PDA

View Full Version : New Question: How has a low squirt shaft helped...



Cornerman
12-01-2007, 07:51 AM
... YOUR game.

Several points should be discussed when talking about low squirt cues, and over the years, too many of these important points are glossed over or mentioned only in passing. And it's these that are more important than a linear discussion of low squirt.

Rather than the technical crowd trying to spoon feed the non-technical crowd on the merits.

How has it helped those who favor them?
How has it hurt?

Most of these discussion center around ball pocketing. Okay. Who needs a low squirt cue for ball pocketing? Those who have a tough time making any ball with english. Those who don't hit the center of the cueball. Those who have sighting problems at certain cue angles. To these points, I can say without a doubt that a low squirt cue has an advantage, and it showed with me through a year and half of using one exclusively.

Where does it hurt? The game is not only about ball pocketing. If it was, it would be reduced to bowling. Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve). It's an easy thing to say that it's just a matter of learning the cue, but it's not that simple. It's an idea of "does the overall shot make sense"? Personally, unless you're at a certain level (not just skill, but understanding combined with skill) of these type of shots, then maybe you might not have an idea of what this means. It's a bowling analogy, I think. With only the use of the human mind, it's easier, IMO to guess the final outcome of squerve since squirt and swerve work in opposite direction. That is, your aim point is closer to the actual target with a normal squirt cue for these shots. And most experienced players will do the blending thing with speed and angle. I find it easier to do this blending with a normal squirt cue. The point isn't about pocketing the ball, but hitting the right spot on the cueball/object ball so that your position is correct. And in my experience with low squirt cues, it punishes you more on the slow spin shots.


I'm not sure there's any good analogy in sports out there

I won't bother expounding because it doesn't translate on the screen. What I will say that with this idea, it makes more sense to me to discuss an optimum pivot point, not a low squirt cue. If you are a proponent of low squirt cues, then if you don't discuss the down side of low squirt cues, then you really don't understand it, IMO.

In short, it helps me in some ball pocketing, hurts in other ball pocketing, absolutely kills some slow position play.

Fred

Billy_Bob
12-01-2007, 10:14 AM
Well let's start at the beginning...

I first experimented with using english.

Then I noticed that I missed long shots when using english... Hummm??? On closer examination, I noticed the cue ball was not going where I was trying to send it!

Then I read all about this on the internet. I learned about squirt (cue ball deflection). Bad! This was going to take me forever to learn. The cue ball would be a little off at one diamond away, a little more at 2 diamonds, then progressively more the further away the shot. Too much to think about and calculate in my mind for each shot!

Then I learned about backhand english. GREAT! I had a way to use english and make the cue ball go to the same spot as a dead center hit. I had an easy method of aiming and using english and could get the cue ball to go where I wanted no matter what the distance from the cue ball to the object ball. Yeaaaa!

But problem... My pivot point was 10 inches back from the tip on my cue. When the cue ball was on or near a rail, I could not make a long enough bridge! Hummm...

Then I learned about low deflection cues and how the pivot point is much further back. Well I bought one and tested for the pivot point. I found that I could use my backhand as the pivot point and could use front hand english! Great!

So now when the cue ball is on or near a rail, no problem. I can use a short bridge, aim dead center, then move my front hand left/right for how much english I wanted, then shoot.

So now I had "steering"! Long shots, short shots, whatever. I could get the cue ball to go to where I was aiming while using english. I had a reliable method to do this.

Then of course there was the swerve problem and other problems associated with the use of english, however I felt these were minor as compared with the initial squirt problem. I knew I could easily learn this stuff with experience. And I have/am doing this.

So bottom line, I feel a low deflection cue and understanding squirt/pivot points has allowed me to greatly speed up the learning curve for playing while using english.

BUT!!! I also feel that using a regular cue with backhand english is just as good except for the situation where the cue ball is on or near a rail.

And I feel that you can use a regular cue without backhand english or knowing anything about this and with many many years of playing, "just learn" by instinct how to shoot a shot with english. And I feel that for an old timer who has learned this way, that it would be a mistake for them to switch to a low deflection cue. If it works, don't fix it!

And I know someone may buy a low deflection cue and not learn about squirt, pivot points, etc. Then I would imagine that the cue would be no better than any other if not being used to full advantage.

But for me being a beginner, my knowledge of squirt and pivot points along with my low deflection cue has solved a big problem...

MikeD
12-01-2007, 12:47 PM
I guess I have had the wrong idea all along... while I realize the affects of squirt and deflection are sometimes detrimental to accuracy, I didn't purchase a "low squirt/low deflection" cue for that purpose at all. I believe that the effects of squirt/deflection are relative to many factors: thinness/fullness of cut, speed of stroke, weight of cue, table conditions, and on and on.I purchased a "low squirt/deflection" cue upon discovering (after trying them out first) that, for me, the immediate and instant advantage was that I could accomplish MUCH more cueball SPIN with literally NO effort. That is, the cue allowed me to dramatically increase left/right,follow, draw, etc,etc while utilizing SOFT and MEDIUM shots, completely illiminating the feeling that ANY use of english required ANY adjustment in SPEED or STROKE. Result: MUCH more cueball CONTROL, MUCH better position play with VERY LITTLE effort (beside adjusting to the dramatic increase in spinning ability). And you don't even want to know about DRAW... the sky is the limit, WITHOUT SLAMMING. I use a 17 oz. Predator 2K, pro taper unilok Z2 shaft with an 11.5 mm medium-hard tip. I'll probably never go back to a "standard" cue.

pooltchr
12-01-2007, 01:35 PM
If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve

Cornerman
12-01-2007, 01:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve <hr /></blockquote>They market it as both.

Although I tend to agree with you Steve that a low squirt cue doesn't get more spin for the same given tip offset, there have been some technical proofs posted I believe that give some credibility to the claim.

Fred

dr_dave
12-01-2007, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>If you are a proponent of low squirt cues, then if you don't discuss the down side of low squirt cues, then you really don't understand it, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>Fred, you make some good points. I agree that low-squirt cues might not be good for everybody.

Here are what I consider some "down sides" of low-squirt cues:

- A "low-squirt" cue can be expensive.

- If somebody is used to compensating aim with a higher-squirt cue, it might be difficult to adjust to the lower-squirt cue.

- Some people might not like the "feel" or "sound" of a low-squirt cue.

- A low-squirt cue might not be as mechanically sound over long-term use (i.e., the shaft end is not as strong and tough).

- And as you point out, if someone hits lots of low-speed English shots, and he or she is used to a higher squirt helping to cancel some or all of the swerve, then he or she might have trouble adjusting to a low-squirt cue (where more swerve compensation would be required for these shots).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
12-01-2007, 02:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?<hr /></blockquote>They market it as both.

Although I tend to agree with you Steve that a low squirt cue doesn't get more spin for the same given tip offset, there have been some technical proofs posted I believe that give some credibility to the claim.<hr /></blockquote>Diagram 3 in my December '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf) provides a possible explanation for a small increase in spin for a low-squirt cue (with a given tip and offset), but the effect is tiny. The only thing I know of that could make a low-squirt cue provide significantly more spin is if it has a better quality tip that is shaped properly and well chalked, as compared to the tip on the cue to which it is being compared. There could also be some psychological reasons. If somebody thinks a cue is better, they might have more confidence using it and might use better stroke mechanics.

Regards,
Dave

Jal
12-01-2007, 03:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve <hr /></blockquote>They market it as both.

Although I tend to agree with you Steve that a low squirt cue doesn't get more spin for the same given tip offset, there have been some technical proofs posted I believe that give some credibility to the claim.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>It depends on just how low the low squirt shafts squirt. But given ballpark figures for this, the low squirt cues should add roughly 5% more to the spin/speed ratio at some given tip offset. This is based on the increase in effective tip offset, as opposed to the apparent tip offset. The effective offset is the offset of the line of force that develops between the tip and ball, and because of squirt, does not point exactly in the same direction as the cue.

You should be able to make up for this with a normal cue though by simply increasing your apparent offset. The normal shaft's miscue limit should, accordingly, be greater as well.

Jim

Paul_Mon
12-01-2007, 08:46 PM
Great topic Fred. How's the back?
<font color="orange"> </font color>

How has it helped those who favor them?

I pocket more balls because I donít miss as many shots compensating for squirt. I do not gain any more spin using a low squirt cue. I have more confidence in my low squirt cue and attempt to strike the cue ball farther from center than I would with a conventional cue. Therefore, in reality I do get more spin from my low squirt cue. Itís not a function of the cue as much as my comfort in using it. Iíve used a Predator shaft since 1996. I loved it the first time I used it and did NOT require any time to adjust to it. I made more balls immediately. Guess I was not that good at adjusting for squirt.

How has it hurt?

IMO, they lack feel and feedback. They donít sound correct and they feel stiff. Prior to using a 314 I had a Meucci and loved it. It felt like an extension of my arm, it made me smile when I hit with it. The sound and vibration is a personal preference but I still miss it today.

Billy_Bob
12-02-2007, 09:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>...The only thing I know of that could make a low-squirt cue provide significantly more spin is if it has a better quality tip that is shaped properly and well chalked, as compared to the tip on the cue to which it is being compared...<hr /></blockquote>

I was going to say the same thing!

Many "regular cues" have a nickel shaped tip and if the player does not shape it, it can become quarter shaped.

Predators come with a dime shaped tip. And it is a new tip in good condition. And may be made of a different material than the tip on the old cue. If Moori, then pig skin for example.

I was using a dime shaped Moori hard tip *before* buying my Predator, then when I bought my Predator, the first thing I did was cut off the tip and install a dime shaped Moori hard tip on it. I kept my old tip dime shaped and scuffed with a sandpaper shaper (so like new) and same with the tip on the Predator.

So same exact tip on old cue and new cue in same condition with same shape...

Now I am not a "robot" and I feel only a robot could really tell this, but it seems to me that so far as spin/draw, etc. goes, my old cue and tip played the same as my new predator cue.

I do notice a BIG difference if I go and play with a house cue which has a quarter shaped tip in bad (nasty lookling) condition, and after chalking well, you hold it up to the light and there are dark spots on the tip. This tip will not give me as much spin/draw, etc. And I can't hit as low on the cue ball.

dr_dave
12-02-2007, 01:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve <hr /></blockquote>They market it as both.

Although I tend to agree with you Steve that a low squirt cue doesn't get more spin for the same given tip offset, there have been some technical proofs posted I believe that give some credibility to the claim.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>It depends on just how low the low squirt shafts squirt. But given ballpark figures for this, the low squirt cues should add roughly 5% more to the spin/speed ratio at some given tip offset. This is based on the increase in effective tip offset, as opposed to the apparent tip offset. The effective offset is the offset of the line of force that develops between the tip and ball, and because of squirt, does not point exactly in the same direction as the cue.

You should be able to make up for this with a normal cue though by simply increasing your apparent offset. The normal shaft's miscue limit should, accordingly, be greater as well.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not so sure about your last sentence. The miscue limit might be more related to the actual tip offset instead of the effective tip offset. I would want to see experimental data to prove this one way or the other; but regardless, it is a small effect.

Regards,
Dave

cushioncrawler
12-02-2007, 06:58 PM
On a 12' by 6' table, playing english-billiardz -- a LSQ givz me eezyr soft screw-backs, without having to flirt with the misscue zone.

And, for very short-range screws, when i want right-hand-spin on the qball (my weakest shot on the table), i find that i can simply aim then uze back-hand-pivot (i karnt do this with a stiffy).

For soft short-range cannons (OB1 to cushion to OB2) i can get more side-spin on the qball (if needed) to land better on OB2.

For softish run-throo cannons, i can uze max side-spin to get more run-throo on the qball whilst "holding-up" OB1, to leev OB1 in good pozzy for the pot (or for the in-off) -- uken do this with any cue, but a LSQ givz more side-spin action. madMac.

Jal
12-02-2007, 11:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve <hr /></blockquote>They market it as both.

Although I tend to agree with you Steve that a low squirt cue doesn't get more spin for the same given tip offset, there have been some technical proofs posted I believe that give some credibility to the claim.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>It depends on just how low the low squirt shafts squirt. But given ballpark figures for this, the low squirt cues should add roughly 5% more to the spin/speed ratio at some given tip offset. This is based on the increase in effective tip offset, as opposed to the apparent tip offset. The effective offset is the offset of the line of force that develops between the tip and ball, and because of squirt, does not point exactly in the same direction as the cue.

You should be able to make up for this with a normal cue though by simply increasing your apparent offset. The normal shaft's miscue limit should, accordingly, be greater as well.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not so sure about your last sentence. The miscue limit might be more related to the actual tip offset instead of the effective tip offset. I would want to see experimental data to prove this one way or the other; but regardless, it is a small effect.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave, my feeling was that the early phase of the force buildup between tip/shaft and ball will be more or less in the squirt direction, ie, that it doesn't undergo a sweeping sort of action. If that is true, I would be surprised if the miscue limit, in terms of the actual contact point, wasn't correspondingly greater for a normal cue since the static coefficient (=Ft/Fn) would be the same for either type of cue at the same effective offset. In fact, I believe I may have gotten (stole) the idea from you, although I don't think you made any definite assertions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll conceed that I haven't attempted to put the premise concerning the non-sweeping force, or its falsification, on solid ground. Can you say any more about this?

Jim

jingle
12-03-2007, 08:42 AM
I have had very similar experience/results as what Fred described in the initial post. I used Predators for a few years and they did improve my play over my standard cue shaft, which at the time was a McDermott. Then, I ordered my first custom cue, a Coker, and decided to leave my Predator shafts in the case for a couple of weeks and give the standard shafts a try. I loved the feel and seemed to play just as well with the standard shafts. So, I decided to do some of my practice tests (Joe Tucker's 10-ball q-skill and an old P&amp;B 9-ball game) with each shaft and track the results. What I found was that I scored just a tad better with the standard shafts. What I realized was this:

1) I could make more "spectacular" shots with the Predator shafts.

2) Like Fred, slow shots with english were always hard to guage with a Predator

3) For some reason, when using the standard shaft my position play was much more consistent. (thus reducing the need for the "spectacvular shot")

4) FOR ME, the CB reaction after contacting the OB was much more predictable using the standard shaft. I don't know how this could differ, but it did. Using the standard shaft the cue ball always seemed to react just how I expected.

5) I can't go as far out on the edge of the CB using a low squirt shaft, it will miscue. I think that is probably because the low-squirt shafts don't have enough end mass to stay on/drive through the CB on extreme english shots.

So, I concluded that a standard shaft was probably better FOR ME. I have since changed cues to a Josey cutom and still prefer the standard Josey shafts. I have an OB-1 shaft that I have experimented with from time to time, but I always come to the same conclusion that the standard Josey shafts are a better overall fit for MY game.

dr_dave
12-03-2007, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>... the low squirt cues should add roughly 5% more to the spin/speed ratio at some given tip offset. This is based on the increase in effective tip offset, as opposed to the apparent tip offset. The effective offset is the offset of the line of force that develops between the tip and ball, and because of squirt, does not point exactly in the same direction as the cue.

You should be able to make up for this with a normal cue though by simply increasing your apparent offset. The normal shaft's miscue limit should, accordingly, be greater as well.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I'm not so sure about your last sentence. The miscue limit might be more related to the actual tip offset instead of the effective tip offset. I would want to see experimental data to prove this one way or the other; but regardless, it is a small effect.<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave, my feeling was that the early phase of the force buildup between tip/shaft and ball will be more or less in the squirt direction, ie, that it doesn't undergo a sweeping sort of action. If that is true, I would be surprised if the miscue limit, in terms of the actual contact point, wasn't correspondingly greater for a normal cue since the static coefficient (=Ft/Fn) would be the same for either type of cue at the same effective offset. In fact, I believe I may have gotten (stole) the idea from you, although I don't think you made any definite assertions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll conceed that I haven't attempted to put the premise concerning the non-sweeping force, or its falsification, on solid ground. Can you say any more about this?<hr /></blockquote>With a miscue, i don't think the force builds up very much. That's why I am unsure whether or not the "effective offset," due to squirt, has time to develop. Again, I would want to see experimental results (e.g, with high-speed video) to be sure. I'll add this to my "list."

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
12-03-2007, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> Where does it hurt? The game is not only about ball pocketing. If it was, it would be reduced to bowling. Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve). It's an easy thing to say that it's just a matter of learning the cue, but it's not that simple. It's an idea of "does the overall shot make sense"? Personally, unless you're at a certain level (not just skill, but understanding combined with skill) of these type of shots, then maybe you might not have an idea of what this means. It's a bowling analogy, I think. With only the use of the human mind, it's easier, IMO to guess the final outcome of squerve since squirt and swerve work in opposite direction. That is, your aim point is closer to the actual target with a normal squirt cue for these shots. And most experienced players will do the blending thing with speed and angle. I find it easier to do this blending with a normal squirt cue. The point isn't about pocketing the ball, but hitting the right spot on the cueball/object ball so that your position is correct. And in my experience with low squirt cues, it punishes you more on the slow spin shots.


Fred <hr /></blockquote>

This has been my experience. IMO, this is why I feel that low squirt cues are not "better" or "more accurate" than regular shafts. You still need to adjust to the different nuances of each shaft.


Eric

bsmutz
12-03-2007, 01:56 PM
I play with an OB-1 now after using a Sharpshooter shaft for a few years. I definitely like the low squirt aspect of the cues, but better stay out of this discussion as I am not an expert.

Eric.
12-03-2007, 02:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> I play with an OB-1 now after using a Sharpshooter shaft for a few years. I definitely like the low squirt aspect of the cues,
<font color="blue">Opinions always welcome, you'll never hear anyone dispute that. </font color>
but better stay out of this discussion as I am not an expert.
<font color="blue">same ol Smutz, still trollin, huh? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

If Mutz worked as hard as he trolls, he'd be the next Bill Gates.


Eric

dr_dave
12-03-2007, 03:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>... Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve) ... in my experience with low squirt cues, it punishes you more on the slow spin shots.<hr /></blockquote>What about faster shots with English, where the swerve effect is less. Would a high-squirt cue punish you on those shots?

Respectfully,
Dave

MrLucky
12-04-2007, 08:04 AM
I won an I-2 Shaft about 8 months ago and in a nutshell, it has been a huge factor in my game! I have far greater accuracy and am using very little power to achieve greater control ! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

MrLucky
12-04-2007, 08:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>If you are a proponent of low squirt cues, then if you don't discuss the down side of low squirt cues, then you really don't understand it, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>Fred, you make some good points. I agree that low-squirt cues might not be good for everybody.

Here are what I consider some "down sides" of low-squirt cues:

- A "low-squirt" cue can be expensive.

- If somebody is used to compensating aim with a higher-squirt cue, it might be difficult to adjust to the lower-squirt cue.

- Some people might not like the "feel" or "sound" of a low-squirt cue.

- A low-squirt cue might not be as mechanically sound over long-term use (i.e., the shaft end is not as strong and tough).

- And as you point out, if someone hits lots of low-speed English shots, and he or she is used to a higher squirt helping to cancel some or all of the swerve, then he or she might have trouble adjusting to a low-squirt cue (where more swerve compensation would be required for these shots).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green"> Dr Dave I love my shaft and it has helped tremendously but I have to concur on a couple of your points !

It did take awhile and a adjustment of or to my stroke for me to reap full benefit!
I am right now feeling / hearing a rattle in the upper third of the shaft at times /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Luckily (since money is tight) its a McDermott and my only expense for replacement will be $21 for shipping and handling </font color>

dr_dave
12-04-2007, 09:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>If you are a proponent of low squirt cues, then if you don't discuss the down side of low squirt cues, then you really don't understand it, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>Fred, you make some good points. I agree that low-squirt cues might not be good for everybody.

Here are what I consider some "down sides" of low-squirt cues:

- A "low-squirt" cue can be expensive.

- If somebody is used to compensating aim with a higher-squirt cue, it might be difficult to adjust to the lower-squirt cue.

- Some people might not like the "feel" or "sound" of a low-squirt cue.

- A low-squirt cue might not be as mechanically sound over long-term use (i.e., the shaft end is not as strong and tough).

- And as you point out, if someone hits lots of low-speed English shots, and he or she is used to a higher squirt helping to cancel some or all of the swerve, then he or she might have trouble adjusting to a low-squirt cue (where more swerve compensation would be required for these shots).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green"> Dr Dave I love my shaft and it has helped tremendously but I have to concur on a couple of your points !

It did take awhile and a adjustment of or to my stroke for me to reap full benefit!
I am right now feeling / hearing a rattle in the upper third of the shaft at times /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Luckily (since money is tight) its a McDermott and my only expense for replacement will be $21 for shipping and handling </font color><hr /></blockquote>Concerning adjusting to a low-squirt cue, I think it takes a lifetime to learn how to compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw on all types of shots, regardless of what type of cue you have. And after a lifetime of learning, you still won't be perfect.

Regards,
Dave

Deeman3
12-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Dave,

Perhaps you gys are right about all this and that low deflection shafts have changed the game a great deal. I guess i just don't get out enough anymore. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I do not see a pronounced improvement in the shotmaking skills at any level I observe in my limited dealings in the game.

My belief is that, once familiar and somewhat satisifed with the stick you are using, only variation from that cues performance will impact your game. Simple I know. I do believe confidence plays a much larger part in percentage of balls pocketed than any small changes in cue behavior and predictability becomes much more important than, for instance, offset in aiming.

As I said, I may be wrong but I don't think low deflection shafts have improved, in actual performance, shotmaking percentage in any large group of players.

Is there a method to measure this in a blind test? I know its easy to say, "I make more shots now with the new and improved laser dot shaft!" or "I can't see the difference." A shooting robot can only show amount of deflection. I don't suspect that players make lower percentages of shots with a low deflection cue, just that the experiences may be part of that normal gain of focus and confidence spending $300 on a piece of wood sometimes makes.

How do we test this? If the results do not show any improvement in actual performance, I won't tell anyone. Besides many people just love spending money on shafts anyway and will continue to do so.

Derek
12-04-2007, 10:45 AM
I don't notice much difference with mine. I think I need to experiment more though and see if there is an actual difference. My low-deflection shaft has a Sniper tip on it and my regular shaft has some water buffalo tip that has been unused so far. I'm feeling a lot better about my english shots these days and my stroke so I'll have to see if there is any discernible difference.

IMHO, any miss that occurs is my fault either due to a bad stroke, bad alignment/eye contact, or bad judgment of the conditions or layout of the table. I trust, and hope, that the equipment I'm using is adequate enough to perform my duties. I'm anal about my tips, so as long as they are in good shape I'm generally okay with the rest of the cue.

dr_dave
12-04-2007, 02:04 PM
Deeman,

As always, excellent post. I have several comments below.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Perhaps you gys are right about all this and that low deflection shafts have changed the game a great deal.<hr /></blockquote>I think that is an exaggeration. I certainly don't think low-squirt cues have "changed the game a great deal."
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>I guess i just don't get out enough anymore. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I do not see a pronounced improvement in the shotmaking skills at any level I observe in my limited dealings in the game.

My belief is that, once familiar and somewhat satisifed with the stick you are using, only variation from that cues performance will impact your game. Simple I know. I do believe confidence plays a much larger part in percentage of balls pocketed than any small changes in cue behavior and predictability becomes much more important than, for instance, offset in aiming.

As I said, I may be wrong but I don't think low deflection shafts have improved, in actual performance, shotmaking percentage in any large group of players.<hr /></blockquote>What about the group of novice to intermediate players that aren't so great at compensating for squirt (or who don't even know about squirt)? Don't you think a low-squirt cue might help them (assuming they use English periodically, intentionally or not, and assuming they don't know how to use BHE or FHE properly), especially on relatively firm shots (where swerve is not as big a factor)?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Is there a method to measure this in a blind test? I know its easy to say, "I make more shots now with the new and improved laser dot shaft!" or "I can't see the difference." A shooting robot can only show amount of deflection. I don't suspect that players make lower percentages of shots with a low deflection cue, just that the experiences may be part of that normal gain of focus and confidence spending $300 on a piece of wood sometimes makes.

How do we test this? If the results do not show any improvement in actual performance, I won't tell anyone. Besides many people just love spending money on shafts anyway and will continue to do so.<hr /></blockquote>
Again, great post.

Regards,
Dave

Deeman3
12-04-2007, 02:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr><hr /></blockquote>What about the group of novice to intermediate players that aren't so great at compensating for squirt (or who don't even know about squirt)? Don't you think a low-squirt cue might help them (assuming they use English periodically, intentionally or not, and assuming they don't know how to use BHE or FHE properly), especially on relatively firm shots (where swerve is not as big a factor)?


Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Dave,

You may have a point as less deflection might "accidently" help them. My guess is that these beginning to intermediate players, if they are not aware of swerve, for instance, may not be consistent enough to make any fine adjustments anyway. Therefore, just probability may be slightly in their favor with less swerve, deflection or whatever force is introduced. That being said, I think what you describe as intermediate players usually miss outside the target zone on most shots with any distance or great angle involved. Most have not developed the precision required nor the knowledge of how much cut a ball needs, for instance, to make the shot consistently over time. Will probablility help them make more ball, on average? Maybe yes, but I don't think they know why and that the incidence of an accidental make vs. a miss is important to them, they just made the shot without really knowing why. Again, I may be way off on my estimation of how often that occurs but my hunch is that it is much less frequently than we think and that, if they are not suficiently knowledgable to know why, it just has not benefited their long term learning experience that much.

So, you don't know if there is a test that would solve this? </font color>

dr_dave
12-04-2007, 02:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>What about the group of novice to intermediate players that aren't so great at compensating for squirt (or who don't even know about squirt)? Don't you think a low-squirt cue might help them (assuming they use English periodically, intentionally or not, and assuming they don't know how to use BHE or FHE properly), especially on relatively firm shots (where swerve is not as big a factor)?<hr /></blockquote><font color="blue"> Dave,

You may have a point as less deflection might "accidently" help them. My guess is that these beginning to intermediate players, if they are not aware of swerve, for instance, may not be consistent enough to make any fine adjustments anyway. Therefore, just probability may be slightly in their favor with less swerve, deflection or whatever force is introduced. That being said, I think what you describe as intermediate players usually miss outside the target zone on most shots with any distance or great angle involved. Most have not developed the precision required nor the knowledge of how much cut a ball needs, for instance, to make the shot consistently over time. Will probablility help them make more ball, on average? Maybe yes, but I don't think they know why and that the incidence of an accidental make vs. a miss is important to them, they just made the shot without really knowing why. Again, I may be way off on my estimation of how often that occurs but my hunch is that it is much less frequently than we think and that, if they are not suficiently knowledgable to know why, it just has not benefited their long term learning experience that much. </font color><hr /></blockquote>Well stated.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr><font color="blue">So, you don't know if there is a test that would solve this?</font color><hr /></blockquote>Nope. Too many variables and too much psychology.

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr
12-04-2007, 06:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Concerning adjusting to a low-squirt cue, I think it takes a lifetime to learn how to compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw on all types of shots, regardless of what type of cue you have. And after a lifetime of learning, you still won't be perfect.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave, I think you just summarized why I believe low squirt cues as a rule won't help anyone become a better player.
Steve

dr_dave
12-05-2007, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Concerning adjusting to a low-squirt cue, I think it takes a lifetime to learn how to compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw on all types of shots, regardless of what type of cue you have. And after a lifetime of learning, you still won't be perfect.<hr /></blockquote>Dave, I think you just summarized why I believe low squirt cues as a rule won't help anyone become a better player.<hr /></blockquote>I'm glad I helped summarize your belief. That will be $20. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
12-05-2007, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> ... Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve).<hr /></blockquote>

I may be misinterpreting the above comment and if so, I apologize, but slow shots with side english (which is what your comment suggests) are not dominated by swerve. In fact, side spin, in and of itself, does not induce swerve which only results when low english is combined with side english. (see Science of Pocket Billiards by Jack Koehler at page 76)

[ QUOTE ]
With only the use of the human mind, it's easier, IMO to guess the final outcome of squerve since squirt and swerve work in opposite direction.<hr /></blockquote>

Right...and I was just thinking about starting a thread on that very subject because it is one of the "finer points" that can only be learned by rote experimentation.

Throw is greatest on slow shots with a head on collision and decreases with speed and cut angle and yet, as you point out, squirt is lower at slow speeds and increases with harder shots and that throw and squirt affect the shot in opposite directions. WHEW!!

So, it is a real "art" to figure out just how much to adjust aim when using, say, left side english (thereby throwing the shot to the right (requiring an aim adjustmenbt to the right)...but possibly squirting the CB to the right requiring an aim adjustment to the LEFT).

Given that those variables change progressively as the pace of the shot increases or decreases, the interrelationship of those variables is among the most important...and most difficult to master in the game of pool.



[ QUOTE ]
If you are a proponent of low squirt cues, then if you don't discuss the down side of low squirt cues, then you really don't understand it, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>

Excellent point. There are two sides to all coins. And of course, the same advice holds true in any discussion of traditional shafts.
There is a similar thread on another forum...probably hundreds of them since this is an often debated subject...but the traditional shaft proponents often say that a champion can beat you with a broomstick...just like the one Monconi used to "play pool" with potatoes on his kitchen table as a kid.

Fine, but that does not suggest that we should all get tipss put on our broomsticks.

It CERTAINLY may exist, but I have not seen research that suggests that the inducement of spin varies with the stiffness of the shaft...all other things being equal. I would appreciate being pointed to any data on that subject.

Of course, at the end of the day, the point is to use whatever shaft feels and works best for the individual player. There is little help from the pros since significant percentages of them use one or the other of the two shaft types.

For MY style of play, I appreciate the advantages of squirt reduction and believe that the TIP and not the shaft is the primary variable in the inducement of spin under most circumstances.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
12-05-2007, 12:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If you think the Predator puts more spin on the cue ball, then that is all that matters. It's the right cue for you.
I find that I can get the same spin with any cue that has a decent tip on it.

Does Predator market their cues as putting more spin on the cue ball, or just less squirt when using english?

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with you Steve.

av84fun
12-05-2007, 12:52 PM
Billy_Bob..."I was using a dime shaped Moori hard tip *before* buying my Predator, then when I bought my Predator, the first thing I did was cut off the tip and install a dime shaped Moori hard tip on it. I kept my old tip dime shaped and scuffed with a sandpaper shaper (so like new) and same with the tip on the Predator."

Just curious. Why didn't you just reshape the original tip or have a cue tech do it? Doing so would require a slight amount of leather loss but not all that much.

A cue tech can give you any radius you want.

Regards,
Jim

Jager85
12-05-2007, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
What about the group of novice to intermediate players that aren't so great at compensating for squirt (or who don't even know about squirt)? Don't you think a low-squirt cue might help them (assuming they use English periodically, intentionally or not, and assuming they don't know how to use BHE or FHE properly), especially on relatively firm shots (where swerve is not as big a factor)?
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, and no. Here many are mainly looking at squirt and swerve, what about throw. Depending on the shot minimum squirt will maximize throw, and vice versa. So, in some cases it will help them, and in some cases it will hurt them.

All in all if a player wants to be real good at this game using english they have to be aware of the effects of squirt, swerve, throw (SIT &amp; CIT), and all of the other factors such as follow/draw or ball speed that effect these. From there they need to find a cue that they are confident with and stay consistent with the same cue/tip.

Jager

Billy_Bob
12-05-2007, 02:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>Just curious. Why didn't you just reshape the original tip or have a cue tech do it? <hr /></blockquote>

Because I was using a Moori hard pig skin tip before I bought my Predator and wanted to keep using the same exact tip. I've learned that different tips play differently, so want to alway use the same tip. And I feel this is the best tip for me. So same exact tip with same exact shape on new cue.

I have my own tip replacement and shaping tools, so not a big deal to switch tips or shape tips.

pooltchr
12-05-2007, 07:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Concerning adjusting to a low-squirt cue, I think it takes a lifetime to learn how to compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw on all types of shots, regardless of what type of cue you have. And after a lifetime of learning, you still won't be perfect.<hr /></blockquote>Dave, I think you just summarized why I believe low squirt cues as a rule won't help anyone become a better player.<hr /></blockquote>I'm glad I helped summarize your belief. That will be $20. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I'll knock off the $20 from your tuition when you take my class! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

av84fun
12-06-2007, 03:35 AM
Billy_Bob Gotcha. Thanks

av84fun
12-06-2007, 04:01 AM
Jager85 wrote..."Depending on the shot minimum squirt will maximize throw, and vice versa."

Would you briefly run the mechanics of that by me.

But let me tell you what I'm hung up on so that you can correct me.

To minimize squirt you need to minimize its causes which are side and force, so you need to use one or both:
1. Less side.

2. Less speed.

OK, if you use less side than you will get less throw (within the cut angle range where throw is a meaningful issue) all other things being equal.

Speed does not influence english induced throw but significantly affects throw.

So minimizing the side component of squirt...it seems to me, would also minimize english induced throw.

AS noted above, speed will increase squirt at a given degree of side. But all squirt does is deflect the CB path in the direction opposite the side of the ball where the side english is imparted. So, due to squirt, the CB will merely hit the OB at a different angle than it otherwise would.

Since squirt could as easily cause a thicker hit as a thinner one and since collision-induced throw varies with the cut angle, I don't see why squirt, in and of itself, would have any relation to throw.


THANKS!
Jim

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Concerning adjusting to a low-squirt cue, I think it takes a lifetime to learn how to compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw on all types of shots, regardless of what type of cue you have. And after a lifetime of learning, you still won't be perfect.<hr /></blockquote>Dave, I think you just summarized why I believe low squirt cues as a rule won't help anyone become a better player.<hr /></blockquote>I'm glad I helped summarize your belief. That will be $20. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I'll knock off the $20 from your tuition when you take my class! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the offer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Dave

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 10:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>if you use less side than you will get less throw (within the cut angle range where throw is a meaningful issue) all other things being equal.<hr /></blockquote>This isn't true in general (see my January '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/jan07.pdf) and other articles in my "throw" series).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>Speed does not influence english induced throw but significantly affects throw.<hr /></blockquote>English-induced throw is "throw" ... as is collision-induced "throw." These are not independent effects ... they are very much related (see my February '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/feb07.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
12-06-2007, 11:38 AM
I think another major "down side" of low squirt shafts is that they're all extremly light weight which can throw off the feel and balance of a cue and the way you're used to applying force and speed for a variety of shots with the exception of a Smartshaft, unless you're using a very light weight shaft initially. A good player who is used to a certain tempo and timing for his/her stroke could end up dogging a lot of normal shots and hitting harder ones halfway up the rail and not near a pocket. It's also easy to "flinch" it to produce unwanted spin or aim line when the pressure is on and the nerves are jumpy.

Cornerman
12-06-2007, 11:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> ... Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve).<hr /></blockquote>

I may be misinterpreting the above comment and if so, I apologize, but slow shots with side english (which is what your comment suggests) are not dominated by swerve. In fact, side spin, in and of itself, does not induce swerve which only results when low english is combined with side english. (see Science of Pocket Billiards by Jack Koehler at page 76)
<hr /></blockquote>I should have clarified that I'm talking about a normal slow shot with side spin with a normally seen amount of elevation. A "level cue" is virtually never seen in anyone's game except a small number of outstretched shots.

Fred

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 12:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> I think another major "down side" of low squirt shafts is that they're all extremly light weight which can throw off the feel and balance of a cue and the way you're used to applying force and speed for a variety of shots with the exception of a Smartshaft, unless you're using a very light weight shaft initially. A good player who is used to a certain tempo and timing for his/her stroke could end up dogging a lot of normal shots and hitting harder ones halfway up the rail and not near a pocket. It's also easy to "flinch" it to produce unwanted spin or aim line when the pressure is on and the nerves are jumpy. <hr /></blockquote>I would think this would be a very slight effect because only the last 6 inches or so of a low-squirt cue is made lighter, but thank you for pointing this out. Also, if this were a significant effect, it could probably be addressed with appropriate adjustments in joint and butt-end weighting.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
12-06-2007, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>if you use less side than you will get less throw (within the cut angle range where throw is a meaningful issue) all other things being equal.<hr /></blockquote>This isn't true in general (see my January '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/jan07.pdf) and other articles in my "throw" series).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>Speed does not influence english induced throw but significantly affects throw.<hr /></blockquote>English-induced throw is "throw" ... as is collision-induced "throw." These are not independent effects ... they are very much related (see my February '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/feb07.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Dave,
THANKS for your comments and I did review your article which..as always...was instructive.

But this dialog just points out the limitations of brief written communications i.e. trying to convey in a sentence, a concept that Dr. Dave wrote an article on! (-

Re; your first comment, yes CIT can be cancelled by the use of outside english but now let me split hairs with you. YES that cancellation can reduce the OBs deviation from its geometrically derived path to zero. In that case the "throw deviation" is zero but the FORCE known as "throw" is not only present but in fact is the REASON for the elimination of the path deviation.

I'm a pilot and can tell you that in a crosswind landing, the lontitudinal axis of the plane will "weathervane" into the wind thereby causing the ship's nose to be misaligned with the runway.

But, if I lower the upwind wing (to prevent downwind drift) and apply opposite rudder to crank the nose back in alignment with the runway, then I can land without undue harm to man or machine. The point being that while Force A can cancel the effects of Force B...the Forces are still very much there.

Therefore, referring to the word "throw" as a Force and not as a degree of deviation (i.e. "throw" was zero because of CIT) i.e./i.e The REASON that the deviation was canceled was because of the Force of "throw."

[ QUOTE ]
English-induced throw is "throw" ... as is collision-induced "throw." These are not independent effects ... they are very much related (see my February '07 article).<hr /></blockquote>

Again so many things can be seen and expressed in ways that seem contradictory but are not. For example, you say you see red paint. I say that I see yellow and magenta paint...AND WE ARE BOTH TELLING THE TRUTH! (-:

I agree that CIT and EIT are certainly "related" but disagree that they are not "independent effects" only because that phrase suggests a connotation of "independent forces" which they clearly are not..rather they are forces that interrelate.

But I guess this discussion points out that, while knowledge is power, it also risks paralysis by analysis. According to Byrne in "Advanced Techniques", as recently as 1981, Byrne says that when he dicussed the issue of throw effecing most cut shots, they looked at him "as though I didn't have both oars in the water."

My point Dave, is that when you apply greater amounts of side and therefore more RPMs, the OB will be thrown off its geometric path to a greater extent. SO, for the non-scientific amont us WHICH INCLUDES ME...what we need to know is that:

1. SOME amount of side will offset CIT and permit you to send an OB along its geometric path.
2. No side will permit CIT to cause a maximum path deviation based upon the cut angle and the condition of the balls.
3. Too much side will more than offset CIT causing an unwanted PB path deviation EXCEPT that;
4. Depending on the force of the shot, side will cause the CB to squirt off the line of aim thereby contacting the OB at a different CP at which point the forces of CIT and EIT will take effect from that different CP.

PLEASE correct me to the extent you see fit and I appreciate this dialog.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
12-06-2007, 01:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> ... Slow spin shots are dominated by swerve, and a low squirt cue magnifies this (high squerve/high effective swerve).<hr /></blockquote>

I may be misinterpreting the above comment and if so, I apologize, but slow shots with side english (which is what your comment suggests) are not dominated by swerve. In fact, side spin, in and of itself, does not induce swerve which only results when low english is combined with side english. (see Science of Pocket Billiards by Jack Koehler at page 76)
<hr /></blockquote>I should have clarified that I'm talking about a normal slow shot with side spin with a normally seen amount of elevation. A "level cue" is virtually never seen in anyone's game except a small number of outstretched shots.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Yes and no Fred. First, on the yes side, your statement is often true whenever center ball (on the vertical axis) is used and almost always true when draw is used. Not to deviate the thread but the albove is the reason why I have always objected to the draw shot advice of keeping the cue "as level as possible" when in fact at least a slight elevation is going to be present on almost all shots. Therefore, for the sake of consistency the advice should be to maintain a "slightly elevated" cue instead of "as level as possible".

But the aspect of your comment that I disagee with is the suggestion that the cue is level only on certain "outstretched" shots.

Actually, virtually any shot CAN be stroked with a level cue if above center cueing is used. The player might not WANT to use high cueing but COULD use it.

Regards,
Jim

Artemus
12-06-2007, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> I think another major "down side" of low squirt shafts is that they're all extremly light weight which can throw off the feel and balance of a cue and the way you're used to applying force and speed for a variety of shots with the exception of a Smartshaft, unless you're using a very light weight shaft initially. A good player who is used to a certain tempo and timing for his/her stroke could end up dogging a lot of normal shots and hitting harder ones halfway up the rail and not near a pocket. It's also easy to "flinch" it to produce unwanted spin or aim line when the pressure is on and the nerves are jumpy. <hr /></blockquote>I would think this would be a very slight effect because only the last 6 inches or so of a low-squirt cue is made lighter, but thank you for pointing this out. Also, if this were a significant effect, it could probably be addressed with appropriate adjustments in joint and butt-end weighting.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

That's not the case at all and you're overlooking a very important aspect of feel which can be significant. Have you personally done a weight check on an accurate scale between the low squirt shafts and a normally weighted shaft from a production company or custom cue maker? I'll bet not, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a broad generalized statement. It doesn't hold to your nature of exact preciseness in all of your calculations which surprises me

The Predators (Z and 314), OB-1, I.C.E. come in between 3 oz. and about 3.5 oz. That can be anywhere between .75 oz and 1.5 oz. LESS than other non-squirt shafts. Predator has tried addressing the issue by making their shafts 30" which adds 1" to the length of the cue, another factor which may throw a player off after using a 29" shaft his entire playing life.

You are correct in stating that the weight can be restored by adding a different weight bolt in the butt to get it to the original weight, but not all cues have weight bolts and can be adjusted. Even when they are available, it's not quite the same in feel. Low squirt shafts are after market, you can't make a joint change just for a shaft that may or may not work without a considerable amount of labor and money.

I think you come at most every problem in pool from a math, geometric, physics, and other scientific forces which can be proven on paper from a hypothetical robot doing everything perfectly according to the numbers. I'm coming at this from the "human" aspect with input from better players who have experimented with a large variety of cues and shafts. How do you quantify each and everyone's reaction time, backstroke/pause/forward stroke transition rate, stroke force and speed, rate of fast twitch and slow twitch nerve firings in the small muscles of the hand, wrist, and fingers? I certainly don't know, but it plays a major role and the human element can nevvvverrr be overlooked. Think in terms of flesh and blood and not always numbers and formulas. If flesh and blood wasn't involved, everybody would own a low squirt shaft, love them, and be playing lights out pool like a pro.

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 02:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> I think another major "down side" of low squirt shafts is that they're all extremly light weight which can throw off the feel and balance of a cue and the way you're used to applying force and speed for a variety of shots with the exception of a Smartshaft, unless you're using a very light weight shaft initially. A good player who is used to a certain tempo and timing for his/her stroke could end up dogging a lot of normal shots and hitting harder ones halfway up the rail and not near a pocket. It's also easy to "flinch" it to produce unwanted spin or aim line when the pressure is on and the nerves are jumpy. <hr /></blockquote>I would think this would be a very slight effect because only the last 6 inches or so of a low-squirt cue is made lighter, but thank you for pointing this out. Also, if this were a significant effect, it could probably be addressed with appropriate adjustments in joint and butt-end weighting.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

That's not the case at all and you're overlooking a very important aspect of feel which can be significant. Have you personally done a weight check on an accurate scale between the low squirt shafts and a normally weighted shaft from a production company or custom cue maker? I'll bet not, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a broad generalized statement. It doesn't hold to your nature of exact preciseness in all of your calculations which surprises me

The Predators (Z and 314), OB-1, I.C.E. come in between 3 oz. and about 3.5 oz. That can be anywhere between .75 oz and 1.5 oz. LESS than other non-squirt shafts. Predator has tried addressing the issue by making their shafts 30" which adds 1" to the length of the cue, another factor which may throw a player off after using a 29" shaft his entire playing life.

You are correct in stating that the weight can be restored by adding a different weight bolt in the butt to get it to the original weight, but not all cues have weight bolts and can be adjusted. Even when they are available, it's not quite the same in feel. Low squirt shafts are after market, you can't make a joint change just for a shaft that may or may not work without a considerable amount of labor and money.

I think you come at most every problem in pool from a math, geometric, physics, and other scientific forces which can be proven on paper from a hypothetical robot doing everything perfectly according to the numbers. I'm coming at this from the "human" aspect with input from better players who have experimented with a large variety of cues and shafts. How do you quantify each and everyone's reaction time, backstroke/pause/forward stroke transition rate, stroke force and speed, rate of fast twitch and slow twitch nerve firings in the small muscles of the hand, wrist, and fingers? I certainly don't know, but it plays a major role and the human element can nevvvverrr be overlooked. Think in terms of flesh and blood and not always numbers and formulas. If flesh and blood wasn't involved, everybody would own a low squirt shaft, love them, and be playing lights out pool like a pro.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry if you think I was minimizing your point. That really wasn't my intention. I'm sorry if I offended you.

I agree with you. If you replace a regular cue's shaft with a lighter low-squirt shaft, the cue will "feel" different, because you've just changed the weight, balance point, and moment of inertia (a measure of how easy it is to pivot the cue). However, I think a low-squirt cue (with appropriate shaft, joint, and butt design) can be made to have almost any reasonable weight-distribution-based "feel." Although, a cue's "feel" is not just a weight distribution thing. It is also based on the vibration and sound characteristics. Furthermore, a cue's "feel" is a very personal thing involving both the senses and psychology. A cue that "feels" great to one person can "feel" terrible to another.

Obviously, I agree "feel" is a very complex and subjective (i.e., "human"), and I would never try to minimize it's importance to an individual.

Regards,
Dave

Jager85
12-06-2007, 02:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Jager85 wrote..."Depending on the shot minimum squirt will maximize throw, and vice versa."

Would you briefly run the mechanics of that by me.

But let me tell you what I'm hung up on so that you can correct me.

To minimize squirt you need to minimize its causes which are side and force, so you need to use one or both:
1. Less side.

2. Less speed.

OK, if you use less side than you will get less throw (within the cut angle range where throw is a meaningful issue) all other things being equal.

Speed does not influence english induced throw but significantly affects throw.

So minimizing the side component of squirt...it seems to me, would also minimize english induced throw.

AS noted above, speed will increase squirt at a given degree of side. But all squirt does is deflect the CB path in the direction opposite the side of the ball where the side english is imparted. So, due to squirt, the CB will merely hit the OB at a different angle than it otherwise would.

Since squirt could as easily cause a thicker hit as a thinner one and since collision-induced throw varies with the cut angle, I don't see why squirt, in and of itself, would have any relation to throw.


THANKS!
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim,

My wording was kind of bad. You are correct that squirt has no effect on throw, but my point was that minimizing squirt may force you to compensate more for throw. Especially how Dave had mentioned accidentally using english and missing a shot resulting from squirt.

If I hit a straight in shot and plan on using no english, but accidentally use a little bit of left english. The cue ball will deflect slightly to the right, but throw will kick in and throw the OB to the right as well, putting the shot back in line depending on the distances between the OB and CB and the OB to the pocket. A shot that would even out this error with a medium or high deflection shaft, may cause the error by throw to over throw the pocket. Every shot with distances is different.

Hope that cleared it up for you.

Jager

Artemus
12-06-2007, 03:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> However, I think a low-squirt cue (with appropriate shaft, joint, and butt design) can be made to have almost any reasonable weight-distribution-based "feel."
Although, a cue's "feel" is not just a weight distribution thing. It is also based on the vibration and sound characteristics. Furthermore, a cue's "feel" is a very personal thing involving both the senses and psychology.
Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I agree that it can be made to have a certain weight-distribution-based "feel" if the cue was made from scratch along with a low squirt blank shaft by a custom cue maker. But typically they're purchased after a player has owned the cue and then slapped on with no forethought to possible consequences in other areas other than "squirt".

A 3.2 oz shaft replacing a 4.3 oz shaft will not only "feel", but PLAY like night and day. (I should say, make the player play like night and day) If the original shaft happened to be somewhere from the 3.2 oz to 3.5 oz. it's no big deal. I also don't think it's a big deal for a "banger" or someone that hasn't developed their game. What difference does it make?

There may be some who say a better player can get used to almost anything within a very short period of time and play. I disagree. I've seen too many good players that have developed their stroke and feel around one particular cue and can't even come close to adapting to such a dramatic change in weight/balance/feel. This is no longer the dark ages where you grab a house cue off the rack or have someone lend you their broomstick and it has no affect.

Yes, vibration and sound affect "feel" but they don't cause a player to speed up his stroke, pop the CB, or get jerky where he's normally smooth based on a certain set of specs involving weight, weight distribution, and balance.

IMO, before buying a low squirt shaft, I think they should all be evaluated for weight to determine if it is best suited to the cue and your style of play. There's a big difference between a Smartshaft at 4.5 oz and and OB-1 at 3.2 oz or something in-between. If you don't think so, (you-plural) take a dozen shots with an OB-1 and then immediately interchange it with a Smartshaft LS and report back on your results. It's amazing.

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>THANKS for your comments and I did review your article which..as always...was instructive.<hr /></blockquote>You're welcome. If you want to know more about throw than you ever wanted, see the entire 12-article series (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>...CIT can be cancelled by the use of outside english but now let me split hairs with you. YES that cancellation can reduce the OBs deviation from its geometrically derived path to zero. In that case the "throw deviation" is zero but the FORCE known as "throw" is not only present but in fact is the REASON for the elimination of the path deviation.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, with "gearing outside English" (gOE) there is no sideways force whatsoever. That's why there is no throw. The OB heads exactly in the impact-line direction (i.e., in the ghost-ball line-of-centers direction). There can be throw only when there is a sliding force between the CB and OB. With gOE there is no sliding between the balls during contact (see my January '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/jan07.pdf)). With less-than-gearing OE, throw is in one direction (the CIT direction); and with more-than-gearing OE, throw is in the other direction (the SIT direction). There either is throw or there is not, and it can be in one direction or the other.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>English-induced throw is "throw" ... as is collision-induced "throw." These are not independent effects ... they are very much related (see my February '07 article).<hr /></blockquote>I agree that CIT and EIT are certainly "related" but disagree that they are not "independent effects" only because that phrase suggests a connotation of "independent forces" which they clearly are not..rather they are forces that interrelate.<hr /></blockquote>There is only one force. It is caused by relative motion between the CB and OB at impact. The relative motion can be due to cut angle only (CIT), English only (SIT), or any combination or cut angle and inside English (IE) or non-gearing outside English. The force is zero only for a straight-on shot with no English or with a cut shot with gOE.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>when you apply greater amounts of side and therefore more RPMs, the OB will be thrown off its geometric path to a greater extent.<hr /></blockquote>This isn't always true. Sometimes there is less throw with more English and sometimes there is more. See my June '07 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/june07.pdf).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>1. SOME amount of side will offset CIT and permit you to send an OB along its geometric path.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>2. No side will permit CIT to cause a maximum path deviation based upon the cut angle and the condition of the balls.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>3. Too much side will more than offset CIT causing an unwanted PB path deviation<hr /></blockquote>With OE, both throw direction and amount of throw depend on the amount of English. With IE, the amount of throw (but not throw direction) varies with the amount of English (for a given cut angle).
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>EXCEPT that;
4. Depending on the force of the shot, side will cause the CB to squirt off the line of aim thereby contacting the OB at a different CP at which point the forces of CIT and EIT will take effect from that different CP.<hr /></blockquote>The CP depends on the aiming line, the amount of squirt, and the amount of swerve.

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr
12-06-2007, 05:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jager85:</font><hr> If I hit a straight in shot and plan on using no english, but accidentally use a little bit of left english. The cue ball will deflect slightly to the right, but throw will kick in and throw the OB to the right as well,
Jager <hr /></blockquote>

Accidentally putting left on the cue ball will indeed cause it to swerve to the right. CIT will cause the OB to be thrown to the outside of the cut angle. So if you are cutting the shot to the right, and you hit farther right than you intended, you are going to throw the OB more to the LEFT of the line of centers at contact.
Steve

dr_dave
12-06-2007, 06:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jager85:</font><hr> If I hit a straight in shot and plan on using no english, but accidentally use a little bit of left english. The cue ball will deflect slightly to the right, but throw will kick in and throw the OB to the right as well,
Jager <hr /></blockquote>

Accidentally putting left on the cue ball will indeed cause it to swerve to the right. CIT will cause the OB to be thrown to the outside of the cut angle. So if you are cutting the shot to the right, and you hit farther right than you intended, you are going to throw the OB more to the LEFT of the line of centers at contact.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>I think there are two possible cases here with a straight-in shot.

1.) The cue is aligned in the proper aiming line direction but shifted to the left a little, creating unintentionally left English, but the stroke is straight. In this case, the CB will squirt to the right (the amount depends on the cue and the amount of tip offset), the CB will swerve back some to the left (the amount depends on shot speed, cue elevation and ball/cloth conditions), the contact point might be to the left or right of the initial target depending on the relative amounts of squirt and swerve, then the English will throw the OB a little to the right of what the contact point suggests.

1.) The cue is aligned in the proper aiming line direction and the cue tip is aligned with the center of the CB, but the stroke is not perfectly straight, resulting in slight unintentional left English. In this case, the aiming line is now pivoted to the left a little, so the CB will tend to head to the left a little (the amount will depend on bridge distance). Everything else is the same as with "1," but now relative to this new aiming line direction.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
12-06-2007, 07:21 PM
Jager85...Gotcha.
Regards,
Jim

av84fun
12-06-2007, 07:57 PM
Dr. Dave...Hold it...hold it...I'm DIZZY! (-:


First, I'm glad to have gotten a few "agrees" from you. I feel as though I've just taken a pop quiz! (-:

You have given me plenty of homework but here's one thing I'm going to dig my heels on on.

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one force. It is caused by relative motion between the CB and OB at impact. The relative motion can be due to cut angle only (CIT), English only (SIT), or any combination or cut angle and inside English (IE) or non-gearing outside English. The force is zero only for a straight-on shot with no English or with a cut shot with gOE.<hr /></blockquote>

Possibly we are assinging different meanings to the word "force."

I suggest that the application of side to the CB creates spin and spin is a FORCE that will impose itself on any object it comes in contact with. That is Force #1.

Force #2 is that created by the collision of spheres at an angle REGARDLESS of the presence of any rotation by one of the spheres and manifests itself exact as you describe.

I assume you would agree that, all other things being equal, the behavior of an OB struck by a CB that is spinning will, in most instances, differ from the behavior of the OB struck by a ball that is not spinning.

It is on that premise of my theory that there are two forces that are related by the fact that the discussion is confined to the issues regarding balls that collide...but that there are two forces that, while related" but are created by two different motivators and are therefore independent.

The two different motivators are 1. A person impacting the side of the CB with a cue tip and 2. A CB impacting and OB.

Bottom line....Force #1 initiates with the tip striking the CB. There is no question but that the foward/spinning motion of the CB is a force. Moreover, there is no law that requires the CB to hit anything...struck softly enough, so there is no question that Force #1 is INDEPENDENT of any other force.

When the CB collides with an OB then those two bodies INTERACT with each other. That interaction is caused by and therefore is related to the initially totally independent source of energy containted in the CB.

Finally, the force defined as "a spinning cue ball in forward motion"...let's name it "X Force" CANNOT be defined as "throw" because there is no "throw" without a collision...ergo..."X force" MUST be a different than, albeit related to "Throw Force."

I hasten to add the virtually nothing related to the above has any remote use in the process of learning to shoot pool but as you so charmingly suggest, some of what you writer is "more than you want to know"...so...fair is fair!
(-:

Regards,
Jim

Artemus
12-07-2007, 08:27 AM
Dr. Dave, I just read the BD article by you regarding the poll results from a number of participants on this forum regarding low squirt cues. I think anybody that goes on a variety of internet forums is influenced by the constant and ongoing tech talk and it probably had something to do with the numerical results of the poll, not to speak of the fact that many of the respondents have invested in low squirt shafts and want to rationalize their purchase.

However, let's face it, there is still a large segment of the pool playing population world wide that doesn't bother to go on internet pool forums. They just play in leagues, play with friends, or play to gamble. And then you also have "old schoolers" (pros, ex=road players, and gamblers) that came up with just "pool cues" who could shoot the eyes out of the ball with no mention of "newest and improved", "low squirt", or any other pet marketing phrase. What do you think the poll results would have reflected differently in numbers if you had done it live and in person at pool rooms across the country from people who could care less about the internet?

dr_dave
12-07-2007, 11:29 AM
Jim,

Thank you for clarifying your definition of "force." Honestly, I don't like your definition, but I see your logic.

Regards,
Dave

PS: FYI, after you do your homework, there will be another pop quiz. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Dr. Dave...Hold it...hold it...I'm DIZZY! (-:


First, I'm glad to have gotten a few "agrees" from you. I feel as though I've just taken a pop quiz! (-:

You have given me plenty of homework but here's one thing I'm going to dig my heels on on.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is only one force. It is caused by relative motion between the CB and OB at impact. The relative motion can be due to cut angle only (CIT), English only (SIT), or any combination or cut angle and inside English (IE) or non-gearing outside English. The force is zero only for a straight-on shot with no English or with a cut shot with gOE.<hr /></blockquote>

Possibly we are assinging different meanings to the word "force."

I suggest that the application of side to the CB creates spin and spin is a FORCE that will impose itself on any object it comes in contact with. That is Force #1.

Force #2 is that created by the collision of spheres at an angle REGARDLESS of the presence of any rotation by one of the spheres and manifests itself exact as you describe.

I assume you would agree that, all other things being equal, the behavior of an OB struck by a CB that is spinning will, in most instances, differ from the behavior of the OB struck by a ball that is not spinning.

It is on that premise of my theory that there are two forces that are related by the fact that the discussion is confined to the issues regarding balls that collide...but that there are two forces that, while related" but are created by two different motivators and are therefore independent.

The two different motivators are 1. A person impacting the side of the CB with a cue tip and 2. A CB impacting and OB.

Bottom line....Force #1 initiates with the tip striking the CB. There is no question but that the foward/spinning motion of the CB is a force. Moreover, there is no law that requires the CB to hit anything...struck softly enough, so there is no question that Force #1 is INDEPENDENT of any other force.

When the CB collides with an OB then those two bodies INTERACT with each other. That interaction is caused by and therefore is related to the initially totally independent source of energy containted in the CB.

Finally, the force defined as "a spinning cue ball in forward motion"...let's name it "X Force" CANNOT be defined as "throw" because there is no "throw" without a collision...ergo..."X force" MUST be a different than, albeit related to "Throw Force."

I hasten to add the virtually nothing related to the above has any remote use in the process of learning to shoot pool but as you so charmingly suggest, some of what you writer is "more than you want to know"...so...fair is fair!
(-:

Regards,
Jim<hr /></blockquote>

av84fun
12-08-2007, 03:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Jim,

Thank you for clarifying your definition of "force." Honestly, I don't like your definition, but I see your logic.<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for that...but why is it that I don't feel I gained much ground? (-: (kidding)

But in the physical context, I think most definitions of the word "force" would resemble this one:

"n.
The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power."

So, the definition I alluded to wasn't of my own invention. A spinning ball certainly has the capacity to do work and cause physical change...as in changing the angle of departure of the OB upon collision with it.

Regards,
Jim

dr_dave
12-09-2007, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Jim,

Thank you for clarifying your definition of "force." Honestly, I don't like your definition, but I see your logic.<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for that...but why is it that I don't feel I gained much ground? (-: (kidding)

But in the physical context, I think most definitions of the word "force" would resemble this one:

"n.
The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power."

So, the definition I alluded to wasn't of my own invention. A spinning ball certainly has the capacity to do work and cause physical change...as in changing the angle of departure of the OB upon collision with it.

Regards,
Jim<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry I was a little judgemental about how you were using the word "force" in the context of throw. To me, a spinning ball can "do work and cause physical change" to the OB only if the spin creates sliding motion and a sideways friction "force" between the CB and OB during impact. When there is a cut angle and gearing outside English, the spin creates absolutely no throwing "force."

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
12-10-2007, 03:27 AM
Dr_Dave...I didn't think you were being "judgmental" but thanks for your concern about that.

I have read your discussion of gearing outside english. My mission now is to try to understand it!!! (-:

That's no swipe at your communication skills but rather of my comprehension skills.

But I WILL OVERCOME...and get back to you with any questions or comments. (-:
THANKS!

Jim

av84fun
12-10-2007, 03:53 AM
DR_Dave...OK, that was quick. I just reviewed your article again and I THINK I understand.

Earlier, I wrote:

"Finally, the force defined as "a spinning cue ball in forward motion"...let's name it "X Force" CANNOT be defined as "throw" because there is no "throw" without a collision...ergo..."X force" MUST be different than, albeit related to "Throw Force."

In other parts of the exchange the word "force" and "throw" got inadvertently coupled so as to suggest that "throw" is a form of "force" and as the above quote suggests, I didn't mean to create that analogy.

In fact, "throw" is NOT a "force" but rather a REACTION potentially caused be the force inherent in the spinning CB.

A fist in motion is a "force" while a bloody nose is a "reaction" to that force.

Correct?

As you so learnedly point out, the POTENTIAL reaction known as "throw" can be canceled by the operation of gOE.

Taking it to the table, the challenge is to understand under what circumstances...assuming either/both a spinning or non-spinning cb...will the presence/absence of the force known as "spin" result in the reaction known as "throw."

Am I getting warm???

(-:
Jim

dr_dave
12-10-2007, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Dr_Dave...I didn't think you were being "judgmental" but thanks for your concern about that.

I have read your discussion of gearing outside english. My mission now is to try to understand it!!! (-:

That's no swipe at your communication skills but rather of my comprehension skills.

But I WILL OVERCOME...and get back to you with any questions or comments. (-:
THANKS!

Jim <hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the nice message. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Regards,
Dave

mikepage
12-10-2007, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> [...]

I have read your discussion of gearing outside english. My mission now is to try to understand it!!! (-:[...]
Jim <hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the nice message. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[...]<hr /></blockquote>

Dave -

I'm going to make a suggestion/request that you rename this "goe" concept.

Some authors, some instructors, and many wanabee pool-room experts "explain" throw as a gearing effect. And as you're well aware, that analogy is wrong and leads to some seriously bogus predictions.

But because that incorrect analogy is well entrenched, I think we should be careful not to feed it.

For a ball going into a cushion, we'd call the same concept "natural running english."

How about "natural outside english" for the ball-to-ball situation?

So when a cueball with NOE strikes an object ball, the surfaces are not moving relative to one another, so there's no sliding of one surface across another -- kinda like a halfback rolling off a would be tackler.

dr_dave
12-10-2007, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> [...]

I have read your discussion of gearing outside english. My mission now is to try to understand it!!! (-:[...]
Jim <hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the nice message. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[...]<hr /></blockquote>

Dave -

I'm going to make a suggestion/request that you rename this "goe" concept.

Some authors, some instructors, and many wanabee pool-room experts "explain" throw as a gearing effect. And as you're well aware, that analogy is wrong and leads to some seriously bogus predictions.

But because that incorrect analogy is well entrenched, I think we should be careful not to feed it.

For a ball going into a cushion, we'd call the same concept "natural running english."

How about "natural outside english" for the ball-to-ball situation?

So when a cueball with NOE strikes an object ball, the surfaces are not moving relative to one another, so there's no sliding of one surface across another -- kinda like a halfback rolling off a would be tackler.<hr /></blockquote>Excellent suggestion! I'll try to use this as a suggested alternative to GOE ("gearing outside English") in the future. Although, I still like "gearing" because it conjures the image of the balls rolling along one another without sliding, like two meshed gears rotating together. (I'm a mechanical engineer, so I like gears.) I think I have seen and heard the phrase "gearing outside English" used properly more often than not (in book, articles, forum discussions, etc.), but it sounds like your experience has been different. Many throw principles are often misrepresented in books, articles, and instruction. In general, I think we should try to correct people when they misuse a phrase or concept, rather than adding additional phrases. Having said that, I still like "natural outside English."

Regards,
Dave