in the
> grand scheme of things.
Well you have your opinion and I have mine, for now.
>
>
> > when cue dynamics and the player are matched, it can become a part of a sound
> > technique.
>
> Talk about magic...this is cue maker sales talk.
Low blow! ... actually I don't use pivot points or squirt tuning as any sales talk
when selling cues. I just let players hit with them and that usually does it. Besides
most players have bought into the Predator low squirt stuff and want a shaft with very
low squirt. What I said above is my current opinion based on my testing. You mentioned
that you have spent a few hours with the aim and pivot method. Well I have devoted
over 100 hours of testing. Did you use a Billiard cue? If so this method won't work
with such a low squirt cue. Did you use pool balls or billiard balls? 3C balls are
heavier than pool balls and squirt less to begin with. Did you try it with a cue that
has a pivot point that matches your bridge length?
>
>
> > to allow for squirt when using side spin. Technique won't eliminate squirt, or
> > even minimize it, and belief in this is a dead end that will get you nowhere.
>
> Technique can reduce squirt (it will not totally eliminate it- but it
> will reduce it significantly). Belief contrary to this is a dead end.
Obviously I had you and Steve in mind, and my tongue was firm;y planted in my cheek at
the time! So far though, no one has come up with a test methodology that demonstrates
that squirt can be reduced with technique. If you have done so then please share it
with us! I believe that Bob Jewett also asked this question. The physics say no, but
if it can be demonstrated, then we would have to change the physics! Isn't that what
science is all about?
>
>
> > No magic strokes please!
>
> Again, it is the opposite of magic. But you won't understand as most
> who try to actually purify their strokes fail and never understand.
> Those are the players who search endlessly for magic potions and secret
> weapons, and who almost always search their lives for it never achieving
> the level of their desire.
>
>
This sounds a little condescending Deno. I have never professed the desire to find a
magic potion. I don't believe that there is one. As I said I have an open mind and I
am willing to examine all of the possibilities. Keep in mind that the billiard cues
used today evolved over time to help improve the accuracy of the game. Do you treat
this improvement as a magic potion or secret weapon? We all want to use the best
equipment that we can. I am seeking answers not arguments.
Tony
Tony Mathews
nya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> How did you do this?
>
>
Well I had one advantage. I also built the Snooker cue! But Jim was willing
to help with the process. I needed his finely tuned abilities to help
identify if a change was in the right direction or not. He suggested some
shots that he uses to test cues on the Snooker table and on the 9 ball
table. They are basically shots that require a large amount of spin. We
first tried out the Snooker cue and he gave me feedback as to how much he
felt that he needed to compensate etc. Then we took his 9-ball cue to the
pool table. The first shaft that I produced had more squirt than he liked.
I reduced the tip size slightly and shortened the ferrule. Then we adjusted
the balance point and weight until he felt comfortable. We then tried
several shafts of varying degrees of stiffness and adjusted them until they
squirted the amount that he wanted. He then played with them until we could
identify all of the characteristics that he liked.(tip diameter, taper,
stiffness, squirt, tip hardness etc). The final pair of shafts were matched
as closely as possible. So it was a trial and error method. But he is very
happy with the results.
Tony
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
>
>
>
> If you don't think your technique is affected by different cues and
> different bridge lengths, you really are living under mass delusion :)
I posted these results recently. This technique can only work with a degree of
accuracy if the cue and player are matched. Change the cue and you change the
pivot point. It works best if the pivot point is near your "normal" bridge
length. I am not sure yet the effect of different bridge lengths, but it does
affect the results.
> So if your technique falls short as quickly as changing your bridge, you can't
> possibly make an argument of consistency over the conventional way of
> adding english.
This was what concerned me the most. But in practice, a small change in bridge
length doesn't seem to affect the accuracy as much as you may think Deno.
>
>
>
> At least the conventional way teaches you while you go...but the BHE
> has you aiming at a blind spot and it only works with a certain bridge
> length and cue stick.
But if you always used the same cue, and you only used it with your normal bridge
length, it does work with surprising consistency.
> Changing any one of those things changes the whole
> technique. So if you want to be a one stick-one bridge- one stroke player,
> then this technique will probably work for you and you will be a dominant
> player.
Actually, unlike 3 cushion, pool players strive to be just this type of player!
The best 9 ball players use very close to the same stroke speed and vary the tip
location to change the cue ball position. And they try to have one bridge length
for as many shots as possible. This will change off of the rail, or jacked up
over a ball etc. but these are instances where english is avoided anyway.
>
> Me, personally, I would rather understand exactly where I am aiming and
> why- based on my knowledge of stroke and squirt, etc. To me, there is no
> worse thing a player can do than to aim blindly into space and believe
> he/she has an understanding of the game.
I understand what you mean by aiming into space. But actually I look at the
object ball and not at the cue ball. So the stick may be aimed at a different
place, but not my eyes. Deno, how would you aim a shot on the pool tabel with say
2 tips of english?. Walk us through how you would chose your aim. This may clear
a few things up.
Tony
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> A player with a mature stroke needs no technique like this. I think
> this is more accurate for a player with no stroke and no desire to
> achieve one. There are just as many problems with this technique as any
> technique, it is just that some feel it is the secret weapon...but yet,
> hardly any of those players are using it to climb the ranks.
If I can prove that World Champions are using this technique right now will
you retract this statement? And how can you possibly know what every player
climbing the ranks is doing. A crystal ball?
> That says
> something about how well the technique really works. If it is really as
> accurate as all of you say, why then do you still miss? With this sort
> of technique, shot making should be a pretty consistent thing, but yet
> it is not with almost all of the players I have seen trying to use this
> technique.
Perhaps you missed something about the nature of the technique. You first
have to find the aiming line for a center ball hit before making the
adjustment. Your degree of accuracy will therefore be no better than your
natural potting ability with center ball. Shot making in general is hard
enough to learn This is why I prefaced that a player should have a mature
stroke. You need to be able to deliver the cue ball precisely to your target
with center ball. This requires a good stroke. Playing about with english
before getting to this stage is not advised for any technique.
Tony
Tony Mathews
Ron Shepard wrote:
> >
>
> >You yourself Patrick said that such a cue was good for breaking, but too
> >squirty for playing.
> >That got me thinking...
> >Why? Wouldn't you want the same automatic compensation for your playing
> >cue?
>
> Here are the essential differences. On the break shot you are always trying to
> hit the cue ball right in the center with no sidespin.
Agreed, but the idea behind the method is to always line up the shot with center
ball first.
> On the
> breakshot you are always hitting with near maximum speed. Maybe you back off
> the speed a little bit in order to keep control of the cue ball, but generally
> the shot is fast enough so that no signficant swerve occurs.
Agreed, but with within a very useful range of speeds (for 9 ball) swerve is not a
big factor.
> On other shots,
> you sometimes hit hard, sometimes medium, sometimes soft, sometimes with an
> elevated cue, sometimes with a more level cue, and so on, and accounting for
> swerve is important, and different on all these shots.
I don't think that swerve is much different for medium to hard shots. Slow shots
yes definitely. Do you have data on this? And I would not use it for elevated cue
shots (I probably would avoid english altogether due to the masse affect, never
mind swerve!).
>
>
> My point here is that on normal shots, there are many possible variables that
> can affect how you aim. Anything you can do to eliminate or reduce the effect
> of these variables simplifies the process and improves the accuracy and
> consistency. Reducing squirt, and the need to compensate for it, is one of
> these things.
>
> The break shot does not have all these variables.
Well there is squirt, and aim, and speed (to some degree) but I see your point.
>
>
> Does this mean that a squirty cue is necessarily worse for a particular player?
> Not necessarily. I think it depends on the individual player. Consider some
> hypothetical player who has a natural ability to adjust for swerve very well,
> who does not use aim-and-pivot, and who cannot adjust for squirt very well;
> such a player probably would be better off with a low squirt cue. Or, consider
> a player, perhaps one with a physical disability, who has a very swoopey
> stroke; such a player would be better off with a squirty cue, with the pivot
> point near the bridge length, that reduces the effects of his swoop. It may
> not solve all his problems on all shots, but it will help on some shots and it
> won't hurt much on the others, so the squirty cue benefits his game in an
> overall way.
>
In practice I find that adjusting for swerve isn't really an issue. As I stated
earlier this method is well suited to a player that strives for a near constant
stroke speed. Something that was advocated by Jim Rempe some time ago. Don't you
think that by definition, if we fix our bridge to the table, then any error in
hitting the cueball comes from an unintentional pivot (you made this argument for
breaking)? And if so then wouldn't a pivot point/bridge length match compensate for
these small errors?
>
> I believe that I'm in the middle somewhere between the two above extremes. On
> normal shots, I think I'm more like the first player, and reducing squirt helps
> my overall aiming and success rate. But on the breakshot, I'm more like the
> second player, and a squirty cue helps compensate for my largest stroke flaw.
Dr. Shepard and Mr?
>
>
>
Tony Mathews
patrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> As for "fixed" BHE, I don't think anybody has denied that pivoting on
> the PP would theoretically work. The theory is obvious, but so are its
> drawbacks. For one thing, it's prone to aiming error because players
> don't bridge at exactly the same spot every time. This alone can
> produce aiming errors of 1/16" per foot or more.
Expand on this. My calculations agree with you, but then again they imply
that this error would be there for any accidental pivot.
>
>
> For another, it restricts the range and accuracy of your sidespin.
For the draw back and swerve method I would agree. You don't really know
where you will hit the cueball.
>
>
> Basically, the method is inherently sloppy, trading accuracy for
> convenience. It requires more unconscious adjustment in order to make
> shots, and I think that's going in the wrong direction.
If this were true I would agree. The aim and pivot method doesn't seem to
be as sloppy as you state. Check out Bert Kinister's deflection tape and
tell me what you think.
Tony
Rupert Ward
> Why would I be making more balls than ever before if something were not
> right? What placebo effect are you referinng to? This is not an
> experiment and I have actually taken the real medicine.
How do you know? Because it works? Placebos work.
If you didn't believe in the system but it
worked for you anyway, you'd have an argument.
Rupe.
Deno J. Andrews
>
> You agreed with Lou when he said that BHE is a dead end.
> To me this means that youare saying that users of backhand english will not
> get the same results as users of ghost ball/contact point methods.
They wont.
> Who said anything about aiming blindly into space???
If you don't know what I mean by this statement, you really are blindly
using this technique. Let me explain. You use center ball, pick out
the point on the OB that you want to hit, you aim there, you look there,
you pivot the cue stick thus changing the point the CUE stick is aiming
at, and while still looking at the OB, you strike the ball. Now, can
you tell me exactly where your cue was aiming? Absolutely not. This is
called aiming blindly into space, and you have no idea how much squirt
you are producing. To me, this is a freshman approach to the aiming
process...a freshman that will never graduate.
> Why would I be making more balls than ever before if something were not
> right? What placebo effect are you referinng to? This is not an experiment
> and I have actually taken the real medicine. I am at least a good a player
> as you or Lou even though I am a bit rusty.
The placebo effect that told you you can play at Lou's or my level ;)
What I am referring to is the fact that you are making adjustments based
on your previous knowledge of the game and that you are not totally
using the technique as you think you are. Just out of curiosity, what
is your average in 3C?
> than ever before it's because I am hitting the ball in the right spot to do
> so. What's wrong with that? Or is making balls and running out not the
> object of pocket billiards?
Nothing's wrong with that. Go with it. But be sure you never have to
change cues midstream...or bridge length...and make sure the balls are
consistently clean or else throw may change...etc. But go ahead, if it
is working for you. Just please be sure to keep these things in mind
the next time you explode a tip or whatever, so that you may adjust for
the new shaft or cue or whatever.
> I have been improving on my knowledge for about twenty years. Without the
> benefit of a bevy of world championship caliber players to mentor me either.
> I know exactly where I aim and why no matter what system I am using.
Well I disagree, you have no clue where you are aiming if you use the
BHE method.
> I understand perfectly why it works and when it doesn't. Just like I
> understand when I miss a shot using ghost ball/contact point. As I have
> said a zillion times the variable is the human element.
Human element is a problem in all technique, but there are other things
to blame missing on when using BHE...like bridge length.
> players, attending many tournaments in Germany, being shown a lot of things
> on the billiard table by people like Torbjorn Blomdahl who lived about
> thirty minutes from my house, people like Christian Rudolph, one of
> Germany's strongest three cushion players.
I wish you would have asked Blomdahl about this technique, maybe you
would have listened to him :) Christian Rudolph...nice guy.
> Hal taught me that I don't.
This guy again...
> so I submit that
> we cannot really know what top players think and do and what styles are
> prevalent among them.
You most certainly can. Not only do you have the opportunity to ask
(with the big names you have mentioned), but you can study also.
Knowledge is readily available for those who want it. Granted, I am not
in the top level of players in the world, never wanted to spend the time
to achieve that goal, but I have smoked plenty of them in tournament
play over the years (and lost to some of the weakest players in the
world too :( I can comment on what styles prevalent and on what pros
think...mainly because I have had plenty of tournament games with
averages over 1.0, some over 2.0, and one just under 3.0. I have
averaged over .900 in a few tournaments when I was playing every
tournament and practicing every day...and 1.0 is considered world class
(not top world class- but in the top 50).
All I can say is good luck. You refuse to even acknowledge the most
basic flaw of the BHE technique. Hal has got a real cult going :)
Maybe it's better I didn't meet him...cause maybe I would be pivoting my
cue by now. Really, if you are happy, then go for it.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
>
> other players from his country have learned his technique. My understanding is that
> Earl Strikland, Buddy Hall, Tony Robles, Nick Varner and Francisco Bustemante use > >this method.
Did Hal tell you this? I thought we have discussed this already in this
group. You go ask these players, and for every one of them that you get
to say they use this technique, I will get multiple others with as
impressive names, to say that the method is not very good.
> Agreed, it would be hard for a human to be as consistent.
Am I really not articulating myself; the robot is not a human and cannot
produce a human like grip or stroke...so how could it be that it is used
to measure what a cue will do in the hand of a human?
> > I don't know how you measure squirt...but I use jigs and have to send
> > the cue ball through limits and then have the cue ball spin off the rail
> > to certain points to guarantee I was using max english. Pat Johnson has
> > seen some of this type of experimentation, but not to the extent of my
> > satisfaction.
>
> O.k. can you E-mail me with more info on your set-ups? I would like to try some of
> this for myself. Also if you have any of the data from your testing I would be
> interested in looking at it. I have an open mind Deno, and I am willing to have it
> changed.
I have written in this group my exact setup for squirt experiments.
Maybe I will do it on the Wei table this time, but it will take some
time. You can always search back posts too and find it.
> Good! Can I get details?
The details are what I have been saying over the last couple of days.
> > Talk about magic...this is cue maker sales talk.
>
> Low blow! ...
Yes it was, but I was only answering in kind to your shot implying that
I subscribe to some Magic stroke technique.
> that you have spent a few hours with the aim and pivot method. Well I have devoted
> over 100 hours of testing. Did you use a Billiard cue? If so this method won't work
> with such a low squirt cue.
Pool balls. Billiard and pool cues.
>Did you try it with a cue that has a pivot point that matches your bridge length?
Which bridge length? I have several! This is one of my whole damn
points I am trying to make. Who wants to play with one bridge
length???? It's pedestrian!
> > Again, it is the opposite of magic. But you won't understand as most
> > who try to actually purify their strokes fail and never understand.
> > Those are the players who search endlessly for magic potions and secret
> > weapons, and who almost always search their lives for it never achieving
> > the level of their desire.
> This sounds a little condescending Deno.
It's the truth. And I did not say it was you specifically...but that
most fall into this trap. I don't think you can deny this statement,
for it is obvious in every pool room in the world.
> am willing to examine all of the possibilities. Keep in mind that the billiard cues
> used today evolved over time to help improve the accuracy of the game. Do you treat
> this improvement as a magic potion or secret weapon? We all want to use the best
> equipment that we can. I am seeking answers not arguments.
I am not talking about equipment- of course a more accurate cue is
better...which brings up a good point. If Predator said that billiard
cues produce less squirt than pool cues, why wouldn't someone want to
change the cue they use to one of these instead of trying to use some
whacked out BHE technique to compensate for squirt? Mind blowing! But
yet, some of us have been saying for a good part of ten years that
billiard cues squirt less than pool cues...
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
> I posted these results recently. This technique can only work with a degree of
> accuracy if the cue and player are matched. Change the cue and you change the
> pivot point. It works best if the pivot point is near your "normal" bridge
> length. I am not sure yet the effect of different bridge lengths, but it does
> affect the results.
With even only this said...this totally tears down the entire concept of
the BHE technique being consistent at all over time.
> This was what concerned me the most. But in practice, a small change in bridge
> length doesn't seem to affect the accuracy as much as you may think Deno.
Maybe on a 3 foot shot with a bucket for a pocket where someone is
measuring only if the ball is going in that pocket. But take that to a
snooker table with pool balls and shoot a ten foot shot and then tell me
how big a difference the bridge makes. Because one day, a player using
the BHE tech. will be playing on a table with tight pockets and will
have to perform a long shot with english and must use a longer or
shorter bridge because of an obstruction...and when missed, he/she will
blame it on human error instead of a flaw in the technique, thus
perpetuating the myth instead of recognizing reality.
> But if you always used the same cue, and you only used it with your normal bridge
> length, it does work with surprising consistency.
I don't think anyone is debating this. But who can play with one bridge
during a match and be successful?
> Actually, unlike 3 cushion, pool players strive to be just this type of player!
> The best 9 ball players use very close to the same stroke speed and vary the tip
> location to change the cue ball position. And they try to have one bridge length
> for as many shots as possible. This will change off of the rail, or jacked up
> over a ball etc. but these are instances where english is avoided anyway.
That's great, but when t he one key shot comes up that requires
something different, that player is screwed if he uses BHE.
> I understand what you mean by aiming into space. But actually I look at the
> object ball and not at the cue ball. So the stick may be aimed at a different
> place, but not my eyes.
Exactly! Who doesn't want to know where the cue stick is aiming? So
you have not a single clue how much english you are producing, nor do
you seem to care. This is bad because there will be times you want to
know and you will be guessing.
> Deno, how would you aim a shot on the pool tabel with say
> 2 tips of english?. Walk us through how you would chose your aim. This may clear
> a few things up.
I pick out the exact point on the ball that needs to be hit by the cue
ball (based on speed, stick elevation, cloth and ball condition, throw,
etc.). I aim with a center ball until the CB is aiming at the proper
point, then I move parallel to that aim line to add english. Basic
stuff.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
> If I can prove that World Champions are using this technique right now will
> you retract this statement? And how can you possibly know what every player
> climbing the ranks is doing. A crystal ball?
As I have said...you get a world champion to testify to this technique
and I will have more that will explain why they don't. Oh...and my guys
are bigger than your guys waaaaaa :) Yes, I have a crystal ball that I
look into every day. Plus it helps that I coach some players.
> Shot making in general is hard
> enough to learn This is why I prefaced that a player should have a mature
> stroke. You need to be able to deliver the cue ball precisely to your target
> with center ball. This requires a good stroke. Playing about with english
> before getting to this stage is not advised for any technique.
If you can do all of the above consistently, you don't need this
technique.
Deno J. Andrews
donald tees
<3A5C7408...@ix.netcom.com>...
>> Shot making in general is hard
>> enough to learn This is why I prefaced that a player should have a mature
>> stroke. You need to be able to deliver the cue ball precisely to your
target
>> with center ball. This requires a good stroke. Playing about with english
>> before getting to this stage is not advised for any technique.
>
>If you can do all of the above consistently, you don't need this
>technique.
>
LOL. I figure I'll start working on English when I can make thirty or
fourty balls in a row using center axis. I am up to about ten.
John Collins
> John John, John. There you go again...
>
> Certainly you'll grant that it can take a long time to find out a road
> you've taken is a dead end. That's all I'm saying (and I think Deno is
> too): that you could go tooling along for quite some time with this and
not
> find out 'twas such until, as Deno has said, you've wasted years of
effort.
>
Sure I agree that you can be on the wrong road for a long time. However I
could counter with all roads lead to Rome. Would you disagree that often
there are more than one way to achieve the same results?
> If you could really "see the problems as well as the benefits" you
wouldn't
> now be happily on the road to pool perdition. If you could really SEE the
> problems, you would understand that when Deno talked about aiming into
> space, he wasn't just using a manner of speech -- to use this, you've got
> to literally: aim blindly into space.
Please explain how anyone possibly could consistently make balls while
aiming "blindly into space". The shooter must be aiming at something.
>
> And, as to the "I am at least a good a player as you or Lou..." according
> to my scouting reports, you are wrong on both counts :-) and very much so
in
> Deno's case. (As I may have mentioned before, I get out your neck of the
> woods once in a while, and know folks your way :-)
If I am wrong then come on out and we can see. I don't play nearly as much
as I used to but I am certainly not the least bit afraid to take you on.
The difference is I don't need to scout your speed. I assume that you are a
strong player and I don't care. You assume that I am not and thus discredit
anything I have to say about how to play pool. If the ultimate test for you
is a contest of skill then you know where to find me. I will freely admit
that you are the better player if you beat me.
>
> And lastly, if Hal has opened your eyes, then we may conclude that, truly,
> we are talking about 'the blind leading the blind."
>
The funny thing is I have never said that your way is wrong or ineffective.
You and Deno both have repeatedly said that it is a dead end, although Deno
now says that both methods have shortcomings. I think you just can't accept
that maybe there is something you don't know. Well my friend, the
invitation stands and is unwavering, come on over and see if my blind faith
can overcome your absolute knowledge.
John
Greg Miller
Deno J. Andrews wrote in message
news:3A5C7259...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> I pick out the exact point on the ball that needs to be
hit by the cue
> ball (based on speed, stick elevation, cloth and ball
condition, throw,
> etc.). I aim with a center ball until the CB is aiming at
the proper
> point, then I move parallel to that aim line to add
english. Basic
> stuff.
This would be a legitimate method for infinite spp cues
only.
I get one of the following in this post.
You mis-spoke or,
You are subconsciously moving the line
of aim to adjust for squirt.
BHE would be much more accurate than this method.
Deno J. Andrews
In article <tv076.685$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> Please explain how anyone possibly could consistently make balls while
> aiming "blindly into space". The shooter must be aiming at something.
Yes, the difference is that Lou and I know where we are aiming the cue
stick and why. Can you really tell us you know where the cue stick is
aiming using your technique? Of course not, if you knew, you would not be
using the technique. If you really believe that not knowing where you aim
your cue is a good thing...then how can I argue? the only thing I can tell
you is that this technique is not as new as you think it is and if it were
as accurate as you think it is, it would be commonplace by now, and it is
not.
> The funny thing is I have never said that your way is wrong or ineffective.
> You and Deno both have repeatedly said that it is a dead end, although Deno
> now says that both methods have shortcomings.
I don't ever remember saying my way didn't have shortcomings...only that
they are much less than the BHE method. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
>I think you just can't accept
> that maybe there is something you don't know.
But John, it IS something that is KNOWN by us. I have tried it, done my
own experiments with it, tested the validity of it, and was able to see the
shortcomings immediately. When compared to conventional methods, there are
just too many more variables involved to really accept it as an easier way
to do it. Plus, it doesn't even give you the ability to learn where the
cue aims and why it must aim there to achieve the shot.
Any technique that is to be used on almost every spin shot and that is
dependent on a certain bridge length (tight pockets-pivot point) is
certainly not valid as a consistent technique. What if you need to bridge
4" longer or shorter like if a ball is in the way of you bridging? You
don't think that will change your results at all if using english? How do
you adjust?
Deno J. Andrews
John Collins
> John Collins wrote:
> >
> > You agreed with Lou when he said that BHE is a dead end.
> > To me this means that youare saying that users of backhand english will
not
> > get the same results as users of ghost ball/contact point methods.
>
> They wont.
Just for clarification, if you set up a ball to be pocketed and designate a
particular area that the cueball should land in after pocketing the ball,
you are saying that it is not possible to achieve this using BHE? Or is
that BHE only works for certain shots but not others?
>
> > Who said anything about aiming blindly into space???
>
> If you don't know what I mean by this statement, you really are blindly
> using this technique. Let me explain. You use center ball, pick out
> the point on the OB that you want to hit, you aim there, you look there,
> you pivot the cue stick thus changing the point the CUE stick is aiming
> at, and while still looking at the OB, you strike the ball. Now, can
> you tell me exactly where your cue was aiming? Absolutely not. This is
> called aiming blindly into space, and you have no idea how much squirt
> you are producing. To me, this is a freshman approach to the aiming
> process...a freshman that will never graduate.
>
My cue does not aim at anything regardless of the system I use. I aim. I
line up my body and my cue based on what I judge to be the correct points to
pocket the ball. Just because the angle of the stick is not parallel to the
line connnecting the cueball and the object ball does not mean that the
cueball will be propelled wildly, or even inconsistently, off that line. If
my judgement is on then bingo the ball go down and I get shape. If it is
not then I miss. This is a very simple, results based test.
> > Why would I be making more balls than ever before if something were not
> > right? What placebo effect are you referinng to? This is not an
experiment
> > and I have actually taken the real medicine. I am at least a good a
player
> > as you or Lou even though I am a bit rusty.
>
> The placebo effect that told you you can play at Lou's or my level ;)
> What I am referring to is the fact that you are making adjustments based
> on your previous knowledge of the game and that you are not totally
> using the technique as you think you are. Just out of curiosity, what
> is your average in 3C?
>
I am sure that right now I am not at your level only because I have been out
of consistent competition for over 10 years. I do feel though that were we
to play nine ball, stright pool, one pocket or rotation that I could
certainly hold my own respectably against you. I don't have an average in
3C because I have never played billiards consistently. I am sure that you
are worlds above me in that respect. I can run racks though.
To the question at hand. My understanding of the "placebo" effect is that a
subject is given a placebo and reports results that are different from the
condition before taking the placebo. A placebo is basically a dose of
nothing. In our case however I have been shown a different technique, a
different way to aim and apply english. In other words I am part of the
group which received the real pills. Therefore my observations, whether
right or wrong, have substance. Part of that substance is something called
results. The result is a very simple equation. New
sytstem+Execution=Successful Pocketing+Position Play. If this works now why
would you believe that it will fail in the future?
> > than ever before it's because I am hitting the ball in the right spot to
do
> > so. What's wrong with that? Or is making balls and running out not the
> > object of pocket billiards?
>
> Nothing's wrong with that. Go with it. But be sure you never have to
> change cues midstream...or bridge length...and make sure the balls are
> consistently clean or else throw may change...etc. But go ahead, if it
> is working for you. Just please be sure to keep these things in mind
> the next time you explode a tip or whatever, so that you may adjust for
> the new shaft or cue or whatever.
>
Why is possible for pros to change sticks and almost instantly play the same
way they have always played? A human is capable of adapting to new
situations almost instantaneously. As I said way, way back months ago, by
using this system I am now able to pick up any cue any play consistently.
The BIG LIE about a cue having to be just so is erased for me. I didn't say
that every cue "feels" good to me, they don't. However I am now able to
play about as good with any cue I pick up regardless of model and make.
> > I have been improving on my knowledge for about twenty years. Without
the
> > benefit of a bevy of world championship caliber players to mentor me
either.
> > I know exactly where I aim and why no matter what system I am using.
>
> Well I disagree, you have no clue where you are aiming if you use the
> BHE method.
>
Then we agree to disagree.
> > I understand perfectly why it works and when it doesn't. Just like I
> > understand when I miss a shot using ghost ball/contact point. As I have
> > said a zillion times the variable is the human element.
>
> Human element is a problem in all technique, but there are other things
> to blame missing on when using BHE...like bridge length.
>
I disagree there as well. Hal showed me that bridge length can be
eliminated because of the ball to ball aiming method. I did it, I have
witnesses who saw that this is true.
> > players, attending many tournaments in Germany, being shown a lot of
things
> > on the billiard table by people like Torbjorn Blomdahl who lived about
> > thirty minutes from my house, people like Christian Rudolph, one of
> > Germany's strongest three cushion players.
>
> I wish you would have asked Blomdahl about this technique, maybe you
> would have listened to him :) Christian Rudolph...nice guy.
>
I didn't know this technique when I lived in Germany. Although I saw
Bustamante many, many times I was never able to recognize BHE because I was
firmly entrenched in ghost ball/contact point.
> > Hal taught me that I don't.
>
> This guy again...
>
> > so I submit that
> > we cannot really know what top players think and do and what styles are
> > prevalent among them.
>
> You most certainly can. Not only do you have the opportunity to ask
> (with the big names you have mentioned), but you can study also.
> Knowledge is readily available for those who want it. Granted, I am not
> in the top level of players in the world, never wanted to spend the time
> to achieve that goal, but I have smoked plenty of them in tournament
> play over the years (and lost to some of the weakest players in the
> world too :( I can comment on what styles prevalent and on what pros
> think...mainly because I have had plenty of tournament games with
> averages over 1.0, some over 2.0, and one just under 3.0. I have
> averaged over .900 in a few tournaments when I was playing every
> tournament and practicing every day...and 1.0 is considered world class
> (not top world class- but in the top 50).
>
You can ask, and you can watch but you cannot execute the shots for them.
They can explain and demostrate but unless you are able to truly study under
them you cannot perform like the pros. I commend you Deno for your skill
level and your knowledge. I am dismayed that you won't aknowledge that
there are top level pros who use the systems with great success. Forget
about the ratios of who does to who doesn't, the fact that some do with
success should be enough for you to at least aknlwledge the validity of the
technique.
> All I can say is good luck. You refuse to even acknowledge the most
> basic flaw of the BHE technique. Hal has got a real cult going :)
> Maybe it's better I didn't meet him...cause maybe I would be pivoting my
> cue by now. Really, if you are happy, then go for it.
>
I am happy I am going for it.
John
John Collins
"Rupert Ward" <Ruper...@umds.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A5C4857...@umds.ac.uk...
Placebo's don't always work. Sometimes a placebo will produce reported
results that are very different from what the actual medication is supposed
to produce. Deno is misusing the term "placebo effect" in the context of
our discussion.
To bring this full circle, I believe in this technique of aiming and
applying spin because I am able to produce concrete, reproducable results
while using them. I also believe in ghost/ball and paralell aiming because
I am able to produce concrete, reproducable results while using those
techniques. In fact I can produce the same results using both techniques.
For my personal taste I find one technique easier than another but I am
convinced by results that both work.
John
Deno J. Andrews
squirt, almost too small to even measure. Only over two tips will squirt
start to really change things around (both using a good stroke as I have
laid out before). Let me go more in depth for you so you understand what I
am saying. I didn't want to go into this, but I will.
How Deno aims (in depth):
First of all, before playing and in practice shots, I determine how much
throw the balls are producing based on the condition of the balls. After a
few full ball hits, I fix in my head approximately how many degrees the OB
throws based on two tips and max english. Now during play, the degrees
usually change and get bigger because the friction between the balls
becomes greater as they pick up chalk from the tips and dirt from the
table. So I compare what I know to be maximum throw based on the worst
conditions I have ever seen and evaluate how the condition of the balls and
table in this current situation will compare. Then in my mind, I have a
graph to follow and can constantly allow for throw fairly accurately.
Now that I know how how much throw will occur in spin shots, I also know
about how much natural throw will occur in primarily half ball shots (then
you can accurately estimate other hits). The reason I know how much throw
will occur in natural shots is because they are kind of linked (friction).
Now that throw is out of the way as a problem, I must find the point on the
OB that needs to be hit by the CB in order to pot the ball (before taking
into account throw). Let's say it is the center lines of the two balls
lined up to the pocket of choice. Now we all know that on many shots, the
center line contact point will not work because of throw. So, depending on
how full the ball needs to be hit to make the shot, and how much english
you must use to get position, you can figure out how many degrees the ball
will throw upon contact. At that point, you can adjust a couple of mm's
either direction depending on how much spin will be on the ball at the time
of contact (another thing that must be accounted for). So now we have a
new aim point- which we'll call the first adjusted aim point.
Now there are more things to figure out- I look and determine how level my
cue stick will be at the contact point. The closer to the rail, the more
elevated the cue will be (if I want to hit center or below). Each degree
of elevation has a direct effect on the amount of swerve produced in the
shot. My normal level stroke has very little elevation, for the butt of my
cue is almost always within mm's of the rail. Now I now that for each
degree of elevation, I must adjust a certain amount of mm's on the contact
point of the balls (you can figure this out too in practice). So let's say
for this shot, I have 10 deg. of elevation and I am using two tips of
outside english and aiming for a half ball as the first adjusted aim point
and that I am 4' form the object ball and I am going to hit with average
speed. Well because of the swerve I will produce to the right (using right
english), I must adjust about 2mm to the left for that distance (more for a
greater distance and less for a shorter distance).
Now that swerve is out of the way, we have to think about squirt. Based on
my stroke and cue stick. Two tips of english produces not enough squirt to
even justify a measurable adjustment. But let's say that it did for the
heck of it. Based on measurments (like the one I explained before that
takes into consideration swerve too), I would know how many mm's to adjust
based on how many tips or how many mm's off center the contact point of the
tip/ball is.
now I look at the relationship between the balls and how they will relate
to each other when they are touching. I will visualize the contact point
as a parallel line from the center of the cue ball and where it is aiming.
Then I will determine where that line is on the object ball too, and then I
will determine how far from that line my cue stick will be with regard to
the amount of english I am using. If 4mm, I will look at the line on the
OB and then move the final aim point over that many mm's so that I have a
point on the object ball that my cue stick is aiming at while going through
the cue ball with the desired english.
Now I will chalk the tip and get down on the shot. Make sure my arm is
relaxed so that I deliver a pure stroke. Take a few warm ups and hit the
ball. At the same time all of this is going on, I am actively going
through my shot mantra. And the kicker...a human can do all of this in
less than ten seconds if they have experience and have put in the hours of
practice and took the time to learn the mechanics of the game.
I think that about covers it. As you can see, nothing magic about it.
pure figurin' out what's goin' on. But what this method gives me is the
confidence that I know where my cue is aiming, why it is aiming there, and
why to make it aim elsewhere when need be.
BHE may be able to jump over some of these points, but it does not take
into consideration swerve and throw which are two major major major major
things. And it is dependent on a certain bridge length to be accurate.
There are more reasons why BHE is no good over time, but I have beat those
horses to death already, and those who want to know why can refer to those
previos posts. I guarantee, that to make BHE work as well as this type of
method, the list of things to do will be at least as long...and after all
of it, you still wont know where your cue stick is aiming. That seems
pretty weak to me whether some people thinks it works well or not.
Now if someone cares to explain exactly how the BHE setup and execution is
achieved (because I don't feel like typing any more), we can all see how
much of the important stuff is ignored (sometimes successfully because of
big pockets). Maybe John will explain to us how he sets up a shot while
using BHE technique.
Does this all make sense?
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <s1176.198$0i3....@news1.mco>, "Greg Miller"
John Collins
> ----------
> In article <tv076.685$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
> <inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
>
> > Please explain how anyone possibly could consistently make balls while
> > aiming "blindly into space". The shooter must be aiming at something.
>
> Yes, the difference is that Lou and I know where we are aiming the cue
> stick and why. Can you really tell us you know where the cue stick is
> aiming using your technique? Of course not, if you knew, you would not be
> using the technique. If you really believe that not knowing where you aim
> your cue is a good thing...then how can I argue? the only thing I can
tell
> you is that this technique is not as new as you think it is and if it were
> as accurate as you think it is, it would be commonplace by now, and it is
> not.
I never claimed, not once, that this teqhnique is new. As for the accuracy
who can argue with Efren, Bustamante, Strickland etc...
>
> > The funny thing is I have never said that your way is wrong or
ineffective.
> > You and Deno both have repeatedly said that it is a dead end, although
Deno
> > now says that both methods have shortcomings.
>
> I don't ever remember saying my way didn't have shortcomings...only that
> they are much less than the BHE method. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
>
> >I think you just can't accept
> > that maybe there is something you don't know.
>
> But John, it IS something that is KNOWN by us. I have tried it, done my
> own experiments with it, tested the validity of it, and was able to see
the
> shortcomings immediately. When compared to conventional methods, there
are
> just too many more variables involved to really accept it as an easier way
> to do it. Plus, it doesn't even give you the ability to learn where the
> cue aims and why it must aim there to achieve the shot.
>
I will defer to your opinion in that I regret not having the time to
properly experiment and record my results. Also I would dearly love to meet
with you and compare notes. At this point I think that we should just agree
that each of has a differing viewpoint. I think that we will not resolve
anything in this forum which will need physical demonstrations.
> Any technique that is to be used on almost every spin shot and that is
> dependent on a certain bridge length (tight pockets-pivot point) is
> certainly not valid as a consistent technique. What if you need to bridge
> 4" longer or shorter like if a ball is in the way of you bridging? You
> don't think that will change your results at all if using english? How do
> you adjust?
>
You don't. I know, laughter from all! With the ball to ball aiming you
only need to correctly line up the balls. I know that this flies in the
face of conventional wisdom but it works. It works with shots that can be
duplicated over and over. Should we ever meet and I cannot prove this to
your satisfaction then I will recant my assertions here.
John Collins
John Collins
With BHE I approach the cueball on a centerline which lines up the cueball
and the object ball according to how much of the object ball I need to hit
to pocket the ball. Then I decide what english I need and how much speed is
required. As I am stroking the cue I pivot the butt of the cue so that the
tip is in the position desired for the shot. I do not concern myself with
deflection, squirt and swerve. I make the ball and get position for my next
shot. I don't worry about the humidty, how dirty the balls are, the
cleanliness of the table and so on. The only thing that concerns me is the
speed of the table and the reaction of the rails. Once I have those things
down I am fairly confident that I can run the table most games.
John
Deno J. Andrews
In article <Fn176.916$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> Just for clarification, if you set up a ball to be pocketed and designate a
> particular area that the cueball should land in after pocketing the ball,
> you are saying that it is not possible to achieve this using BHE? Or is
> that BHE only works for certain shots but not others?
This isn't the debate John. Of course people can get some results from the
technique. But you are so blind to the shortcoming we have offered you that
every new word typed on it is wasted if you have not gotten it yet.
> My cue does not aim at anything regardless of the system I use.
This is the main problem.
> I am sure that right now I am not at your level only because I have been out
> of consistent competition for over 10 years. I do feel though that were we
> to play nine ball, stright pool, one pocket or rotation that I could
> certainly hold my own respectably against you. I don't have an average in
> 3C because I have never played billiards consistently. I am sure that you
> are worlds above me in that respect. I can run racks though.
I don't think the answer to whom is a better player at any specific game
tells anything. In fact, I would never be a match for you in 9ball,
straight pool, or rotation, for I never and have never played two of the
games and only very rarely play 9ball (and I still don't know really how to
play right). One pocket I can probably give you some problems, and of
course 3C I have a heavy upper hand. I am not interested in how I would
fare against you in any game.
> In other words I am part of the
> group which received the real pills. Therefore my observations, whether
> right or wrong, have substance. Part of that substance is something called
> results. The result is a very simple equation. New
> sytstem+Execution=Successful Pocketing+Position Play. If this works now why
> would you believe that it will fail in the future?
Well first of all, no matter what, your observations have substance. You
are a good player that is using a technique that has been recently shown to
you and of which you are very excited. Are you sure that you are using the
system without making any adjustmanet based on your previous knowledge of
the game? And if so, how is it that throw and swerve are mysteriously
eliminated from the figuring of the hit point? What I think is that you
are using the technique but coupled to your previous knowledge, and that
you are making adjustments that are either not being reported or are they
are subconscious. SO yes, you may be getting results- and I am happy for
you about that- but those results may not be from your new technique, and
instead may be from your previous knowledge...which is recharged and
rekindled which is common among us players. I just don't think the
technique is a saccurate as you report it to be and really believe there is
other stuff going on that you are looking past right now. The way I can
tell that is your attitude is that of over-simplifying your approach as
evidenced by your "New sytstem+Execution=Successful Pocketing+Position
Play." It's just not that simple...and by swearing by that sort of
simplicity, it is easy for me to conclude that you are not looking at the
mechanics of what you are doing very closely and therefore maybe
overlooking things.
> Why is possible for pros to change sticks and almost instantly play the same
> way they have always played? A human is capable of adapting to new
> situations almost instantaneously. As I said way, way back months ago, by
> using this system I am now able to pick up any cue any play consistently.
It's called confidence. And someone with it is dangerous...but as soon as
it wears off, the technique seems to do the same too.
> The BIG LIE about a cue having to be just so is erased for me. I didn't say
> that every cue "feels" good to me, they don't. However I am now able to
> play about as good with any cue I pick up regardless of model and make.
That's not really the technique's attribute. that's yours but you just
don't know it yet. That is something you do right, not the technique.
> Then we agree to disagree.
NO WE DONT DAMMIT!!! You must yield yield yield now!!! OK, too much sugar
for Deno :) Sure.
> I disagree there as well. Hal showed me that bridge length can be
> eliminated because of the ball to ball aiming method. I did it, I have
> witnesses who saw that this is true.
So does BHE have to be used in conjunction with Hal's stufff to work? I am
not even going to touch this because I have already done the math on Hal's
system and it does not work accurately.
> You can ask, and you can watch but you cannot execute the shots for them.
> They can explain and demostrate but unless you are able to truly study under
> them you cannot perform like the pros. I commend you Deno for your skill
> level and your knowledge. I am dismayed that you won't aknowledge that
> there are top level pros who use the systems with great success. Forget
> about the ratios of who does to who doesn't, the fact that some do with
> success should be enough for you to at least aknlwledge the validity of the
> technique.
There are great players with bad mechanics in almost every sport in the
world. Statistically though, those players are a minorty and it is much
better to learn than to avoid. Who know, you may be the one in a thousand
like Reyes who can use an odd technique and make it work for you. Good
luck to you, I hope you can. But if I had to bet my life on it, I would
side with statistics.
> I am happy I am going for it.
If youa re happy, I am happy. Now back to my Baklava from Greektown for
lunch!
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <8v276.1285$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
Well, I can't wait to see this. I'll even buy dinner!
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <XE276.1415$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
>I do not concern myself with
> deflection, squirt and swerve. I make the ball and get position for my next
> shot. I don't worry about the humidty, how dirty the balls are, the
> cleanliness of the table and so on.
So are you saying these are variables that don't come into play at all? If
your statement were true, you are saying that balls with silicone sprayed
on them will give you the same results balls that have not been cleaned in
months will give you with regard to throw and swerve. If you are claiming
this is the truth and that you need not consider these factors...you are
high...truly high. And whether or not you got it from Hal or someone else,
they really gave you some good stuff my friend :)
Deno
trying to scoop up the baklava that fell from my mouth while reading this.
John Collins
That's what I have been saying all along. I have been given some good
stuff! And I don't believe that the variables you metioned come into play
as dramatically as you have described.
John
Deno J. Andrews
In article <Ni376.1578$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> That's what I have been saying all along. I have been given some good
> stuff! And I don't believe that the variables you metioned come into play
> as dramatically as you have described.
Well when are you coming to Chicago...cause I have to see how you can defy
throw when using english. Or...where are you? Maybe in my travels I will
find myself in your area. Between now and then, I will cook up several
experiments for us to use when you demonstrate to me how throw is not a
factor in your game.
Deno J. Andrews
suffering from baklava breath :(
Richard Iachetta
<"deno<REMOVE>"@ix.netcom.com> says...
> > other players from his country have learned his technique. My understanding is that
> > Earl Strikland, Buddy Hall, Tony Robles, Nick Varner and Francisco Bustemante use > >this method.
>
> Did Hal tell you this? I thought we have discussed this already in this
> group. You go ask these players, and for every one of them that you get
> to say they use this technique, I will get multiple others with as
> impressive names, to say that the method is not very good.
It doesn't matter who says its not a good method -- if Earl Strikland and
Effren Reyes use it (I'm not saying they do but if they do) then that
would be very significant, don't you think? That would be a great dead
end to be on -- you're going to plateau when you get to Earl Strikland's
level and you won't be able to progress. I think most people could live
with that.
--
Rich Iachetta
iach...@us.ibm.com
I do not speak for IBM.
John Collins
--
Instroke Sports USA
3005 W. 29th St.
Unit G-2
Greeley, CO 80631
1 hour north of Denver. As far as I know there are even Kim Steel carom
tables in Denver.
John
"Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:93ih8v$6q3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
lfigueroa
vacant lot somewhere around Bologna :-)
And sorry, if it turns out to be convenient, I might look you up next trip.
But I don't need to play you to know you don't play as well as I, or Deno
do. (And, if I wanted to play you, I wouldn't need a scout either.) It
just happened that someone who's seen you play recently mentioned your name
and your speed. I was just pointing out, based upon what I know, the
inaccuracy of your statement : "I am at least a good a player as you or
Lou..." But I really don't have a need or desire to actually play or beat
you. What's that going to prove? Only something I already know.
Lastly, as I alluded to above, a dead end road doesn't mean it's can't take
you places, including somewhere closer to your desired location. It may
even be a pleasant ride with lots of sights. But if you want to get to
Rome, why would you take a road that can only get you as far as Bologna?
Lou Figueroa
waving to John from the Autopista
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:tv076.685$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net...
lfigueroa
> I do not concern myself with deflection, squirt and swerve.
As Groucho Marx would say: "Well, this is the most ridiculous thing I've
evah heard."
Lou Figueroa
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:XE276.1415$W_3.1...@news.uswest.net...
lfigueroa
end up in Omaha swearing he took the right turn at North Platte. Hey, maybe
he can play Stoney some while in NE?
Lou Figueroa
"Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:93ih8v$6q3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Mike Page
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Deno, with John's road selection, no way he'll make it to Chicago. He'll
> end up in Omaha swearing he took the right turn at North Platte. Hey, maybe
> he can play Stoney some while in NE?
>
> Lou Figueroa
>
With a left turn at Omaha, he can come up to Fargo. Clearly I am the best
player in this thread. When are you all coming to Fargo?
--
mike page
fargo
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike_page-100...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
John Collins
> Some roads will get you closer to Rome, but still come to a dead end in a
> vacant lot somewhere around Bologna :-)
>
> And sorry, if it turns out to be convenient, I might look you up next
trip.
> But I don't need to play you to know you don't play as well as I, or Deno
> do. (And, if I wanted to play you, I wouldn't need a scout either.) It
> just happened that someone who's seen you play recently mentioned your
name
> and your speed. I was just pointing out, based upon what I know, the
> inaccuracy of your statement : "I am at least a good a player as you or
> Lou..." But I really don't have a need or desire to actually play or beat
> you. What's that going to prove? Only something I already know.
>
> Lastly, as I alluded to above, a dead end road doesn't mean it's can't
take
> you places, including somewhere closer to your desired location. It may
> even be a pleasant ride with lots of sights. But if you want to get to
> Rome, why would you take a road that can only get you as far as Bologna?
>
> Lou Figueroa
> waving to John from the Autopista
Hands in the air! I give up. I still want to play you though. 8-))
John
John Collins
> JC says:
> > I do not concern myself with deflection, squirt and swerve.
>
> As Groucho Marx would say: "Well, this is the most ridiculous thing I've
> evah heard."
>
> Lou Figueroa
Taken out of context - it is.
John
Mike Page
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Where is Fargo? I thought that was just a place they made up for a movie...
>
No, no, no. It's a real place about two hours west of Lake Wobegon.
--
mike page
fargo
Ron Shepard
>Agreed, but the idea behind the method is to always line up the shot with
>center
>ball first.
Yes, but think about the process that you must go through using aim-and-pivot
on shots where swerve is important. First you must estimate the amount of
swerve. Let's say on a particular shot that it is 1 inch. Then you must line
up on the shot as if you are shooting centerball and you are hitting 1 inch
away from the actual point that you want the cue ball to hit. Then you pivot
over to yet another line, stroke and shoot. If everything is working
correctly, then the cue ball leaves the tip with enough squirt to take it from
the stick line to the imaginary line, then the swerve curves the cue ball away
from the imaginary toward the actual line. I can see that this could work, but
I cannot do this with consistency, and I doubt that many other players do
either. I've set up shots and shot them over and over for hours going through
these steps, and I just can't get it burned into my subconscious. I think most
players just memorize how the shot has to be done, line up the way they know it
has to work, and shoot.
As I've said before, I do use aim-and-pivot for a small fraction of my shots.
In particular, those where the cue ball is close to the object ball (so swerve
isn't important), where I'm using extreme sidespin (and my intuition may not be
reliable), and where I'm hitting the object ball very thin (so a precise hit is
necessary). In this case, I understand aim-and-pivot enough to use it
accurately. And sometimes I use aim-and-pivot, the above sequence of steps, to
get a second opinion on a shot that doesn't look exactly right.
But for other shots, I just line up the shot, step into the line immediately
with my stance, and shoot the shot like I've shot it a million times before.
[...]
>Agreed, but with within a very useful range of speeds (for 9 ball) swerve
>is not a
>big factor.[...]
>In practice I find that adjusting for swerve isn't really an issue.
I think you are either underestimating swerve or underestimating how much you
actually compensate for it subconsciously. For a squirty stick, I think that
squirt and swerve are comparable in size on most shots, including those with a
"level" cue. This is why many established players don't really understand
squirt, because swerve is comparable in magnitude and usually works in
opposition to squirt (as far as aiming compensation is concerned). But if you
get a low-squirt stick, then you suddenly realize how large swerve really is.
All those shots where you thought you were inconsistent suddenly come back into
your mind, and you realize that it was possibly the incorrect compensation of
swerve that caused you to miss. Here is an analogy.
Suppose you are shooting a rifle. Your sights are off to one side a little
bit, but you don't know it. There is a cross wind that causes your bullets to
hit the target. There are two errors that happen to be almost cancelling each
other. You are fine as long as the conditions don't change. You know that if
you aim 1 inch to the side of the bulls eye, that you hit it. You might think
that 1 inch is due to your sights, and that wind compensation is insignificant.
Or, you might think that 1 inch is due to the wind, and that your rifle is
sighted exactly correct. But, what if you shoot with another rifle, one with
straight sights? Or, what if the wind changes a little. Or what if the target
distance is changed? If you want to be consistent, then you need to know how
each of these two factors play into your aiming and sighting.
The crooked sights are like squirt. The wind is like swerve. Squirt is
actually more complicated than this, because it depends on the tip offset too,
but you can see the analogy. When you change cues (or shafts), you must adjust
your aim differently for the different amount of squirt. When you change
tables you must account for swerve differently because of the different
ball-cloth friction. When the shot distances or shot speeds vary, swerve
changes.
I first realized how large swerve was when I started doing the aim-and-pivot
squirt tests on cues where I had already done the old "impossible cut shot"
squirt test. When I did the geometry, I realized that most cues actually had
about twice as much squirt as I had measured before. Why? Because the old
squirt test was contaminated by swerve, even if you shot hard enough for the
cue ball to go three table lengths (which was one of the specifications in the
test). The object ball is closer to the cue ball in the aim-and-pivot test, so
it is not contaminated by swerve as much. The amount of swerve was a big
surprise to me.
Anyway, back to swerve and squirt. When you think about it, the squirt part is
really the easy part. For a given tip offset, the squirt angle is the same,
practically speaking, for all shots. You don't have to worry about shot speed,
or the type of bridge, or how tight is your grip, or any of that stuff, those
are all minor, at best. That means that the aiming adjustment is linear with
distance. Or, if you use aim-and-pivot, and you know your sticks pivot point,
you don't even have to worry about the shot distance as far as squirt goes.
But, then we get to swerve. The first part of the cue ball trajectory is a
parabolic curve, then the last part is along a straight line that usually isn't
parallel to the stick axis or to the line between the balls or to anything else
that you have as a handy reference (Coriolis did find something that it is
parallel to, but that's a different story :-). The shape of the curve and how
long it is curved depends on the cloth condition. Swerve depends on the cloth
condition, the stick elevation, the tip offset, and the shot speed, and your
aiming compensation is not simply linear with distance, it is complicated
because of the partly-curved cue ball path.
So with this in mind, I think you are underestimating the importance, and the
difficulty, of adjusting for swerve. By comparison, squirt is the easy part.
And then there are those poor snooker players. Not only do they have all this
to worry about, but they also have a directional nap on their tables. A
directional nap is (as far as I can determine from equations and limited
experience) equivalent to shooting on an unlevel table. Faster shots go
straight (well, nearly), medium shots curve a little downstream, and slow shots
curve a lot downstream. A snooker player shoots a cue ball along a curved
trajectory into an object ball, and then that object ball takes a curved
trajectory to its pocket. Remarkable, when you think about it.
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--still learning, so no, I'm not tired yet
Stoney
> Deno, with John's road selection, no way he'll make it to Chicago. He'll
> end up in Omaha swearing he took the right turn at North Platte. Hey,
maybe
> he can play Stoney some while in NE?
Does he play one-hole?
Regards,
Stoney <-----Thinks he may have to take a road trip to Bike Week in Daytona
so he can go through St. Louis to play St. Louis Lou and 'Nawlins to play
the Amazin' Cajun Joey Aguzin. Not sure how I can incorporate Cincinnati
Kid Sherm into the trip, though.
Ron Shepard
>
>Effren Reyes use it (I'm not saying they do but if they do) then that
>would be very significant, don't you think?
I've watched on TV when Strickland shoots underneath an overhead camera. He
does not pivot away from his line. In fact, it is remarkable how little the
cue moves sideways from the time he steps into his stance to the time he
strokes the ball. He is lined up so well that it makes you think that the ball
is already pocketed before he even gets into his stance.
This is in contrast to, say, Bert Kinister (just to pick one example), who wags
the butt of his cue stick several inches side to side when he is setting up on
a shot and doing his practice strokes.
Other players have still different setup routines. Santos Sambajon, for
example, lines up with his tip on the cloth and about 1/2 an inch to the right
of the cue ball. No matter how he is going to hit the cue ball, that's how he
lines up. When he strokes, he could end up with topspin or draw, right or left
sidespin. He is very consistent, I'm not saying that his stroke is out of
control, but his initial alignment has nothing to do with his final business
stroke. Oh yeah, he does all this with an 18 inch bridge length.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Otto
> Where is Fargo? I thought that was just a place they made up for a
movie...
I thought it was a game?
Otto
Ken Bour
"Richard Iachetta" <iach...@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
[SNIP]
> It doesn't matter who says its not a good method -- if Earl Strikland and
> Effren Reyes use it (I'm not saying they do but if they do) then that
> would be very significant, don't you think? That would be a great dead
> end to be on -- you're going to plateau when you get to Earl Strikland's
> level and you won't be able to progress. I think most people could live
> with that.
I don't know. Francisco uses a sidearm motion with his cue. Oliver Ortmann
has a very prominent elbow "inside" form. Alan Hopkins has almost no
backswing. Allison, Ewa, Karen Corr, and several other top women pros guide
(as in "rub") the cue along their upper torsos to reduce lateral motion. I
have advocated that technique in this forum, on the grounds that top pros
use it, only to have it dismissed as unorthodox, impractical, and severely
limiting (to fluidity, timing, and comfort). The eccentricities and
peculiarities go on and on... With a few exceptions, we don't hear much
advocacy that players should emulate these techniques? Why? One argument
we hear often is that these players adapted to their unique and, some would
say, awkward styles over long periods of time and much practice. The
average player ought to stay with "fundamental" forms, styles, and
approaches.
One thing we can say for sure about pool is that there is little agreement
on any particular point except, perhaps, when players claim that a cue "hits
great." We have instant congruity of understanding on what that term
means...
Ken Bour
Rupe - ArseWeb
Deno wrote:
> (snip)
> Does this all make sense?
>
yes but where do you find the *time* ? :-)
Rupe.
MarkO
Akron/Ohio State Open(s). Talk about a piston - like stroke.
Mark0 <--no BHE for me
"Ron Shepard" <ron...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010110193829...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Tony Mathews
Ron Shepard wrote:
> {swerve is more important than you think)
I first learned this the hard way. I had been practicing in a room that was about
to hold a 9 ball tournament. The cloth was 1 year old Simonis 860. The day before
the tournament they replaced the cloth on all of the table with brand new Simonis
(also 860). I got a chance to try the tables out a few hours before the tournament.
I missed every spin shot! The impression that I had was that squirt was greater
than before so I missed shots with inside English too thin. outside english too
thibk etc. Actually what was happening was that the new cloth produced less swerve
than the old cloth. Once I realized this (it took me about an hour to adjust) I
found the neccesary compensation. Until then I matched up with a few players and
lost more than a few games!
>
>
> Yes, but think about the process that you must go through using aim-and-pivot
> on shots where swerve is important. First you must estimate the amount of
> swerve. Let's say on a particular shot that it is 1 inch. Then you must line
> up on the shot as if you are shooting centerball and you are hitting 1 inch
> away from the actual point that you want the cue ball to hit. Then you pivot
> over to yet another line, stroke and shoot. If everything is working
> correctly, then the cue ball leaves the tip with enough squirt to take it from
> the stick line to the imaginary line, then the swerve curves the cue ball away
> from the imaginary toward the actual line. I can see that this could work, but
> I cannot do this with consistency, and I doubt that many other players do
> either. I've set up shots and shot them over and over for hours going through
> these steps, and I just can't get it burned into my subconscious. I think most
> players just memorize how the shot has to be done, line up the way they know it
> has to work, and shoot.
This is true. But my point wasn't that swerve isn't present or being compensated
for, but that at least for me, it doesn't seem to cause a lot of error. And I am
sure that I compensate for it somehow.
>
>
> As I've said before, I do use aim-and-pivot for a small fraction of my shots.
> In particular, those where the cue ball is close to the object ball (so swerve
> isn't important), where I'm using extreme sidespin (and my intuition may not be
> reliable), and where I'm hitting the object ball very thin (so a precise hit is
> necessary). In this case, I understand aim-and-pivot enough to use it
> accurately. And sometimes I use aim-and-pivot, the above sequence of steps, to
> get a second opinion on a shot that doesn't look exactly right.
This is where I have found the biggest benefit as well. For shots that I know well,
such as spin shots relatively close to the pocket, I don't bother with aim and
pivot, as I rarely miss these to begin with. But on thin back cuts and long shots
that I would normally avoid sidespin for position, aim and pivot has helped me to
learn to "see" the shot better.
>
> I think you are either underestimating swerve or underestimating how much you
> actually compensate for it subconsciously.
Probably the latter.
>
>
> Suppose you are shooting a rifle. ... snip.... If you want to be consistent,
> then you need to know how each of these two factors play into your aiming and
> sighting.
I have long thought that one of the reasons that pro players can use english with
such consistency is that they nearly always play on new cloth. But local pro Paul
Thornley has done a lot of experimentation on this and can test a few shots on
unfamiliar equipment and know very quickly how the table will play.
>
>
> Anyway, back to swerve and squirt. When you think about it, the squirt part is
> really the easy part. For a given tip offset, the squirt angle is the same,
> practically speaking, for all shots. You don't have to worry about shot speed,
> or the type of bridge, or how tight is your grip, or any of that stuff, those
> are all minor, at best. That means that the aiming adjustment is linear with
> distance. Or, if you use aim-and-pivot, and you know your sticks pivot point,
> you don't even have to worry about the shot distance as far as squirt goes.
> But, then we get to swerve.
I would agree with this. I never thought that squirt compensation was the real
problem. There are several ways to compensate with pretty good accuracy. It is
generally a different degree of swerve that causes me to miss on unfamiliar
equipment. Another reason to minimize the use of english.
>
> So with this in mind, I think you are underestimating the importance, and the
> difficulty, of adjusting for swerve. By comparison, squirt is the easy part.
Agreed.
>
>
> And then there are those poor snooker players. Not only do they have all this
> to worry about, but they also have a directional nap on their tables. A
> directional nap is (as far as I can determine from equations and limited
> experience) equivalent to shooting on an unlevel table. Faster shots go
> straight (well, nearly), medium shots curve a little downstream, and slow shots
> curve a lot downstream. A snooker player shoots a cue ball along a curved
> trajectory into an object ball, and then that object ball takes a curved
> trajectory to its pocket. Remarkable, when you think about it.
This is the biggest reason why Snooker players avoid sidespin like the plague!
>
>
Glad you are not tired yet!
We are all still learning!
Tony
Tony Mathews
Richard Iachetta wrote:
> > Did Hal tell you this? I thought we have discussed this already in this
> > group. You go ask these players, and for every one of them that you get
> > to say they use this technique, I will get multiple others with as
> > impressive names, to say that the method is not very good.
>
> It doesn't matter who says its not a good method -- if Earl Strikland and
> Effren Reyes use it (I'm not saying they do but if they do) then that
> would be very significant, don't you think? That would be a great dead
> end to be on -- you're going to plateau when you get to Earl Strikland's
> level and you won't be able to progress. I think most people could live
> with that.
>
This was my point. And no Deno, Hal did not tell me this. The point was that if some great players are
using this technique, then it cannot possibly be as limiting as you proffess. So it is worthy of at least
some consideration.
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
> Yes, I have a crystal ball that I
> look into every day.
Where do you get a good one? I could make a killing on the stock market but my
last crystal ball just broke a contontulator shaft......
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
> First of all, two tips of english will produce only a very little amount of
> squirt, almost too small to even measure.
Wow! This must be on a 3C table with a billiard cue and billiard balls. I would
think that the pool players here would refute this statement?
>
>
>
>
> Does this all make sense?
>
You lost me after "here is Deno's aiming technique" (LOL).
Tony Mathews
Greg Miller wrote:
> Deno J. Andrews wrote in message
> news:3A5C7259...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > I pick out the exact point on the ball that needs to be
> hit by the cue
> > ball (based on speed, stick elevation, cloth and ball
> condition, throw,
> > etc.). I aim with a center ball until the CB is aiming at
> the proper
> > point, then I move parallel to that aim line to add
> english. Basic
> > stuff.
>
> This would be a legitimate method for infinite spp cues
> only.
Actually an infinite pivot point cue would need no adjustment for
squirt. Paralell aiming implies a small amount of squirt.
>
>
>
> BHE would be much more accurate than this method.
I'm going to grab some pretzels, sit back and watch the fun begin!
Tony
{I think I'll go back to Snooker, center ball never caused a debate!}
Tony Mathews
John Collins wrote:
>
> With BHE I approach the cueball on a centerline which lines up the cueball
> and the object ball according to how much of the object ball I need to hit
> to pocket the ball. Then I decide what english I need and how much speed is
> required. As I am stroking the cue I pivot the butt of the cue so that the
> tip is in the position desired for the shot. I do not concern myself with
> deflection, squirt and swerve.
This statement was also made by Bert Kinnister in his deflection tape. He even
stated that speed is not a factor at all, but he didn't hit any slow shots on
the tape. In practice most players do follow this methodology (those that use
BHE that is). And in practice it does seem to work better than the science says
that it should. Why? Perhaps there are several factors cancelling each other out
(throw and swerve, etc.). Perhaps players that learn this technique later rather
than earlier have a built in ability to compensate. I don't know. It would be
easier if it didn't work at all. But it does seem to work for some.
Tony
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
> Tony Mathews wrote:
> >
> > other players from his country have learned his technique. My understanding is that
> > Earl Strikland, Buddy Hall, Tony Robles, Nick Varner and Francisco Bustemante use > >this method.
>
> Did Hal tell you this? I thought we have discussed this already in this
> group. You go ask these players, and for every one of them that you get
> to say they use this technique, I will get multiple others with as
> impressive names, to say that the method is not very good.
No Hal did not tell me this, I've never met Hal or even talked with him in person. But the point was
that if more than one player of championship calibre uses this technique, then the statement about a
dead end cannot be correct. Also, the statement about "the one in a million player" etc. etc. cannot be
true if several champions have used the technique can it? And I am aware that the method may be very
old (perhaps dates to pre 1900?), but I think that with newer and more consistent equipment it does
bear some looking into.
>
>
> > Agreed, it would be hard for a human to be as consistent.
>
> Am I really not articulating myself; the robot is not a human and cannot
> produce a human like grip or stroke...so how could it be that it is used
> to measure what a cue will do in the hand of a human?
Oh I hear you loud and clear Deno! But we have a different position on this. I contend that a robot
does not need a human like grip or stroke. An approximation is close enough IMO. No two humans have the
same grip or stroke, but that doesn't preclude two different humans from achieving the same results. So
why can't a robot achieve the same results with a different stroke? Where do you stand if it can?
>
>
> I have written in this group my exact setup for squirt experiments.
> Maybe I will do it on the Wei table this time, but it will take some
> time. You can always search back posts too and find it.
O.k. I'll look into your previous posts.
>
>
>
> Which bridge length? I have several! This is one of my whole damn
> points I am trying to make. Who wants to play with one bridge
> length???? It's pedestrian!
Well not predestrian but consistent. A top Snooker player will try to have as close to a consistent
bridge length as possible (except for rail shots etc.). The object of potting games is to remove as
many variables as possible. With pool and snooker the idea is to limit cue ball travel as much as
possible. 3C is a different game altogether. So I for one would like to play with one bridge length
whenever possible! Less variables = greater consistency.
>
>
>
> I am not talking about equipment- of course a more accurate cue is
> better...which brings up a good point. If Predator said that billiard
> cues produce less squirt than pool cues, why wouldn't someone want to
> change the cue they use to one of these instead of trying to use some
> whacked out BHE technique to compensate for squirt? Mind blowing! But
> yet, some of us have been saying for a good part of ten years that
> billiard cues squirt less than pool cues...
>
Even a billiard cue squirts some on a pool table. Most pool players don't like the fast taper of a 3C
cue or they don't like the stiff hit (not enough feel for some people). What are the specs of your cue
Deno?
Tony
Tony Mathews
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> Other players have still different setup routines. Santos Sambajon, for
> example, lines up with his tip on the cloth and about 1/2 an inch to the right
> of the cue ball. No matter how he is going to hit the cue ball, that's how he
> lines up. When he strokes, he could end up with topspin or draw, right or left
> sidespin. He is very consistent, I'm not saying that his stroke is out of
> control, but his initial alignment has nothing to do with his final business
> stroke. Oh yeah, he does all this with an 18 inch bridge length.
>
I have seen several players line up on the bottom of the ball for every shot. The
explanation was that this is how they determine that they are on the center axis of
the cue ball. You would think that to then move the cue to an unseen point on the
last stroke would never work with any consistency. I am amazed that it can be done
at all. Perhaps Santos has a cue with an 18" pivot point ?
Tony
- wants to go back to hitting balls, but still loves this stuff! -
Tony Mathews
"Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
>
> Maybe it's better I didn't meet him...cause maybe I would be pivoting my
> cue by now.
And Lou would have to tie you up and "deprogram" you!
Tony Mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
>
> Allison, Ewa, Karen Corr, and several other top women pros guide
> (as in "rub") the cue along their upper torsos to reduce lateral motion. I
> have advocated that technique in this forum, on the grounds that top pros
> use it, only to have it dismissed as unorthodox, impractical, and severely
> limiting (to fluidity, timing, and comfort). The eccentricities and
> peculiarities go on and on...
This may be unorthodox for pool, but nearly all Snooker players going back to
Joe Davis use this technique (guiding the cue with their chest). The degree of
eccentricity of Snooker technique is far less than with pool. Robert Byrne once
said that Snooker players have found the "holy grail" of technique. And I think
that for pure potting accuracy they have. Snooker requires extreme precision so
the technique that has evolved has eliminated many variables that are present in
a typical pool technique.
It is no accident that the top women players are former Snooker stars.
Tony
lfigueroa
world working on the same problem in different labs (pool rooms). It's why
you see such different and sometimes crazy solutions to a single problem
show up to Robot Wars. But maybe after time, an ultimate, unbeatable, and
elegant solution rises the top.
Lou Figueroa
"Ken Bour" <kb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:93j10b$884$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Deno J. Andrews
> 1 hour north of Denver. As far as I know there are even Kim Steel carom
> tables in Denver.
Yes there are at Jerry Karsh's room...maybe some time this year I will
make it out there.
Deno