PDA

View Full Version : type of backspin



RexPool
04-01-2006, 06:31 PM
ive heard theres two types of backspin, one where u jab the bottom of tje ball of course and one where u follow through upwards, what type do you use.?

Scott Lee
04-01-2006, 09:09 PM
You heard wrong. Backspin is achieved by a smooth stroke through the CB. It has nothing to with a jab, poke, or steering the cue. The amount of draw is dependent on three variables...how low you strike the CB, how much speed you stroke the shot with, and how smoothly you deliver and finish the stroke. The easiest way to draw the CB is to let the weight of the cue and timing create the speed of the stroke, rather than a tight grip and punch through the CB.

Scott Lee

Qtec
04-01-2006, 11:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of draw is dependent on three variables...how low you strike the CB, how much speed you stroke the shot with, <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> and the angle of the cue. Not 'how smoothly you deliver and finish the stroke', although this is important.</font color>

Qtec

Scott Lee
04-02-2006, 08:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The amount of draw is dependent on three variables...how low you strike the CB, how much speed you stroke the shot with, <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> and the angle of the cue. Not 'how smoothly you deliver and finish the stroke', although this is important.</font color>

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry Qtec, but I have to disagree with you here. If you're talking about trying to draw the CB with an elevated cue (such as when the CB is close to a rail), you STILL must have a smooth delivery and a good finish, to get much action. If you're talking about cut angle, I don't see how that has any bearing on whether you can draw the CB or not.
Either way, I stand by my earlier statement.

Scott Lee

MrLucky
04-02-2006, 09:30 AM
I would agree with Scott! The smoothness and the follow through is what produces draw. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Cornerman
04-02-2006, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RexPool:</font><hr> ive heard theres two types of backspin, one where u jab the bottom of tje ball of course and one where u follow through upwards, what type do you use.? <hr /></blockquote>

Can you clarify what you mean by "follow through upwards"?

If those are two type draw, then there should also be jab upwards, and follow through downwards. That's now four types of draw.

I try to use all of the types of draw strokes available.

Fred

Fran Crimi
04-02-2006, 09:35 AM
I agree with Qtech.

Billy_Bob
04-02-2006, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RexPool:</font><hr> ive heard theres two types of backspin, one where u jab the bottom of tje ball of course and one where u follow through upwards, what type do you use.? <hr /></blockquote>

Can you describe the "follow through upwards" shot better? Do you hit the cue ball below center, but follow through upwards? Or are you hitting the cue ball above center?

Sometimes "locals" or those who have learned to play from others use the wrong terminology for shots (never opened a book on billiards ever).

For example I made a shot the other day hitting the cue ball center high (follow). One of these locals said "Nice english!" I corrected him and said "Follow!". He looked at me like I was some weird creature from outer space.

BTW there are books at new bookstores on pool playing which cover the basic terminology of the game. These may be in the sports or games sections or both.

Qtec
04-02-2006, 12:24 PM
As I understand it, [ QUOTE ]
The amount of draw <font color="blue"> ie spin </font color> is dependent on three variables <hr /></blockquote> tip offset, speed of the cue and the angle of the cue in relation to the ball. ie the direction of force.

Hit a ball 1/2 a tip above the equator with a level stroke and you get topspin. Raise your Q to 60 degrees and hit the same spot , you get backspin.
The Qball is not aware of a smooth stroke or a good finish. Just the offset, speed and angle of the Q [force].

Qtec

Scott Lee
04-02-2006, 03:46 PM
Qtec...Your example of 60 degree elevation of the is very extreme, and would still require the quality stroke to achieve maximum results. Many expert players elevate the cue 15-20 degrees, and get a LOT of backspin with a SMOOTH stroke. Others, with no stroke, can't draw the ball, regardless of how hard they hit it. I prefer more of a level hit, whenever reasonable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Scott Lee

Qtec
04-03-2006, 02:22 AM
All I,m saying is that the answer to the Q, "what are the 3 variables of spin' is offset, speed and angle. Thats all.

Qtec..........I,m sure there was a thread where this was discussed.

TennesseeJoe
04-03-2006, 06:38 AM
If the cue tip only stays in contact with the cue ball for 1/1000 of a second---How does a smooth stroke apply more back spin?

Scott Lee
04-03-2006, 06:48 AM
It's more like 4/1000ths, not that it matters. The reason is simple. A smooth stroke is constantly accelerating, through the CB, to it's natural finish. Stopping (a poke), or deccelerating the cuestick will result in less efficient action on the CB. You cannot get as great a response from the CB by trying to "power" the stick through the shot, as you can with a 'beautiful, smooth throwing motion'!

Scott Lee

TennesseeJoe
04-03-2006, 07:36 AM
I'm not trying to disagree with anyone, but I just don't understand what makes maximum draw. The Jacksonville experiment revealed a 1/1000 second contact time. I suggested that a cue which is accelerating through the cue ball can lengthen the contact time and therefore cause more friction which should create more spin. I also thought that accelerating through the cue ball reduced deflection but the Jacksonville experiment proved me wrong again.

I guess my questions are:
1. Does a loose vs. firm grip have an effect on the cue speed at contact which would therefore effect the amount of draw?
2. Why does elevating the butt of the cue seem to create more draw?
3. Where does the 4/1000 second figure come from?

Scott Lee
04-03-2006, 09:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr>

I guess my questions are:
1. Does a loose vs. firm grip have an effect on the cue speed at contact which would therefore effect the amount of draw?
2. Why does elevating the butt of the cue seem to create more draw?
3. Where does the 4/1000 second figure come from?
<hr /></blockquote>

TennesseeJoe...First and foremost, one thing I neglected to mention in the above posts, is that the the smooth, accelerated delivery of the cue creates a consistent, and repeatable result, which is what most poolplayers are trying to achieve. That said:

1. Yes, a loose grip will create more CB action (and a repeatable stroke), with the same speed swing, than a tight grip.

2. Elevating the cue does not create more draw. The path of least resistance is along the surface of the table. A reasonably level cue, at contact, will provide the most consistent and accurate stroke. Elevating the cue at contact, causes the CB to 'jump', and reduces the potential for a consistent result.

3. The 4/1000's of a second dwell time, between the tip and CB, came from the same information you quote. Please note that the statistical difference between 1/1000th and 4/1000ths of a second is insignificant. They are both micro-fractions of a second.

Scott Lee

RedHell
04-03-2006, 10:40 AM
By experience, I tend to agree with Scott... but I don't completely disagree with Qtec either.

I think what we are missing here is consistancy of the factors when comparing. I explain:

In the exemple provided by Qtec, where increasing the angle was transforming a follow shot into a draw, Qtec failed to realise that the angle should be increase in regard to the exact center of the cue ball and not the tip of the cue.

When only increasing the angle base on the tip of the cue, you in fact change the relative point of impact to the center of the cueball hence affecting the offset.

So in my opinion, the only comparison in the discussion requires identical factors on wich you both agree. Two shots with the same offset and the same speed. In one test you will have to change the angle between the 2 shots. And in the other you will have to change the stroke.

My prediction is that you will both have better results with your respective opinion. Here's why:

When increasing the angle, you might impair elavation to the cue ball which will reduce the friction and increase the remaining spin of the cue ball at contact.

With the follow thru stroke, you are potentially increasing the tip-cueball contact time allowing to transfert more spin.

Snapshot9
04-03-2006, 10:51 AM
Comparison - Think of drawing with a low level stroke through the cue ball vs. a jacked up stick this way:

Elevated cue for draw: Like being in 3rd gear up to 30 mph,
and then take foot off accelerator, and see how far car will
roll to dead stop.

Low level cue for draw: The same except car being in 5th gear.

Now, think of the car rolling to a dead stop as being the cue ball in reverse. Which example above provides the most roll&gt;

Qtec
04-03-2006, 11:23 AM
The point is that I can hit the Qb ABOVE the equator and get backspin- purely because of the angle of my cue.
The question I was replying to was - 'what are the 3 variables of spin'? ie speed, offset, angle. These are the only thing the QB 'knows'.

Basically you can hit the same spot on the QB, with the same speed but get different amounts of spin depending on the angle of the cue.


Qtec...'how to hit a long draw AND make the ball' is another question.

Cornerman
04-03-2006, 12:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr> I'm not trying to disagree with anyone, but I just don't understand what makes maximum draw. The Jacksonville experiment revealed a 1/1000 second contact time. <hr /></blockquote> For centerball. For spin, it's a little longer. I want to say <font color="red"> </font color> sec., but I can't remember. (edit: I looked it up. No measurements above .002 seem to have been observed)


[ QUOTE ]
I guess my questions are:
1. Does a loose vs. firm grip have an effect on the cue speed at contact which would therefore effect the amount of draw?<hr /></blockquote>
The going wisdom is that the flesh of your hand isn't rigid enough to have an effect. *IF* it did, then firmer would be better from a mass point of view, while looser would be better from a velocity point of view. I'm of the camp that says that the flesh isn't rigid enough to offset what you can do with a looser, higher velocity wrist.



[ QUOTE ]
2. Why does elevating the butt of the cue seem to create more draw?<hr /></blockquote> I've tossed this around a million times in my life. I've come up with three reasons:

1. The slight elevation forces your shoulder to be in play in the shot and you're forcing the elbow to stay up.

2. Elevating allows you to hit with more offset because the bed of the table is now "farther away."

3. As Qtec was trying to describe, given the same point on the cueball, an increased angle will give an increased offset from the center of the ball.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Where does the 4/1000 second figure come from?
<hr /></blockquote>Guesstimation. It's not accurate, based on measurements.

Fred

Cornerman
04-03-2006, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> 3. The 4/1000's of a second dwell time, between the tip and CB, came from the same information you quote. Please note that the statistical difference between 1/1000th and 4/1000ths of a second is insignificant. They are both micro-fractions of a second.

Scott Lee <hr /></blockquote>

It's a much bigger significance that you can imagine. 0.004 seconds is 4x times more contact time. If we're going to discuss such time intervals, might as well be accurate.

In order for a tip do be in contact with the cueball for .004 sec., the tip would have to be about 15 times softer than any current tip.

Fred &lt;~~~ why does anyone want longer contact?

Bumps
04-03-2006, 01:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The point is that I can hit the Qb ABOVE the equator and get backspin- purely because of the angle of my cue.

Qtec...'how to hit a long draw AND make the ball' is another question. <hr /></blockquote>

I suppose this could be done, with a very steep angle on the cue and striking downward sharply, somewhat resembling the "Piquet" in Cottingham's "The Game of Billiards". I understood that the Piquet had been described as impossible. Anyway, why would you want to shoot a shot as you describe??

Cornerman
04-03-2006, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr>

I suppose this could be done, with a very steep angle on the cue and striking downward sharply, somewhat resembling the "Piquet" in Cottingham's "The Game of Billiards". I understood that the Piquet had been described as impossible. Anyway, why would you want to shoot a shot as you describe??

<hr /></blockquote>It seems you're answering the question while asking it. A piquet would be one instance where you want to elevate to that degree and draw back.

Maybe I misunderstand your post, but a piquet is a standard pool and billiard shot, far from impossible.

Fred

Jal
04-03-2006, 02:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr>...I suggested that a cue which is accelerating through the cue ball can lengthen the contact time and therefore cause more friction which should create more spin.<hr /></blockquote>I'm pretty sure that if there is any change to the contact time, it's insignificant. The extra force you're able to apply is very small compared to the force that develops from the impact itself. But accelerating "through" the cuball does give you more cue speed. It does this because of less than obvious reasons (the shape of the force vs time curve). The increase in cue speed can be significant here, especially when compared to decelerating.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr>...Does a loose vs. firm grip have an effect on the cue speed at contact which would therefore effect the amount of draw?<hr /></blockquote>As Fred stated, and according to Bob Jewett's analysis of the Jacksonville experiments, probably not - the skin is too soft to have much effect during the brief contact period. With an open bridge, a tight grip is more likely to result in one lifting the cue up off the bridge, and thus reducing the tip offset. It can be very hard to tell when your doing this, except as the ball doesn't draw much.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr>...Why does elevating the butt of the cue seem to create more draw?<hr /></blockquote>I've tried this and haven't noticed anymore draw. But it could just be me because others, such as yourself I guess, report this to be true. I'll go with Fred's reasons (increased offset). But there is an additional effect which is difficult to model.

With an elevated cue, you get an increased impulse between the stick and ball, which is the product of the average force times the contact time. This occurs because the stick encounters more mass - some of the table's as well as the ball's. But you don't increase the ball's moment of inertia (resistance to spinning), which suggests that you should get more spin. However, you also increase the friction between the ball and the cloth because of the increased downward force. It's not clear from a simple physics treatment which one wins the battle, the extra stick/ball impulse or the ball/cloth friction.

Another consideration is that a bouncing ball loses more speed and spin than one which hugs the surface. This argues against the elevated butt unless the intial impact does not constitute a normal bounce, ie, the tip is sill in contact and maintaining spin as the ball rebounds from the surface, AND the cueball doesn't bounce but once or so before reaching the object ball, or maybe not at all.

Jim

Bumps
04-03-2006, 03:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr>

I suppose this could be done, with a very steep angle on the cue and striking downward sharply, somewhat resembling the "Piquet" in Cottingham's "The Game of Billiards". I understood that the Piquet had been described as impossible. Anyway, why would you want to shoot a shot as you describe??

<hr /></blockquote>It seems you're answering the question while asking it. A piquet would be one instance where you want to elevate to that degree and draw back.

Maybe I misunderstand your post, but a piquet is a standard pool and billiard shot, far from impossible.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Maybe I misunderstood this years ago, but I remember reading somewhere, and I think it may have been Bob Byrne but I'm not sure, that the Piquet was not doable, at least as described in Cottingham's book. I may try to find the quote.

RedHell
04-03-2006, 03:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The point is that I can hit the Qb ABOVE the equator and get backspin- purely because of the angle of my cue. <hr /></blockquote>

This is where I think you are wrong... When you elevate your cue and change the angle the equator of the ball that you should consider to calculate the offset must be paralel to your stroke.

Therefore, you are hitting an offset and under the adjusted equator.

The angle to the slate is irrelevant, unless you impair lift to the qb which will help maintain the spin until contact to the object ball.

An example is a full masse shot. Your cue is 90 degree from the slate, but to apply the spin you must be offset. The angle remains the same to the equator of the ball in regards to your stroke.

Bumps
04-03-2006, 03:40 PM
I can't find anything about the Picuet not being makable and I did find reference to the shot in Shamos's Illustrated Encyclopedia. I've never, that I can remeber, heard or read of the shot anywhere else. The Picuet is different from the masse' in that no side english is applied.
If it's makable, why is it mentioned in only one book?? Odd.

cushioncrawler
04-03-2006, 04:15 PM
Hi Jim -- I can add a few thoughts from a 12' by 6' perspective. Some of my old and older english billiards books say that the cue is best horizontal (which we all know is usually impossible) and some say that a very elevated butt is best (ie more elevated than for an ordinary shot). I agree that very elevated iz best -- although as already mentioned by otherz this all depends on whether u want to set a new world's record or get an accurate repeatable rezult.

I agree with u that (with an elevated cue) there iz some sort of bed-reaction which givz a nett increase in backspin (if u are looking for a world's record).
But i reckon that a bouncing cue ball can help -- i know that on a coarse cloth, i cannot get any backspin at long-range, with a smoothly skidding qball, koz the ball seems to have disc brakes -- but a bouncing qball duz the trick. Perhaps this iz because...
1... as u say, the first bounce duznt count (ie the bounce during the qtip contact)...
2... then, a bouncing qball duznt suffer any rolling resistance (a smoothly skidding qball would suffer rolling resistance even tho it iznt rolling, koz rolling resistance is a misnomer)...
3... if u judge things well (with luck), the qball has to hit the objectball just before it is due to bounce again.

I remember i won a long-range screwing contest -- some of the other players (shooting from the Dee) placed the qball high up on the brown's spot, thinking that the extra height would allow the cue to get a better look at the bottom of the qball, and thinking that the extra height would allow the cue to pass freely under the qball, which is probably all true. But me, i put the qball against the back of the spot -- this increased the bed-reaction that i mentioned earlyr, and gave me some extra bounce for free -- but it left the biggest black mark on the qball that i have ever seen (i bet it iz still there, years later).

Bob_Jewett
04-03-2006, 07:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> ...
Maybe I misunderstood this years ago, but I remember reading somewhere, and I think it may have been Bob Byrne but I'm not sure, that the Piquet was not doable, at least as described in Cottingham's book. I may try to find the quote. <hr /></blockquote>
Cottingham illustrates the piquet as having a relatively shallow elevation, and says that you can get the cue ball to reverse course without striking an object ball. He's wrong. It takes about 60 degrees of elevation at the minimum to get the cue ball to just stop from the back spin, and more if you want the cue ball to zip back. If anyone wants to see good, soft piquets, get the DVD of Caudron winning the World Championship at balkline. There are several on-line sites where you can order it. Usually, a piquet in that context involves hitting an object ball but not driving it very far even though the cue ball draws back well.

Bob_Jewett
04-03-2006, 07:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RexPool:</font><hr> ive heard theres two types of backspin, one where u jab the bottom of tje ball of course and one where u follow through upwards, what type do you use.? <hr /></blockquote>
Personally, I don't believe in those. Hit the cue ball low with a well-chalked tip, and the ball will draw. Follow through, except that it ensures that you will hit the cue ball where you want with good speed, is not required.

Some say you want to accelerate through the ball. Maybe it's OK to tell beginners that to keep them from stopping before they hit the ball, but what you really want to do is accelerate up to hitting the ball. If you are still accelerating when you hit the ball, you are wasting energy and your speed will not be as consistent.

Bob_Jewett
04-03-2006, 07:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RexPool:</font><hr> ive heard theres two types of backspin... <hr /></blockquote>
If you want to try out different kinds of strokes for draw, here is a test shot that measures the quality of your draw. Put the object ball on the head spot. Put the cue ball half way between it and the head rail with them pointed straight at the center of the foot rail. See if you can draw the cue ball straight back to the head rail without the object ball also hitting the head rail after it hits the center of the foot rail.

This test shot is illustrated as the upper shot in Diagram 2 of http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-02.pdf

If you use piquet, you can draw the cue ball back to the head rail without the object ball hitting the foot rail, so you have to play the shot with a level cue stick. (As always, as level as possible.)

pooltchr
04-03-2006, 07:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> Follow through, except that it ensures that you will hit the cue ball where you want with good speed, is not required.

<hr /></blockquote>

Bob, would you please expand on that statement? Are you saying it is possible to get draw if the tip does not continue past the point of contact? I'm not trying to pin you down, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Steve

Bob_Jewett
04-03-2006, 08:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> Follow through, except that it ensures that you will hit the cue ball where you want with good speed, is not required.

<hr /></blockquote>

Bob, would you please expand on that statement? Are you saying it is possible to get draw if the tip does not continue past the point of contact? I'm not trying to pin you down, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>
After the ball leaves the tip, what the stick does is unimportant. The tip and the ball are together for only about 1/4-inch of travel at the maximum. If at the instant the ball leaves the cue tip a rocket launcher is fired and totally obliterates you and your stick, the ball will continue on its way without paying any attention to your unfortunate end. There will have been no follow through.

I hope that the truth of this is obvious to everyone reading this.

Here is a shot to try. Put the cue ball down a chalk's width from the object ball. Using a level stroke and no english, and shooting straight at the object ball, draw the cue ball the length of the table. This can be done without fouling, and it illustrates the fact that you can get very good action without following through much. The shot is not easy, and the vast majority of players (and maybe most good players) have no idea how to shoot the shot.

The only way you can get absolutely zero follow through is if the tip stops at the instant it contacts the ball and the only way for this to happen is if there is zero power on the shot, and then the cue ball will not move.

As has been stated before, to get the tip to land at the right place with the right speed, a normal, unchecked stroke is much better than a stroke that has begun to stop even before it hits the ball (such as the stroke that is needed for the shot above). That is why follow through is almost always part of a good stroke. But it is not required.

Qtec
04-03-2006, 08:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RedHell:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The point is that I can hit the Qb ABOVE the equator and get backspin- purely because of the angle of my cue. <hr /></blockquote>

This is where I think you are wrong... When you elevate your cue and change the angle the equator of the ball that you should consider to calculate the offset must be paralel to your stroke.

Therefore, you are hitting an offset and under the adjusted equator.

The angle to the slate is irrelevant, unless you impair lift to the qb which will help maintain the spin until contact to the object ball.

An example is a full masse shot. Your cue is 90 degree from the slate, but to apply the spin you must be offset. The angle remains the same to the equator of the ball in regards to your stroke. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, in regards to your STROKE. Using this logic, EVERY shot in the game is a parallel stroke in relation the the center of the QB! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif If I play a jump shot at 45 Degrees, its only in relation to the table. Without it, there would be degrees at all! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I hear what you are saying and technically you are correct but the angle to the slate is important. Its the main reference point. It affects all spin.
In practical terms, a player has to draw a ball 2 ft. To do that he has to hit the QB on a certain spot[ offset] at a certain speed, with his cue at a certain angle[ in relation to the slate]. Change any one of these factors and he will get a dfferent result.
Yes, the change in Q angle results in a different offset in relation to the center of the QB but to the player [ and original poster]they are still hitting the same spot at the same speed.

Halfway between the equator and the 'North Pole'of the ball is a spot where you can play with a level cue and a 90 degree cue , both would have the same offset, different results. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Also, if I was to play a masse shot with an offset of 1/4 ball and a parallel draw shot with the same offset, which one would give the most backspin?
I would have to go for the masse.

Qtec

pooltchr
04-04-2006, 07:23 AM
Bob,
I do know that shot. I have done it. But I don't think it is possible if the tip does not continue on past the point of contact to some degree. This was my point. When most people think of "follow-through", they are talking about the continued forward movement of the cue after contact. While the shot you describe would certainly be restricted in the distance the tip would be allowed to continue after contact, it still must be there to some degree. I don't see how it is possible to impart backspin on the cue ball with the tip stopping at the point of contact.
Steve

Cornerman
04-04-2006, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> . The Picuet is different from the masse' in that no side english is applied.
If it's makable, why is it mentioned in only one book?? Odd. <hr /></blockquote>It's mentioned in several books.

Look up piqué instead (google).



Fred

Cornerman
04-04-2006, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> Follow through, except that it ensures that you will hit the cue ball where you want with good speed, is not required.

<hr /></blockquote>

Bob, would you please expand on that statement? Are you saying it is possible to get draw if the tip does not continue past the point of contact? I'm not trying to pin you down, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>Of course you should know this because one of the shots that the BCA Instructor teach is the impeded follow through where you hit the table with your grip hand, impeding its forward motion. If your hand can handle it, any spin will work the same way.

That being said, trying to follow through helps to keep your stroke straight.

Fred

TennesseeJoe
04-04-2006, 10:38 AM
I set this shot up and found that you are correct. A draw shot with a level cue produces more travel than with an elevated cue.
Shooting the one ball in to the corner pocket the cue ball travels the path of the yellow line with both shots. With a level cue it continues travel as indicated by the red line. And with the elevated cue---the black line.
I am the first to admit that my draw shot is not very powerfull, but these are my results.
Has anyone else tried this?



START(
%AO1Z1%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%I L7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%P[4Z0%UQ0Z3%VZ6Z0%W\8X2%Xs2X6
%]b5Y0%^s3Y1%_Q0Z1%`s2Y2%aO8Z0
)END

Bumps
04-04-2006, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> . The Picuet is different from the masse' in that no side english is applied.
If it's makable, why is it mentioned in only one book?? Odd. <hr /></blockquote>It's mentioned in several books.

Look up piqué instead (google).



Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I just did and came up with nothing regarding pool and/or billiards. Name the other books.

Jal
04-04-2006, 11:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>..I agree that very elevated iz best -- although as already mentioned by otherz this all depends on whether u want to set a new world's record or get an accurate repeatable rezult.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Mac. Good point. You probably can't rely on the bed reaction being the same from table to table, or maybe even from one area to another on the same table.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>..I agree with u that (with an elevated cue) there iz some sort of bed-reaction which givz a nett increase in backspin (if u are looking for a world's record).
But i reckon that a bouncing cue ball can help -- i know that on a coarse cloth, i cannot get any backspin at long-range, with a smoothly skidding qball, koz the ball seems to have disc brakes -- but a bouncing qball duz the trick.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, I think what said above is misleading because I wasn't looking at the problem quite right. It is true that if you, say, throw a ball onto a table, it will lose speed and spin faster if it's bouncing, as opposed to sliding continuously. But if the first bounce doesn't count so that it has the same speed coming off that initial rebound, as might be the case with the stick/ball impact (approximately), then it will retain more speed and spin by bouncing, even after an infinite number. This assumes that it loses height with each bounce, which is obviously the case. So the requirement that it not bounce at all, or maybe only once or so is not really necessary, although it helps. It will still have more speed/spin when it reaches the object ball if it initially leaves the tip/table with about the same spin that a level stroke produces.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>..Perhaps this iz because...
1... as u say, the first bounce duznt count (ie the bounce during the qtip contact)...<hr /></blockquote>I looked at some of Dr. Daves's videos to see if the cueball is already moving up at the completion of contact. On one it appeared to be so, on another it didn't seem to be the case. But if you take the contact time to be .002 sec, a cue inclination of 15 degrees, and a post impact speed of 16 mph (8 mph average during impact) then the ball should move vertically around .07", I think. I'm not sure, but this looks like it is probably sufficient to have it rebounding, at least partially.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>2... then, a bouncing qball duznt suffer any rolling resistance (a smoothly skidding qball would suffer rolling resistance even tho it iznt rolling, koz rolling resistance is a misnomer)...<hr /></blockquote>Because of the deeper footprint, a bouncing ball should suffer more rolling resistance during surface impact, but this is, as you say Mac, probably not enough to make up for the in-between impact intervals. In any case, though, I don't see how the rolling resistance can affect the spin?

Jim

Bob_Jewett
04-04-2006, 11:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> ...
Look up piqué instead (google). <hr /></blockquote>

I just did and came up with nothing regarding pool and/or billiards. Name the other books. <hr /></blockquote>
If you search on the two words -- pique billiards -- you will get some useful hits. I think google ignores the accent. "piquet" which I typed before by mistake will also get some hits, but it is a kind of card game.

Bumps
04-04-2006, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
If you search on the two words -- pique billiards -- you will get some useful hits. I think google ignores the accent. "piquet" which I typed before by mistake will also get some hits, but it is a kind of card game. <hr /></blockquote>

Got a lot of hits but didn't see any specific books mentioned. I have to assume that most of them would refer to billiards and not pool. I've read only four or five books related to just billiards and don't remember seeing it mantioned in any of them. Cottingham's was the only place I remember seeing it.

Bob_Jewett
04-04-2006, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> ... Got a lot of hits but didn't see any specific books mentioned. ... Cottingham's was the only place I remember seeing it. <hr /></blockquote>
Hmmm... I think that usually books in English will refer to the stroke as a half-masse or elevated draw shot. At carom billiards, the pique is most used at games like straight rail and balkline, where you want to take a lot of speed off the first object ball but still have a lot of draw on the cue ball. If you ever get to watch champion balkline players (like Frederic Caudron on the 2004 World Championship DVD from kozoom.com) you will see some amazing piques.

Cornerman
04-04-2006, 01:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bumps:</font><hr> I just did and came up with nothing regarding pool and/or billiards. Name the other books. <hr /></blockquote>Hmmm... interesting. I have to admit that since I've seen the term so often, I assumed it would be in every billiard book.

Ray Martin calls it the nip draw shot in 99 Critical Shots. Maybe you'd see the term piqué in the French Billiard books. But, they'd be in French.

Fred

cushioncrawler
04-04-2006, 07:55 PM
Hi Jim -- I havnt got any real proof -- but, i reckon that if u put max backspin on the qball, and near max speed, with a smooth (non-bouncing) travel for the qball, the backspin evaporates at say a distance of 6' -- in which case screw-back iz impossible beyond this point (uzing this style) -- but, if u forego some backspin, and hence get more speed, i reckon that u can increase the dist to say 7' -- in which case there must be some combination of backspin and speed that gives the max dist (on any one table) -- in which case (at smallish distances) there must also be a combination (near max backspin obviously) that gives u the max screw effekt (ie screwback dist). All of this iz for a non-bouncing qball -- the 6' and 7' could be increased by uzing a bouncing qball (according to my earlyr theory). Little of this haz much to do with soft screw at short range.

Re a bouncing ball having more rezistance (momentarily) due to the deeper footprint in the bedcloth, i agree, but the footprint will never be very deep, no matter how high the bounce, koz the bedcloth iz only say 1mm thick. In fact, i reckon that the nett gain here (for bouncing) iz perhaps the main ingrediant in my bouncing theory (even tho i didnt mention it earlyr) -- this suggests that the higher the bounce the better (but not too much koz negative factors will emerge).

I see that there iz some stuff on the internet about "tangential coefficient of restitution", which coverz ball-bounce on a soft surface, but i thort that much of this analysis woz rubbish (this woz a long time ago).

I think that someone on this thread mentions a diagram of 3 qball return trajectoryz -- without reading it and without looking at the drawing, it might appear at first to be contrary to what i said above -- but it iznt (i hope that this comment duznt proov foolish).

Backspin evaporates at a constant rate per second -- the harder u hit, the less time before impact, hence less loss of backspin. The trouble with rolling rezistance iz that it increases the time interval -- even tho it duznt affect the backspin directly. Az Dame Edna sez -- "its the bit on the end that counts".

Elsewhere, i seem to recall that Bob points out that for most surfaces friction diminishez slightly with skid-speed and diminishez slightly with force ie on a pro-rata basis -- this sort of thing helps my bounce theory allso.

Allso, getting back to the topic of best having a horizontal cue for backspin -- i reckon that squirt acts for all off-center tip contacts, vertically up in the case of backspin -- hence if the cue iz horizontal the qball must go up and then down, ie bounce -- hence playerz advocating a horizontal cue must believe (knowingly or not) that bounce helps -- but this iz an over-simplification -- perhaps i am just stirring here.