banking the ball backwards

John Brumback

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,747
Every player has his own reality when it comes to pool. So, perhaps, Greenleaf used a long follow through. (BTW, that is unlikely because, at least in the video of him that I've seen, he had a huge honkin' swarp to his stroke.) Look what Allen Hopkins does. He creates all kinds of action on the ball with a short little punch stroke.

All that matter is what happens in those micro seconds the cue tip is in contact with the CB. If the CB is hit at the right spot, at the right speed, it's going to do the same thing regardless of whether a long Sigel-like stroke was used, or a shorter Varner-like stroke was used.

Lou Figueroa
Dude!! you and I think a whole lot a like:lol You stole the words right out of my mouth.I could have explained all of that too,I was just hmm... eating,yeah that's what I was doing:lol
Call in the dogs and piss on the fire...this hunts over:lol JB
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
Dude!! you and I think a whole lot a like:lol You stole the words right out of my mouth.I could have explained all of that too,I was just hmm... eating,yeah that's what I was doing:lol
Call in the dogs and piss on the fire...this hunts over:lol JB

lol, John, you and I could probably write a good book together.

Lou Figueroa
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,292
Doctor, I have long held that every player creates his own reality when it comes to pool. And, over the years, in the course of constructing a personal reality concerning the game, players establish certain "principles" that may or may not be proven out by the science. But, they work for the player anyways, just not for the reasons the player believes.

IOW, say for instance I note somewhere along the line that I get better action on the CB with a longer follow through and I says to myself, "Self, a longer follow through puts more action on the CB." But, what the science would turn out to explain is that it's not the follow through, it's just quicker cue motion and the player is putting more RPMs on the ball because of that increase in cue tip speed, (which could be generated with less follow through). All that's going on is that the player is creating quicker tip speed but believes it's the follow through.

Lou Figueroa
I have to agree with everything you said for the reason that there are too many excellent players that possess a "quick short stroke" and get great action with the cue ball. Allen Hopkins is the first player that comes to mind. Luther Lassiter is another player that played primarily with a quick short stroke, however, he would also show you his power stroke (with more follow through) when he needed it. Imo, the "short stroke" the "tightening of the butt" and other type strokes could be recognized as a technique.

Dr. Bill
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,113
I have to agree with everything you said for the reason that there are too many excellent players that possess a "quick short stroke" and get great action with the cue ball. Allen Hopkins is the first player that comes to mind. Luther Lassiter is another player that played primarily with a quick short stroke, however, he would also show you his power stroke (with more follow through) when he needed it. Imo, the "short stroke" the "tightening of the butt" and other type strokes could be recognized as a technique.

Dr. Bill


I do too, Dr. Bill. I know some guys who get tremendous action and results shooting a straight down masse shot. They don't appear to follow through too far.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
I have to agree with everything you said for the reason that there are too many excellent players that possess a "quick short stroke" and get great action with the cue ball. Allen Hopkins is the first player that comes to mind. Luther Lassiter is another player that played primarily with a quick short stroke, however, he would also show you his power stroke (with more follow through) when he needed it. Imo, the "short stroke" the "tightening of the butt" and other type strokes could be recognized as a technique.

Dr. Bill

I'd agree back. I believe certain techniques make executing the science easier, like a longer follow through for more RPMs on the CB. Or perhaps difference strokes and grips and bridges for other things. Like I said, what happens is that people get confused on what is causing what. Even guys that have been playing for a long, long time.

Lou Figueroa
 

John Brumback

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,747
Well, if you're serious, then we can talk it over further. Will you be in Tunica? I'll be there Sunday for the 1pocket.

Lou Figueroa
Oh yes I'm serious. I think I'm leaving out on Sunday maybe Mon but I have email and
a phone:p jhbpool1@aol.com or johnbrumback.com Hope to catch up with ya down there or soon. Thanks. JB
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,746
I'd agree back. I believe certain techniques make executing the science easier, like a longer follow through for more RPMs on the CB. Or perhaps difference strokes and grips and bridges for other things. Like I said, what happens is that people get confused on what is causing what. Even guys that have been playing for a long, long time.

Lou Figueroa
Now that's just what I thought I was saying, and here I thought you were disagreeing. Glad to see we are on the same page on this :D:D
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,600
I'd agree back. I believe certain techniques make executing the science easier, like a longer follow through for more RPMs on the CB. Or perhaps difference strokes and grips and bridges for other things. Like I said, what happens is that people get confused on what is causing what. Even guys that have been playing for a long, long time. Lou Figueroa
I don't know about that, Lou. For example, I know without a shadow of a doubt that if a guy squeezes together the first two toes of his left foot, and grips the cuestick right where the wrap meets the butt of the cue (not in front, or further back), he'll definitely get a better draw on the CB. In fact I'm so convinced of the proof of it, that I intend to write up a detailed article on it. I'm sure that AZ Billiards will put it on their home page! Just wait til you guys try it!

If you're real nice, I'll explain the method in detail to you up in Tunica.

Cheers~ Doc
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,872
I don't know about that, Lou. For example, I know without a shadow of a doubt that if a guy squeezes together the first two toes of his left foot, and grips the cuestick right where the wrap meets the butt of the cue (not in front, or further back), he'll definitely get a better draw on the CB. In fact I'm so convinced of the proof of it, that I intend to write up a detailed article on it. I'm sure that AZ Billiards will put it on their home page! Just wait til you guys try it!

If you're real nice, I'll explain the method in detail to you up in Tunica.

Cheers~ Doc
doc
i never thought you would give up that secret.....:rolleyes:....:heh
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
I don't know about that, Lou. For example, I know without a shadow of a doubt that if a guy squeezes together the first two toes of his left foot, and grips the cuestick right where the wrap meets the butt of the cue (not in front, or further back), he'll definitely get a better draw on the CB. In fact I'm so convinced of the proof of it, that I intend to write up a detailed article on it. I'm sure that AZ Billiards will put it on their home page! Just wait til you guys try it!

If you're real nice, I'll explain the method in detail to you up in Tunica.

Cheers~ Doc

Well, Doc, if you're going to let that one loose I guess I'll have to show you my eye-blink aiming system.

Lou Figueroa
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,160
I believe he showed us all the "swipe" stroke as well.
Most of the talking heads on here thought it was a trick ball or trick photography. :D:p:):lol
Rod.
 
Last edited:

SloMoHolic

Verified Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
112
banking the ball backwards

This has been a really fun thread.

I was able to bank in the frozen OB from the second diamond, but I'll need to practice some more if I want to make it from 2.5 diamonds up the rail.

Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts on the cue tip to CBall contact debate.

First, please understand where I'm coming from. Shooting very high frame rate videos opens up a whole new world of possibilities, and a deep new appreciation for VERY small increments of time.

For example, once, while filming a hummingbird, I chose to use a 1/40,000th of a second shutter speed, hoping to capture a photo that "stops" the hummingbird's wings at their apex. After looking through thousands of frames, I was disappointed to discover that even 1/40,000th wasn't fast enough to really "freeze" the wings in a photo. There was always a little bit of blur in each frame. This bothered me.

I did some research, and learned that they can flap their wings at up to 100 "beats" per second. That means the tip of the wing is at the apex 100 times in one second (in other words, 100 "round trips" per second). I also learned that their wings do not simply go up and down, but more like in a figure-eight path. Going back through the video confirmed this. It totally redefined my understanding of how a hummingbird hovers.

Here's my point. Saying that the cue tip only contacts the cue ball for a tiny fraction of a second is already pretty much indisputably true. But what if you could extend that contact time by only 20%? Yes, it would still be a tiny fraction of a second, just a little less tiny.

Would that make a difference? Nobody can say for sure yet. The technology is available to help us refine our understanding, but it's VERY expensive, and nobody has done it yet (with these ultra-fast cameras). I know that Dr. Dave has studied this extensively, both through his slow motion video, and theoretical physics study.

But there are cameras today that can shoot 1 MILLION frames per second. Think about that. 1 MILLION pictures, in only one second. (See link below).

I'm not implying that the cue tip stays in contact with the cue ball for more than even 1/1000th of a second. Based on my own videos, I can say it is absolutely no more than 2/1000ths, and most likely less than 1/1000th.

I'm proposing the idea that if the contact time with a tight grip is 0.00005, but with a loose grip is 0.00006, then we could say that a loose grip (or softer tip, or clenching your left toes, or whatever) does in fact increase contact time by 20%.

Will that make a difference in the resultant spin? It's almost inconceivable, right? But it's already almost inconceivable that the contact time would be so short!

How about the shock wave (or compression wave) that travels down the cue shaft, down the butt, and back to the tip? Doesn't that seem inconceivable? Yes, but it happens at near the speed of sound (761 mph), and some folks out there that are starting to turn in some really interesting research that I feel is on the verge of revealing new concepts like this, that we just don't understand yet.

Until we see video at 100,000 frames per second (or higher), we'll never be 100% sure.

So...

While I generally agree that follow-through, grip pressure, and tip hardness don't affect CB spin in a significant way, I'm not quite ready to say I'm 100% sure about the details.

There is a section of my brain that is reserved for remote possibilities like this. It loves to keep me up at night, and invades my dreams with possible explanations/theories. ;)

I hope I live long enough to see these 1,000,000 frame-per-second cameras become more affordable, and help us all understand our world in new ways.

I also love the statement that "Every player creates his own reality." I totally agree, and understand that the same concept can be applied to many other facets of life, such as driving a car, or throwing a football.

Sometimes the pieces of that reality are false, but sometimes there is an explanation that makes sense (even if the player isn't aware of that explanation).

Okay, enough of my little spiel. Please continue these discussions. We are all learning a lot here, and it is very much appreciated.

Thanks,

-Blake

Here are the related links:
1-million frame per second camera, showing bullets disintegrating at impact:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg[/ame]

Sound wave propagation in pool cues:

http://dbkcues.ru/articles-2/investigation-in-some-wave-properties-of-a-billiards-cue/?lang=en
 

Dudley

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
748
This has been a really fun thread.

I was able to bank in the frozen OB from the second diamond, but I'll need to practice some more if I want to make it from 2.5 diamonds up the rail.

Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts on the cue tip to CBall contact debate.

First, please understand where I'm coming from. Shooting very high frame rate videos opens up a whole new world of possibilities, and a deep new appreciation for VERY small increments of time.

For example, once, while filming a hummingbird, I chose to use a 1/40,000th of a second shutter speed, hoping to capture a photo that "stops" the hummingbird's wings at their apex. After looking through thousands of frames, I was disappointed to discover that even 1/40,000th wasn't fast enough to really "freeze" the wings in a photo. There was always a little bit of blur in each frame. This bothered me.

I did some research, and learned that they can flap their wings at up to 100 "beats" per second. That means the tip of the wing is at the apex 100 times in one second (in other words, 100 "round trips" per second). I also learned that their wings do not simply go up and down, but more like in a figure-eight path. Going back through the video confirmed this. It totally redefined my understanding of how a hummingbird hovers.

Here's my point. Saying that the cue tip only contacts the cue ball for a tiny fraction of a second is already pretty much indisputably true. But what if you could extend that contact time by only 20%? Yes, it would still be a tiny fraction of a second, just a little less tiny.

Would that make a difference? Nobody can say for sure yet. The technology is available to help us refine our understanding, but it's VERY expensive, and nobody has done it yet (with these ultra-fast cameras). I know that Dr. Dave has studied this extensively, both through his slow motion video, and theoretical physics study.

But there are cameras today that can shoot 1 MILLION frames per second. Think about that. 1 MILLION pictures, in only one second. (See link below).

I'm not implying that the cue tip stays in contact with the cue ball for more than even 1/1000th of a second. Based on my own videos, I can say it is absolutely no more than 2/1000ths, and most likely less than 1/1000th.

I'm proposing the idea that if the contact time with a tight grip is 0.00005, but with a loose grip is 0.00006, then we could say that a loose grip (or softer tip, or clenching your left toes, or whatever) does in fact increase contact time by 20%.

Will that make a difference in the resultant spin? It's almost inconceivable, right? But it's already almost inconceivable that the contact time would be so short!

How about the shock wave (or compression wave) that travels down the cue shaft, down the butt, and back to the tip? Doesn't that seem inconceivable? Yes, but it happens at near the speed of sound (761 mph), and some folks out there that are starting to turn in some really interesting research that I feel is on the verge of revealing new concepts like this, that we just don't understand yet.

Until we see video at 100,000 frames per second (or higher), we'll never be 100% sure.

So...

While I generally agree that follow-through, grip pressure, and tip hardness don't affect CB spin in a significant way, I'm not quite ready to say I'm 100% sure about the details.

There is a section of my brain that is reserved for remote possibilities like this. It loves to keep me up at night, and invades my dreams with possible explanations/theories. ;)

I hope I live long enough to see these 1,000,000 frame-per-second cameras become more affordable, and help us all understand our world in new ways.

I also love the statement that "Every player creates his own reality." I totally agree, and understand that the same concept can be applied to many other facets of life, such as driving a car, or throwing a football.

Sometimes the pieces of that reality are false, but sometimes there is an explanation that makes sense (even if the player isn't aware of that explanation).

Okay, enough of my little spiel. Please continue these discussions. We are all learning a lot here, and it is very much appreciated.

Thanks,

-Blake

Here are the related links:
1-million frame per second camera, showing bullets disintegrating at impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Sound wave propagation in pool cues:

http://dbkcues.ru/articles-2/investigation-in-some-wave-properties-of-a-billiards-cue/?lang=en
Being a machinist the video below fascinates me.... What is actually happening during a cut in steel. :) The video showcases different coatings on the cutting tool.

Dudley

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRuSYQ5Npek[/ame]
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,746
This has been a really fun thread.

I was able to bank in the frozen OB from the second diamond, but I'll need to practice some more if I want to make it from 2.5 diamonds up the rail.

Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts on the cue tip to CBall contact debate.

First, please understand where I'm coming from. Shooting very high frame rate videos opens up a whole new world of possibilities, and a deep new appreciation for VERY small increments of time.

For example, once, while filming a hummingbird, I chose to use a 1/40,000th of a second shutter speed, hoping to capture a photo that "stops" the hummingbird's wings at their apex. After looking through thousands of frames, I was disappointed to discover that even 1/40,000th wasn't fast enough to really "freeze" the wings in a photo. There was always a little bit of blur in each frame. This bothered me.

I did some research, and learned that they can flap their wings at up to 100 "beats" per second. That means the tip of the wing is at the apex 100 times in one second (in other words, 100 "round trips" per second). I also learned that their wings do not simply go up and down, but more like in a figure-eight path. Going back through the video confirmed this. It totally redefined my understanding of how a hummingbird hovers.

Here's my point. Saying that the cue tip only contacts the cue ball for a tiny fraction of a second is already pretty much indisputably true. But what if you could extend that contact time by only 20%? Yes, it would still be a tiny fraction of a second, just a little less tiny.

Would that make a difference? Nobody can say for sure yet. The technology is available to help us refine our understanding, but it's VERY expensive, and nobody has done it yet (with these ultra-fast cameras). I know that Dr. Dave has studied this extensively, both through his slow motion video, and theoretical physics study.

But there are cameras today that can shoot 1 MILLION frames per second. Think about that. 1 MILLION pictures, in only one second. (See link below).

I'm not implying that the cue tip stays in contact with the cue ball for more than even 1/1000th of a second. Based on my own videos, I can say it is absolutely no more than 2/1000ths, and most likely less than 1/1000th.

I'm proposing the idea that if the contact time with a tight grip is 0.00005, but with a loose grip is 0.00006, then we could say that a loose grip (or softer tip, or clenching your left toes, or whatever) does in fact increase contact time by 20%.

Will that make a difference in the resultant spin? It's almost inconceivable, right? But it's already almost inconceivable that the contact time would be so short!

How about the shock wave (or compression wave) that travels down the cue shaft, down the butt, and back to the tip? Doesn't that seem inconceivable? Yes, but it happens at near the speed of sound (761 mph), and some folks out there that are starting to turn in some really interesting research that I feel is on the verge of revealing new concepts like this, that we just don't understand yet.

Until we see video at 100,000 frames per second (or higher), we'll never be 100% sure.

So...

While I generally agree that follow-through, grip pressure, and tip hardness don't affect CB spin in a significant way, I'm not quite ready to say I'm 100% sure about the details.

There is a section of my brain that is reserved for remote possibilities like this. It loves to keep me up at night, and invades my dreams with possible explanations/theories. ;)

I hope I live long enough to see these 1,000,000 frame-per-second cameras become more affordable, and help us all understand our world in new ways.

I also love the statement that "Every player creates his own reality." I totally agree, and understand that the same concept can be applied to many other facets of life, such as driving a car, or throwing a football.

Sometimes the pieces of that reality are false, but sometimes there is an explanation that makes sense (even if the player isn't aware of that explanation).

Okay, enough of my little spiel. Please continue these discussions. We are all learning a lot here, and it is very much appreciated.

Thanks,

-Blake

Here are the related links:
1-million frame per second camera, showing bullets disintegrating at impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Sound wave propagation in pool cues:

http://dbkcues.ru/articles-2/investigation-in-some-wave-properties-of-a-billiards-cue/?lang=en
So 20% more of a zero instant is still zero, but 20% more of a little tiny duration of an instant might be a significant difference... and that duration of an instant is probably why we play with leather tips :D:D
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
Being a machinist the video below fascinates me.... What is actually happening during a cut in steel. :) The video showcases different coatings on the cutting tool.

Dudley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRuSYQ5Npek
Dudley,

I'm an old machinist turned cutting tool salesman myself. We had single image photos of these processes in the old days and they looked very similar. What you and I know is that it would be even more fascinating if we could get comparative photography while imposing the many variables that will change the picture such as: sfm, chip width, face geometry, etc.
 
Top