PDA

View Full Version : Cueball contact point for maximum accuracy



DeadCrab
09-24-2007, 02:32 PM
I developed some problems delivering the cueball to it's intended target point, so I went back to doing some exercises to see if I could diagnose the problem.

I was doing the drill where you stroke an aligned striped ball the length of the table, in the hopes that it returns right back to your cue tip, without wobbling or spinning off course.

What I found, is that a soft-medium hit, my most accurate results were obtained with an above center hit that sets the cueball rolling without observable skidding. Once skid from a firm centerball hit, or draw, or "stun-follow" is introduced, I find it much harder to get the same accuracy as I do with the above center contact point.

Obviously, good players don't have a significant loss of accuracy in shots that involve skid. But does the "natural roll" shot from an above center hit produce the most accurate cue ball delivery for most players?

Bob_Jewett
09-24-2007, 02:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr> ... But does the "natural roll" shot from an above center hit produce the most accurate cue ball delivery for most players? <hr /></blockquote>
Because draw (or stun) "multiplies" the side spin on the ball, any unintended side with a draw shot will be far more noticeable than with a follow shot. Ron Shepard developed a fan-like diagram that I copied in one of my articles that shows this.

The use of draw to multiply the effect of side is a well-known technique. It multiplies unintended side as well as it multiplies intended side.

dr_dave
09-24-2007, 02:55 PM
I think the main reasons for this are:

- it is easy for some people to hit the CB's centerline when the cue tip is closer to the top of the ball where the top of the tip is more closely visually aligned with the top of the ball.

- the cue can be closer to level (not elevated) with a follow shot as compared to a draw shot with the same cue clearance above the rail. This will result in less swerve when the CB is hit slightly off center.

- when the CB is hit slightly off center, the effective squirt (the net effect of squirt and swerve) can be less with a follow shot vs. a draw shot (see my October '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/oct07.pdf)).

- also, as Bob pointed out, the slowing drag effect of a draw shot increases the effect of the sidespin off the rail. Both follow and draw shots will have the same amount of sidespin (for the same amount of offset from the vertical centerline); but with a draw shot, the CB will be moving slower at the rail causing the sidespin to alter the rebound angle more.

FYI, some of this is described and illustrated in my October '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/oct07.pdf). I will also be writing a follow-up article about this same question soon, so I'm really looking forward to seeing comments from others on this topic.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>
I developed some problems delivering the cueball to it's intended target point, so I went back to doing some exercises to see if I could diagnose the problem.

I was doing the drill where you stroke an aligned striped ball the length of the table, in the hopes that it returns right back to your cue tip, without wobbling or spinning off course.

What I found, is that a soft-medium hit, my most accurate results were obtained with an above center hit that sets the cueball rolling without observable skidding. Once skid from a firm centerball hit, or draw, or "stun-follow" is introduced, I find it much harder to get the same accuracy as I do with the above center contact point.

Obviously, good players don't have a significant loss of accuracy in shots that involve skid. But does the "natural roll" shot from an above center hit produce the most accurate cue ball delivery for most players? <hr /></blockquote>

randyg
09-24-2007, 03:48 PM
IMO,Yes.....SPF=randyg

okinawa77
09-24-2007, 04:26 PM
IMO using a little below center is better. The reason I say this, is because the cue ball will glance off the object ball at more of an ideal angle. Thus making cue ball positioning for the next shot more consistent. Or if you are adventurous, for caroming of the 9 ball into a pocket.

I think what Bob says about using draw is true. Flaws in your stroke are much more noticeable when using draw, rather than follow.

But consider this....if you have the back end of your cue elevated, when you strike above center using a good follow through stroke, you are effectively shooting a draw shot. That is why, as Dave pointed out, having the cue as level as possible has a factor on the delivery/execution of the stroke.

Interestingly, you mentioned skidding....when your striped ball hits the rail, pay close attention to the spin as the ball bounces off the rail. Try hitting the ball harder with follow and/or draw.

A trick shot artist, Dr. Cue Rossman, mentions this in a video series by the Monk for banking/kicking.

cushioncrawler
09-24-2007, 05:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>I developed some problems delivering the cueball to it's intended target point... I was doing the drill where you stroke an aligned striped ball the length of the table, in the hopes that it returns right back to your cue tip, without wobbling or spinning off course.... my most accurate results were obtained with an above center hit that sets the cueball rolling without observable skidding. Once skid from a firm centerball hit, or draw, or "stun-follow" is introduced, I find it much harder to get the same accuracy as I do with the above center contact point. Obviously, good players don't have a significant loss of accuracy in shots that involve skid. But does the "natural roll" shot from an above center hit produce the most accurate cue ball delivery for most players?<hr /></blockquote>DeadCrab -- No -- I can be really accurat (or sometimes a little off) when hitting high or center or low.

But when i say accurat i mainly mean that the qball hits the target on the far cushion (or at least within say 5mm of that point).

But what do u mean when u say "my most accurate results" ??? -- do u mean accuracy of hitting the target point on the cushion -- or accuracy of the return to your qtip -- or least wobble.

In my opinion the accuracy of hitting the cushion iz paramount. madMac.

DeadCrab
09-24-2007, 05:39 PM
***************
But what do u mean when u say "my most accurate results" ??? -- do u mean accuracy of hitting the target point on the cushion -- or accuracy of the return to your qtip -- or least wobble.

In my opinion the accuracy of hitting the cushion iz paramount.
***********************************************

I was referring to the accuracy of return to the cue tip.

It is seemingly difficult to measure how close you hit relative to the target on the far rail. But if aiming perpendicular to the far rail, and no visible skid or spin on the trip down, I would infer that I'm pretty much hitting the far-rail target with high-center, but not with anything involving draw or skid.

cushioncrawler
09-24-2007, 06:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr> ***************
But what do u mean when u say "my most accurate results" ??? -- do u mean accuracy of hitting the target point on the cushion -- or accuracy of the return to your qtip -- or least wobble. In my opinion the accuracy of hitting the cushion iz paramount.
***********************************************
I was referring to the accuracy of return to the cue tip.
It is seemingly difficult to measure how close you hit relative to the target on the far rail. But if aiming perpendicular to the far rail, and no visible skid or spin on the trip down, I would infer that I'm pretty much hitting the far-rail target with high-center, but not with anything involving draw or skid.<hr /></blockquote>Me, myself, i make a mark on the far cushion and measure from the side cushion so that my mark at the near end iz parallel (12' table here). I like the striped ball to go upndown accurately without any wobble, for all central hits (vertical center here), but this iz allmost impossible for a forcefull shot (and i have wasted many hours trying).

I say "wasted", koz i remember the video of Steve Davis when a young world snooker champ, doing an exhibition, he hit the qball upndown accurately enuff, but then tryd it with deep skrew, he hit the mark, but hiz jaw dropped when he saw hiz qball kum back about 2' left of its starting point. It woz a wonder that they didnt edit that shot out.

Why iz hitting higher more accurate. I would start off by saying that any and all softish shots shood be super accurate in every way, whether hit low or central or high. If they aint, then the player probably haz big troubles.

But, hitting forcefully iz different, it iz allmost impossible to be accurate in every way. So, best to make sure that u can at least hit the target on the cushion.

But if a high contact iz best (rarely i reckon, center or below center iz more accurate for most) then this might be koz for some playerz the perceived "aim of a cue" changes when it iz jacked down.

But the hitting upndown test iz second-rate, i only do it koz it iz simple and quick. After sorting out az much az i can with the upndownz, i then try potting a ball dead straight into a pocket, and following throo dead straight or skrewing back dead straight, now thats a real test (not a faux-test), but it takes more time and trouble. I can have my best day in months with the upndown, and then go hopelessly with the real test. madMac.

randyg
09-25-2007, 06:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote okinawa77:</font><hr> IMO using a little below center is better. The reason I say this, is because the cue ball will glance off the object ball at more of an ideal angle. Thus making cue ball positioning for the next shot more consistent. Or if you are adventurous, for caroming of the 9 ball into a pocket.

I think what Bob says about using draw is true. Flaws in your stroke are much more noticeable when using draw, rather than follow.

But consider this....if you have the back end of your cue elevated, when you strike above center using a good follow through stroke, you are effectively shooting a draw shot. That is why, as Dave pointed out, having the cue as level as possible has a factor on the delivery/execution of the stroke.

Interestingly, you mentioned skidding....when your striped ball hits the rail, pay close attention to the spin as the ball bounces off the rail. Try hitting the ball harder with follow and/or draw.

A trick shot artist, Dr. Cue Rossman, mentions this in a video series by the Monk for banking/kicking. <hr /></blockquote>

More ideal than 90 degrees?????randyg

dr_dave
09-25-2007, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>But the hitting upndown test iz second-rate, i only do it koz it iz simple and quick. After sorting out az much az i can with the upndownz, i then try potting a ball dead straight into a pocket, and following throo dead straight or skrewing back dead straight, now thats a real test (not a faux-test), but it takes more time and trouble. I can have my best day in months with the upndown, and then go hopelessly with the real test. madMac. <hr /></blockquote>Mac and others,

FYI, I describe a detailed drill like this, with a method for evaluation, in my June '06 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/june06.pdf). I also have a quick reference sheet (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/dr_dave_draw_drill.pdf) available with illustrations and a scoring/evaluation sheet. Feel free to use it yourself or with students.

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
09-25-2007, 10:39 AM
I jsut gotta ask. Please dont take this as an attack, but more of a legitimate question.

Are you a Pool instructor, now? It seems like you morphed from showing what balls do on high speed video, to giving advice on different aspects of the game and it's techniques.

Have you successfully worked with any Poolplayers above giving cursory tips?

What studies have you done to achive the skills/knowledge that you are giving advice on?


Eric

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>But the hitting upndown test iz second-rate, i only do it koz it iz simple and quick. After sorting out az much az i can with the upndownz, i then try potting a ball dead straight into a pocket, and following throo dead straight or skrewing back dead straight, now thats a real test (not a faux-test), but it takes more time and trouble. I can have my best day in months with the upndown, and then go hopelessly with the real test. madMac. <hr /></blockquote>Mac and others,

FYI, I describe a detailed drill like this, with a method for evaluation, in my June '06 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/june06.pdf). I also have a quick reference sheet (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/dr_dave_draw_drill.pdf) available with illustrations and a scoring/evaluation sheet. Feel free to use it yourself or with students.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

okinawa77
09-25-2007, 11:10 AM
randyg,

To answer your question....
Using top will cause the cue ball to bend, and not track at 90 degrees. A little bottom will counter that effect.

cushioncrawler
09-25-2007, 04:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>But the hitting upndown test iz second-rate, i only do it koz it iz simple and quick. After sorting out az much az i can with the upndownz, i then try potting a ball dead straight into a pocket, and following throo dead straight or skrewing back dead straight, now thats a real test (not a faux-test), but it takes more time and trouble. I can have my best day in months with the upndown, and then go hopelessly with the real test...<hr /></blockquote>Mac and others, FYI, I describe a detailed drill like this, with a method for evaluation, in my...June '06 article... I also have a... quick reference sheet available with illustrations and a scoring/evaluation sheet. Feel free to use it yourself or with students....<hr /></blockquote>Dr Dave -- thanks for that stuff. When checking-out a team-mate's stroke problems, i have him/her hit the qball upndown the left'side of the table, and then up'n'down the right'hand'side, koz the krap lighting on most 12' tables givz a false perception of the center of the qball. If u naturally hit (contact) the qball left'of'center (like i do), u might stroke ok up'n'down on the left'side of the table (like i do), with the krap-lighting kumming from the right, but up'n'down the right'hand'side iz bad newz (with the krap-lighting from the left magnyfying my troublez). Dont know whether bad lighting is an issue for 9' pool tables. madMac.

dr_dave
09-25-2007, 05:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> I jsut gotta ask. Please dont take this as an attack, but more of a legitimate question.
Are you a Pool instructor, now?<hr /></blockquote>I have given lessons before. Starting this fall, I will also be regularly teaching a multi-week course on pool and billiards fundamentals, offered through the city of Fort Collins. I will be doing this with Dave Gross, a top regional player. I am also a monthly instructional columnist for Billiards Digest magazine, and have been since 2004. I also wrote a book ("The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards") on how to play pool. I also often communicate with many pool instructors across the country. I also play a fair amount and often discuss the game with others. I also provide a wealth of instructional resources on my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>It seems like you morphed from showing what balls do on high speed video, to giving advice on different aspects of the game and it's techniques.<hr /></blockquote>Many people focus on my high-speed videos and technical analyses, but my book, articles, and website also include lots of instructional information.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>Have you successfully worked with any Poolplayers above giving cursory tips?<hr /></blockquote>Yes.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>What studies have you done to achive the skills/knowledge that you are giving advice on?<hr /></blockquote>I have read almost every book and article ever written about billiards instruction. I did significant research during the writing of my book. I've communicated a fair amount with several top instructors around the country. I have a table at my house and play fairly often (although, not enough). Also, see my answers above.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Did you think any of the instructional advice or resources I have provided is misleading? If so, please let me know about your specific concerns or points of disagreement.

randyg
09-26-2007, 06:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote okinawa77:</font><hr> randyg,

To answer your question....
Using top will cause the cue ball to bend, and not track at 90 degrees. A little bottom will counter that effect. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree. Top &amp; bottom spin could move the cueball off the Tangent Line. When two Spheres collide they part at 90 degrees and then top &amp; bottom may have an effect. How long the ball stays on the Tangent Line is up to us. It's always 90 degrees to start with even if it's minimal.

IMO, that's why I think a stop shot is the foundation for cueball control.......SPF=randyg

Eric.
09-26-2007, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Regards,
Dave

PS: Did you think any of the instructional advice or resources I have provided is misleading? If so, please let me know about your specific concerns or points of disagreement. <hr /></blockquote>

I wouldn't say misleading but there can be instances where theory vs. actual proof through experience, can be significantly different in the real world.

Here's one of your theories that may not be completely accurate:

a "peace sign" is a good way to determine what angle a rolling ball will take.

In reality, the action of the CB is not so absolute. You have a few factors that can drastically alter the way the CB reacts off the OB i.e. speed and the amount of time the CB spends on the tangent line before the forward spin takes over.


Eric

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 10:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Did you think any of the instructional advice or resources I have provided is misleading? If so, please let me know about your specific concerns or points of disagreement.<hr /></blockquote>
I wouldn't say misleading but there can be instances where theory vs. actual proof through experience, can be significantly different in the real world.

Here's one of your theories that may not be completely accurate:

a "peace sign" is a good way to determine what angle a rolling ball will take.

In reality, the action of the CB is not so absolute. You have a few factors that can drastically alter the way the CB reacts off the OB i.e. speed and the amount of time the CB spends on the tangent line before the forward spin takes over.<hr /></blockquote>The 30-degree-rule peace-sign technique is one "theory" I am very happy to defend.

First of all, your "peace sign" must be well calibrated. I have a template (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30-degree-rule_angle_templates.pdf) that people can use to help with this. Secondly, as you point out, you must be aware of the effects of speed. My March '05 instructional article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/march05.pdf) illustrates and describes these effects quite well. Also, my June '05 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/june05.pdf) shows how to account for speed effects with the peace-sign technique. These and other issues and effects and principles are summarized in my 30-degree-rule and peace-sign technique document (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30_degree_rule_summary.pdf). Also, I have 12 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) that address all of the intricacies of and uses for both the 90-degree and 30degree rules. There is also some good information under the 30-degree-rule and 90-degree-rule headings in the thread summary section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html).

FYI, I have convenient access to all these and other teaching and learning resources in the Instructor and Student Resources section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/index.html).

Peace,
Dave

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 10:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>the cue can be closer to level (not elevated) with a follow shot as compared to a draw shot with the same cue clearance above the rail. This will result in less swerve when the CB is hit slightly off center.<hr /></blockquote>Also, as pointed out in a previous thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=257319&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1), a draw shot, even with the same cue elevation, will have a larger swerve angle than a follow shot.

Eric.
09-26-2007, 11:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Did you think any of the instructional advice or resources I have provided is misleading? If so, please let me know about your specific concerns or points of disagreement.<hr /></blockquote>
I wouldn't say misleading but there can be instances where theory vs. actual proof through experience, can be significantly different in the real world.

Here's one of your theories that may not be completely accurate:

a "peace sign" is a good way to determine what angle a rolling ball will take.

In reality, the action of the CB is not so absolute. You have a few factors that can drastically alter the way the CB reacts off the OB i.e. speed and the amount of time the CB spends on the tangent line before the forward spin takes over.<hr /></blockquote>The 30-degree-rule peace-sign technique is one "theory" I am very happy to defend.

First of all, your "peace sign" must be well calibrated. I have a template (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30-degree-rule_angle_templates.pdf) that people can use to help with this. Secondly, as you point out, you must be aware of the effects of speed. My March '05 instructional article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/march05.pdf) illustrates and describes these effects quite well. Also, my June '05 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/june05.pdf) shows how to account for speed effects with the peace-sign technique. These and other issues and effects and principles are summarized in my 30-degree-rule and peace-sign technique document (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30_degree_rule_summary.pdf). Also, I have 12 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) that address all of the intricacies of and uses for both the 90-degree and 30degree rules. There is also some good information under the 30-degree-rule and 90-degree-rule headings in the thread summary section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html).

FYI, I have convenient access to all these and other teaching and learning resources in the Instructor and Student Resources section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/index.html).

Peace,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

What you said adds validity to my point.

It's misleading to say that once you have a "calibrated peace sign", then that is all you need to know about the CB's path off the OB. It's very misleading. The 30 degree angle or the goofy "calibrated peace sign" can only be used in SOME instances, not every instance.

Another point:

You pontificated about the 30 deg peace sign thing in an article in Apr. '04 THEN made the very important addendum that, basically, you left a lot of info out of your article in a follow up article date MArch of '05. Why did you wait a year to add that very important piece of info to your original article?

To me, it's like telling someone to look left before crossing the street, but not telling them it's a two way street...


Eric

bsmutz
09-26-2007, 12:19 PM
Yeah, a ton of people have died as a result of Dave's teachings... Give it a rest, Eric.

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Did you think any of the instructional advice or resources I have provided is misleading? If so, please let me know about your specific concerns or points of disagreement.<hr /></blockquote>
I wouldn't say misleading but there can be instances where theory vs. actual proof through experience, can be significantly different in the real world.

Here's one of your theories that may not be completely accurate:

a "peace sign" is a good way to determine what angle a rolling ball will take.

In reality, the action of the CB is not so absolute. You have a few factors that can drastically alter the way the CB reacts off the OB i.e. speed and the amount of time the CB spends on the tangent line before the forward spin takes over.<hr /></blockquote>The 30-degree-rule peace-sign technique is one "theory" I am very happy to defend.

First of all, your "peace sign" must be well calibrated. I have a template (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30-degree-rule_angle_templates.pdf) that people can use to help with this. Secondly, as you point out, you must be aware of the effects of speed. My March '05 instructional article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/march05.pdf) illustrates and describes these effects quite well. Also, my June '05 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/june05.pdf) shows how to account for speed effects with the peace-sign technique. These and other issues and effects and principles are summarized in my 30-degree-rule and peace-sign technique document (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30_degree_rule_summary.pdf). Also, I have 12 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) that address all of the intricacies of and uses for both the 90-degree and 30degree rules. There is also some good information under the 30-degree-rule and 90-degree-rule headings in the thread summary section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html).

FYI, I have convenient access to all these and other teaching and learning resources in the Instructor and Student Resources section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/index.html).

Peace,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>What you said adds validity to my point.

It's misleading to say that once you have a "calibrated peace sign", then that is all you need to know about the CB's path off the OB. It's very misleading. The 30 degree angle or the goofy "calibrated peace sign" can only be used in SOME instances, not every instance.<hr /></blockquote>The peace-sign technique can actually be used for any shot where the cue ball develops complete roll before hitting the object ball, provided you know how to adjust the angle slightly with ball-hit fraction and shift the hand down the tangent line to adjust for speed (per the template (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30-degree-rule_angle_templates.pdf) and summary sheet (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30_degree_rule_summary.pdf) on the website). Admittedly, these "adjustments" require practice and "feel," but doesn't everything?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>Another point:

You pontificated about the 30 deg peace sign thing in an article in Apr. '04 THEN made the very important addendum that, basically, you left a lot of info out of your article in a follow up article date MArch of '05. Why did you wait a year to add that very important piece of info to your original article?

To me, it's like telling someone to look left before crossing the street, but not telling them it's a two way street...<hr /></blockquote>It took me 12 articles to cover to my satisfaction all of the intricacies and uses of the 90-degree and 30-degree rules. I couldn't possibly have mentioned everything in the first article. Also, I didn't come up with the peace-sign-shift-along-the-tangent-line visualization technique until near the end of my series. I'm sure I mentioned and illustrated the speed effects several times throughout the series (and I have online video demonstrations that explain and show these effects).

Regards,
Dave

PS: Based on your remarks and questions, it seems to me that you haven't read my 12 articles, looked at my resources, and viewed my video demonstrations. I think if you look at all of this stuff with an open mind, you might see some value in the principles and techniques. If I am mistaken, then we just disagree in the value of the material. That's your right.

wolfdancer
09-26-2007, 12:40 PM
I think Dr. Dave puts out the best info that he can, after doing some research and testing first. He's also a Graduate of Cue-Tech school, I believe....and I'm sure he picked up a few tricks down there. It's a fine line though to disseminate info, and not appear to be THE authority about that info. I think he does an admirable job doing that. I read his stuff as someone sharing info, as opposed to say RandyG whom I would read as instructor/pupil dialog.
Most posters here are experienced pool players, and can discern between what works for them, and what might not. In most cases, Dr. Dave is just offering up some proof, or validation, of something I might have learned through trial and error...mostly error.
If he does put out something very questionable, and usually that is just phrasing, or an interpretation problem....that is pointed out by either Fred Agnir, or Bob Jewett....protecting myself and other pool neophytes from being mislead....

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 01:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think Dr. Dave puts out the best info that he can, after doing some research and testing first. He's also a Graduate of Cue-Tech school, I believe....and I'm sure he picked up a few tricks down there. It's a fine line though to disseminate info, and not appear to be THE authority about that info. I think he does an admirable job doing that. I read his stuff as someone sharing info, as opposed to say RandyG whom I would read as instructor/pupil dialog.
Most posters here are experienced pool players, and can discern between what works for them, and what might not. In most cases, Dr. Dave is just offering up some proof, or validation, of something I might have learned through trial and error...mostly error.
If he does put out something very questionable, and usually that is just phrasing, or an interpretation problem....that is pointed out by either Fred Agnir, or Bob Jewett....protecting myself and other pool neophytes from being mislead....<hr /></blockquote>Wolfie,

Excellent post ... well thought out and well written! I also think it is a good representation of the truth.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 01:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Yeah, a ton of people have died as a result of Dave's teachings... Give it a rest, Eric. <hr /></blockquote>I don't know of any deaths resulting from my teachings; but if you are not careful with where you point your peace-sign fingers, eye damage is a distinct possibility. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Thanks,
Dave

wolfdancer
09-26-2007, 01:11 PM
The peace sign idea is just a nice ballpark, "rule of thumb", and since there is a margin for error for most shots, it works pretty good. I use Hal Houle's half-ball hit as the reference point for my aiming system, and adjust from there.
If Dr. Dave was giving testimony as an expert in this field, we might demand he produce some bona fides....but PhD aside, I take him as just a knowledgeable player, willing to share.....

Eric.
09-26-2007, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Yeah, a ton of people have died as a result of Dave's teachings... Give it a rest, Eric. <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for adding to the topic, Mutz. Now, go play in traffic.


Eric

Eric.
09-26-2007, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> It took me 12 articles to cover to my satisfaction all of the intricacies and uses of the 90-degree and 30-degree rules. I couldn't possibly have mentioned everything in the first article. Also, I didn't come up with the peace-sign-shift-along-the-tangent-line visualization technique until near the end of my series. I'm sure I mentioned and illustrated the speed effects several times throughout the series (and I have online video demonstrations that explain and show these effects).

Regards,
Dave

PS: Based on your remarks and questions, it seems to me that you haven't read my 12 articles, looked at my resources, and viewed my video demonstrations. I think if you look at all of this stuff with an open mind, you might see some value in the principles and techniques. If I am mistaken, then we just disagree in the value of the material. That's your right. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry to put you on the defensive, Dave.

I haven't looked at all of your material. I've seen and read some i.e. the high speed videos but truth be told, I don't feel comfortable with your positioning of yourself as some kind of authority on Pool techniques. I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but that is the impression you give off.


Eric

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 02:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> It took me 12 articles to cover to my satisfaction all of the intricacies and uses of the 90-degree and 30-degree rules. I couldn't possibly have mentioned everything in the first article. Also, I didn't come up with the peace-sign-shift-along-the-tangent-line visualization technique until near the end of my series. I'm sure I mentioned and illustrated the speed effects several times throughout the series (and I have online video demonstrations that explain and show these effects).

Regards,
Dave

PS: Based on your remarks and questions, it seems to me that you haven't read my 12 articles, looked at my resources, and viewed my video demonstrations. I think if you look at all of this stuff with an open mind, you might see some value in the principles and techniques. If I am mistaken, then we just disagree in the value of the material. That's your right. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry to put you on the defensive, Dave.<hr /></blockquote>You are right. I was on the defensive; but I think it was appropriate, because you seemed to be on the "offensive."

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>I haven't looked at all of your material. I've seen and read some i.e. the high speed videos<hr /></blockquote>Thank you for admitting this. I respect your honesty.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>but truth be told, I don't feel comfortable with your positioning of yourself as some kind of authority on Pool techniques. I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but that is the impression you give off.<hr /></blockquote>If you read my entire book, view both of my DVDs, read all of my instructional articles, peruse my entire website (including all of the instructional resources), read all of my past postings on the CCB, and attend one of my pool seminars or classes, and you still think it is inappropriate for me to post instructional advice, I would be happy to attempt to address your concerns again.

Respectfully,
Dave

Eric.
09-26-2007, 04:18 PM
I don't have to read every single piece you've put out to form an opinion. In fact, you've given all of us the benefit of reading your posts, over the last 3 years. That's plenty of insight.

Again, you wanted an example, I gave you one. Why would you wait a year to write part II of your "30 degree rule thing"? You left out important info in your first article, either due to an over sight, or lack of knowledge, then write part II a year later?

I'm not telling you to stop teaching or anything. That's not my place.

I'm just saying that some of your teaching and pontifications don't seem to carry that much weight. IMO.


Eric

cushioncrawler
09-26-2007, 05:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>the cue can be closer to level (not elevated) with a follow shot as compared to a draw shot with the same cue clearance above the rail. This will result in less swerve when the CB is hit slightly off center.<hr /></blockquote>Also, as pointed out in a... previous thread..., a draw shot, even with the same cue elevation, will have a larger swerve angle than a follow shot.<hr /></blockquote>Dr Dave -- Dont forget that most of this (good advice) referz to a low-squirt cue. Some playerz would go better with a hi-squirt cue (ie a stiffy) -- koz here (depending on tip shape) any swerv will tend to cancel the (unintentional) squirt -- at some range (and force) the rezult will be perfikt. The "at some range" for a low-squirt cue will uzually be very short (ie qball and OB close together), ie not yor uzual typical (or favorit) range.

The other day i went into town and spent over 1hr testing 6 of my cues (all that i had in the car at the time). I had 4 Dufferin shafts (11.5mm flattish tip, 11.25mm flattish tip, 10mm medium-stiff, 10mm flexy) and 4 butts (17oz to 21oz), which gave 16 possible combinationz. And a 9.5mm flexy Rex Williams cue (20oz). And a short flexy 9mm (17oz).

I did 2 set tests with each -- one woz a straight skrew-back, marking the distance(s) -- the other woz a very soft shot but trying for max sidespin, to get a baby-cannon off one cushion. Then, armed with this info, i selected a cue (it woz a dufferin shaft with a dufferin butt) to uze in my league match that night (at the Shell Club aktually). I ended up winning eezyly (English billiardz here), making my highest score for a match (75 minutes here).

But which cue combination did i chooze?? It woz the one that performed worst in both tests. Why?? Koz i wanted a cue that gave a dependable rezult. If i wanted to set a record for skrewing i would have picked a different cue. If i wanted to amaze my opponent with spin off a cushion i would have reeched for another cue.

But i wanted a cue that "dumbed down" my natural errors -- so i picked the 11.5mm shaft and the 21oz butt, heavy and stiff, lovely. U havta really work to get much skrew, and spin, but at least u know where the qball (and OB) are going to go, and it hits dead straight, lovely. madMac.

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 09:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>I'm just saying that some of your teaching and pontifications don't seem to carry that much weight. IMO.<hr /></blockquote>You obviously feel strongly about this.

I think only time will tell.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
09-26-2007, 09:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>the cue can be closer to level (not elevated) with a follow shot as compared to a draw shot with the same cue clearance above the rail. This will result in less swerve when the CB is hit slightly off center.<hr /></blockquote>Also, as pointed out in a... previous thread..., a draw shot, even with the same cue elevation, will have a larger swerve angle than a follow shot.<hr /></blockquote>Dr Dave -- Dont forget that most of this (good advice) referz to a low-squirt cue. Some playerz would go better with a hi-squirt cue (ie a stiffy) -- koz here (depending on tip shape) any swerv will tend to cancel the (unintentional) squirt -- at some range (and force) the rezult will be perfikt. The "at some range" for a low-squirt cue will uzually be very short (ie qball and OB close together), ie not yor uzual typical (or favorit) range.<hr /></blockquote>Good point, Mac. Obviously a player's preferred cue elevation and average shot speed also come into play, not to mention cloth and ball conditions.

Regards,
Dave

randyg
09-27-2007, 06:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think Dr. Dave puts out the best info that he can, after doing some research and testing first. He's also a Graduate of Cue-Tech school, I believe....and I'm sure he picked up a few tricks down there. It's a fine line though to disseminate info, and not appear to be THE authority about that info. I think he does an admirable job doing that. I read his stuff as someone sharing info, as opposed to say RandyG whom I would read as instructor/pupil dialog.
Most posters here are experienced pool players, and can discern between what works for them, and what might not. In most cases, Dr. Dave is just offering up some proof, or validation, of something I might have learned through trial and error...mostly error.
If he does put out something very questionable, and usually that is just phrasing, or an interpretation problem....that is pointed out by either Fred Agnir, or Bob Jewett....protecting myself and other pool neophytes from being mislead....
<hr /></blockquote>

How true this is.

There are Authors, Players, Pretenders and Certified Instructors. It's our job to understand their background and what each are trying to give us.

Sure, Dr Dave is a student of ours, but no more than I'm a student of Dave. I read everyone's articles, what I do with them is my choice. I agree, Dave's done a great job.

"OPEN MINDS OPEN DOORS"....SPF=randyg

Eric.
09-27-2007, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr>
There are Authors, Players, Pretenders and Certified Instructors. It's our job to understand their background and what each are trying to give us.

"OPEN MINDS OPEN DOORS"....SPF=randyg <hr /></blockquote>

I agree. Actually, that premise is what motivated me to post to this thread.


Eric

Eric.
09-27-2007, 07:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>I'm just saying that some of your teaching and pontifications don't seem to carry that much weight. IMO.<hr /></blockquote>

You obviously feel strongly about this.

I think only time will tell.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure what more time will tell.

FWIW, Since day one, and over hte years here, you have commented on just about every single thread pertaining to any aspect of playing Pool. Every post of yours is tied to self promotion of your articles and website. Every answer to a Pool question is directed to your website. Hell, this board has become your personal pulpit.

In the end, this is only one man's opinion. Mine carries no more weight than anyone else's, so...carry on.


Eric

dr_dave
09-27-2007, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>FWIW, Since day one, and over hte years here, you have commented on just about every single thread pertaining to any aspect of playing Pool. Every post of yours is tied to self promotion of your articles and website. Every answer to a Pool question is directed to your website. Hell, this board has become your personal pulpit.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry you feel that way.

I plan to continue to share my information and resources. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

You can have the last word if you want. I'm done.

Dave

Eric.
09-27-2007, 08:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric:</font><hr>FWIW, Since day one, and over hte years here, you have commented on just about every single thread pertaining to any aspect of playing Pool. Every post of yours is tied to self promotion of your articles and website. Every answer to a Pool question is directed to your website. Hell, this board has become your personal pulpit.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry you feel that way.

I plan to continue to share my information and resources. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

You can have the last word if you want. I'm done.

Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave, like I said before, share away, but please don't insinuate that i ever suggested you shouldn't. This is a Pool forum and as such, is here for differing opinions. If you want to rename every thread of yours "Insights, Teachings and Pontifications of a Novice Poolplayer", that would be your right too. I actually did find your high speed vid clips enlightening; it was interesting to see what the balls do in slo mo.

What I do find ironic is your quote of
"You can have the last word if you want. I'm done.".

Is that not the very thing you are known to do?


Eric

wolfdancer
09-27-2007, 10:01 AM
It seems like you have exposed the good Doctor as being a shameless, self-promoting pool charlatan, besides being a novice pool player, and therefore poorly qualified to write about our sport.
Yet you found "something of value" on his website....and isn't that the real reason for him to take the time and energy to keep adding new info to that site...in the hopes that someone will find one "nugget" there?
Gerald Huber was a member here for awhile...I think he got tired of defending every sentence that he wrote, or anything from his book.
Dr. Dave apparently has a little thicker skin, and has survived a few personal attacks here before, and managed to
"stay the course".
What I see here when he starts a thread is a lively discussion amongst the players with a science/engineering background...and while it's all Greek to me, it sounds interesting....
Bottom line is what Randy wrote so well....he reads the article, and then decides if it's pertinent, or trash.
And if Randy has learned something from Dr. D.....that's good enough for me to keep trying to decipher what the heck are they talking about.

1Time
09-28-2007, 01:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
FWIW, Since day one, and over hte years here, you have commented on just about every single thread pertaining to any aspect of playing Pool. Every post of yours is tied to self promotion of your articles and website. Every answer to a Pool question is directed to your website. Hell, this board has become your personal pulpit.

<hr /></blockquote>

From this board’s rules:

“- Participants may not use the Forums to post or transmit advertisements or commercial solicitations of any kind.”

I know posting like dr_dave often does is not allowed at other forums I’ve frequented, but apparently this board’s moderator does not consider dr_dave’s posts or links to his site to be an advertisement or commercial solicitation.

Deeman3
09-28-2007, 07:19 AM
I think Dave had the best answer. If you don't like his posts, don't read them. I have been as hard on the techical people here as anyone but we are all perfectly free to ignore or post our responses when we disagree. It seems this forum has too few participants to chase any away even if you don't agree with them at times.

I have been frustrated at being referenced to a site on occasion but, of course, I can then click or not click, I think that is the point of freedom, to me. Pool, unlike sonme acticvities, is such that you have to really search, after a while, for new information. I don't particularily care how I get it as long as it is freely available. While Dr. Dave's book is available, all of his information is freely available to everyone. I would not classify that as crass commercialism. Besides, on those few occasions we disagree, I like having access to the source and arguing it out. How many authors give you that opportunity?