View Full Version : Shot description
08-20-2002, 09:28 PM
Bob Jewett has asked for a shot description that someone might know. Please refer to August's Billiard Digests article by Mr. Jewett.
The shot can only be made by using squirt. I have come up with two shots that didn't quite fit his requirements.
Can you describe any?
1st shot.. 9 ball frozen on the middle of the end rail. cue ball on the head spot.. cut the 9 into the corner pocket.
2nd shot, you have to use a little inside and medium stroke to make the frozen 9 ball go straight down the rail, I am not aware of anyother way to make this shot except by using deflection...
Tom I don't have a BD. But here is a shot that comes up once in a while. Without inside and squirt you will foul the 5 ball shooting the 8. It's hard to see but you get the idea. I'm tired, there have to be more. ZZZZZZZ
08-21-2002, 06:58 AM
I don't think your first shot really relies on squirt in order to execute, it's just a by-product of the way the cue ball must be struck in order to make it. Aren't you actually spinning this shot in? Actually contacting the rail first with inside (toward the OB) english and contacting the OB on the outbound path of the CB. That's the way I've seen this shot made. Maybe I misundertood.
08-21-2002, 07:08 AM
Yes.. spinning the cue ball into the rail first and then contacting the ob to cut it into the corner pocket
ok T C i gotta try this one --- what is a masse other than a squirt shot -- having a tight fit around a blocking ob & having to go rail first
ob & cb on long rail between 1st diamond & corner pocket 2" apart. simple shot to make but the money ball is at the other end of that 9 footer center table froze to the rail. regular draw shot will not work because of double hitting cb and giving bih
stand against the table with cb center body. imagine a clock on cb (can't be digtal) with 6:00 toward your body, 3:00 to ob. firm bridge against your body and elevate cue just like a masse shot. when you get to 90 degrees go a tad more, this is one of the few shots that the cue will be beyond 90 degrees. think of a nip draw shot. you are now shooting cb backwards at 9:00 while cb is squirting foward at 3:00. this will put extreme reverse spin on cb drawing cb the length of the table with ease. shoot firm but not hard a slight turn of your body in the direction your shooting will allow cb to pass without a double hit
don't know if this is what you meant about a squirt shot but it will turn an oppontents underware brown
08-21-2002, 09:24 AM
I think that both of your shots fail by his criteria. Neither "require" squirt to succeed. With a hypothetical zero squirt cue, both shots can be made the same way. Neither use squirt as the mechanism to make the shot succeed. In fact, the second shot doesn't require sidespin at all!
I think that you have the wrong shot diagrammed for #2. I assume that you mean this:
This version requires that the cueball swerve back a bit to avoid the horn of the side pocket.
But again, it is not squirt that makes this shot work. It is swerve in this case (the slight curve due to the masse effect from a slightly elevated cue). The shot could be made with a zero squirt cue.
I know of no shot the "needs" squirt to work.
Most of the shots that I've seen that claim to need squirt actually need swerve, which would still be present even with a zero squirt cue. The two effects are independant.
-now some shots might be easier to judge with squirt, but that's not the same thing...
08-21-2002, 09:26 AM
No this shot is a masse shot and doesn't need squirt to succeed.
-I wish everyone would use squirt instead of deflection....
08-21-2002, 09:31 AM
At first glance this seems to be more like it. But after thinking about it, I think that squirt just makes it easier to judge the shot, it is not a requirement. To make the ball requires swerve only, not squirt. It is the swerve that brings the cueball back in line to make the 8 after you have avoided the 5. But the shot could be made with a zero squirt cue by aiming away from the 5 a bit (to get the same initial cueball path provided by squirt).
But it might be easier to judge with squirt than without.
But I don't think it "requires" squirt to succeed.
I wish I knew one, 'cause I'd post it.
08-21-2002, 11:06 AM
My diagramed 2nd shot is the one that I think needs to have a cue that has squirt/deflection to be made.
Both balls are froze to the rail.. I do not konw that anyone can make this shot by using center english.. Maybe once in a blue moon.. but not as often as using inside and compensating for deflection.
Your shot is not the one that I was referring to.
08-21-2002, 11:10 AM
Would you share with us ignorant posters why you wish we all used the word squirt? instead of deflection?
As long as you know the difference between Squirt and Deflection and how it is used describing the action of the cue stick and cue ball..
08-21-2002, 03:52 PM
"My diagramed 2nd shot is the one that I think needs to have a cue that has squirt/deflection to be made."
You mean that by hitting the object ball away from the center, to cut it towards the rail, but allowing the throw to bring it back on line?
You can make the shot without squirt by aiming away from the rail. But the shot might be easier with squirt.
But keep in mind, that in order to make the shot as diagrammed, the cue has to have a very specific pivot point. If the distance between the balls increases, then the cue needs a longer pivot point.
Btw, I can make it with center ball at least as consistently as I can with the inside english.
And the center ball hiyt has the avantage of not being dependant on the pivot point, or the distance between the two balls.
08-21-2002, 03:57 PM
"Would you share with us ignorant posters why you wish we all used the word squirt? instead of deflection? "
Lol! I wasn't trying to pick on anyone! Honest!
I agree with Bob Jewett on this one.
The term deflection is ambiguous and can refer to several phenomena with respect to pool and still be technically correct. But with a strick definition, the cue ball does not "deflect" when struck with the cue stick. It leaves in a straight line the angle of which is a consequence of the phenomena that causes squirt.
To my mind, the ball squirts, and the stick deflects.
You have to look at the context of the sentance to determine which useage of deflection the poster has intended, while no such context is needed with squirt.
As such, it is unambiguous.
Maybe a new word is needed that sounds more technical?
Someone suggested divergance.
08-21-2002, 04:24 PM
Congrats, you are the first person that has said that they can make the shot with center.. I use to use this shot alot to explain deflection/squirt and aim adjustments to shots.
By the way.. Bob Jewett is looking for a shot that REQUIRES squirt/deflection to be able to make the ball.
Do you know of any shots that can only be made by using squirt/deflection?
08-21-2002, 04:36 PM
I was only kidding.. squirt is a relativly new term.. for pool.. coined 30-40 years ago.
Deflection is a technical term that engineers have been using for eons.
08-21-2002, 08:50 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Tony on this one. In the common vernacular, in order for something to "deflect" it must be moving. The shaft is moving; when it's tip strikes the cueball off center,it "deflects" from it's original path. Deflection is therefore a reasonable term to apply to the behavior of the shaft.
The cue ball is starting at rest, and the phenomenon we're calling "squirt" just refers to an initial straight-line path that is not parallel to the original line of the moving shaft. Bob Byrne proposed the term "squirt" well over a decade ago, so there is precedent for this unambigous naming of the cueball's action.
If anyone ever creates a FAQ for the CCB, these two terms should be among the first documented.
08-21-2002, 11:17 PM
"By the way.. Bob Jewett is looking for a shot that REQUIRES squirt/deflection to be able to make the ball.
Do you know of any shots that can only be made by using squirt/deflection? "
No I don't. I've been looking for one for a long time. I've heard of shots that require squirt, but when examined, it is usually swerve that is needed, not squirt.
08-21-2002, 11:19 PM
"Deflection is a technical term that engineers have been using for eons."
Yes I know. And as an engineer it pains me to see it misused in this way! lol!
08-22-2002, 07:39 AM
Am I missing something?
Don't you pretty much have to induce squirt, in order to get the ball off-line, so that it may swerve?--That is, any off-vertical-center hit will cause squirt, so if you're attempting to achieve swerve you'll get both, correct? (Therefore, if swerve is necessary, then so is squirt)
The only argument that I can foresee, is that a very hard hit, off-v-center, will limit the swerve--or, at least, the time available for swerve to take effect--to (nearly) zero, and you might consider that squirt alone.
08-22-2002, 09:56 AM
"Don't you pretty much have to induce squirt, in order to get the ball off-line, so that it may swerve?--That is, any off-vertical-center hit will cause squirt, so if you're attempting to achieve swerve you'll get both, correct? (Therefore, if swerve is necessary, then so is squirt) "
The two effects (swerve and squirt) are independant phenomena. If it was possible to build a zero squirt cue (and in theory it just might be) you would still have swerve. So you don't need squirt to get swerve.
And if you were to use a high squirt cue, but shoot balls on a glass surfaced table (or even in space for that matter!) you would get squirt, but no swerve.
In the real world (where we all play of course) yes, you usually get squirt AND swerve. But I have experimented with a special graphite shaft with super low squirt (pivot point of 100" I imagine) and suddenly swerve becomes the dominant factor. And guess what, you can still make any shot that I've heard "requires" squirt!
Actually, most shots have a composite component of squirt and swerve to it when using sidespin. I think that most people aim for the net result of this "squirve" and don't give it a second thought.
So it's possible to get squirt alone, or swerve alone, but the argument is somewhat academic I agree.
08-22-2002, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TonyM:</font><hr> I think that most people aim for the net result of this "squirve" and don't give it a second thought.<hr></blockquote>HAHAHA You gotta love it!
Another term for Spiderman's suggested CCB FAQ!
(Although you may be spelling it wrong - don't you think it's spelled "squerve"?)
08-22-2002, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TonyM:</font><hr> . . .If it was possible to build a zero squirt cue (and in theory it just might be) you would still have swerve. So you don't need squirt to get swerve.
And if you were to use a high squirt cue, but shoot balls on a glass surfaced table (or even in space for that matter!) you would get squirt, but no swerve.<hr></blockquote>So, if you use a zero-squirt cue, and shoot on a glass table, the cue ball wouldn't go anywhere. . . .
j/k--but I'm still a bit confused on how you would achieve zero squirt--isn't this due to a combination of the shaft properties and, more to my point, the curvature of the cue ball? Again, if you hit with any sidespin (off vertical center), aren't you going to get some degree of squirt?
(I feel like this road has been run down before, but I don't recall recently. . . .)
08-22-2002, 01:46 PM
"but I'm still a bit confused on how you would achieve zero squirt--isn't this due to a combination of the shaft properties and, more to my point, the curvature of the cue ball?"
It seems that the best current theory of squirt states that it is a function of conservation of momentum. The squirt angle is based on the ratio of the mass of the cue ball, versus the "effective end-mass" (EEM) of the stick. During the collision, momentum must be conserved.
So if the ball is very light, and the EEM is very large, then the cue will move to the side very little, and the ball will move to the side a lot (high squirt).
Conversely, if the EEM is very low, and the ball is very heaby, then the stick will move to the side a lot, but the ball will not (low squirt).
You can try this out for yourself with a pool ball, a Snooker ball and a carom ball. With the same cue you will see low squirt for the carom ball, and high squirt for the snooker ball, with the pool ball giving the normal amount of squirt that your cue produces.
So it is possible to get zero squirt if the effective end mass is very, very low. Now using conventional materials and techniques this is indeed impossible. But you could use alternative materials and designs and get very, very low squirt (but not zero).
Bob Jewett proposed a method that could in theory produce zero squirt. The idea is to have a shaft with a spring loaded counterweight attached to the ferrule. At impact, the counterweight would swing away and from the perspective of the cueball, the EEM would be cancelled out to zero.
Now this is only a thought experiment, I think that such a device would be impractical! But in theory it would result in zero effective end mass.
08-22-2002, 01:47 PM
Hey you can spell it anyway you like!
08-22-2002, 02:30 PM
Ah, I thought that was where you'd be going (lower "effective end-mass"), but now we've gone back into that magical land of the theorhetical. . . .Not that I'm completely opposed to that, but I was still thinking more "real world", which is what confused the situation.
In any case, thanks for the explanation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.