Best break for One Pocket

[darmoose]

Rack the balls and break them several times maybe 5 to 10 times using this aiming method. If your aim is consistent to the target and you are getting good results it doesn't matter if the head ball is aimed accurately to the first diamond results are what counts. As long as you feel you're hitting the front ball where you are aiming and you're doing it consistently then you have mastered the shot. It's not about the front ball going toward the diamond, it's about how to hit the sweet spot. In your mind, if you are hitting the front ball with consistency aiming at the first diamond or wherever you choose to aim and are getting good results then you have achieved what you set out to do and put it in your memory of ..how to execute the break..

Dr. Bill

Thank you Bill. I understand now, we are saying the same thing. It is only the results that matter. This method of aiming the head ball at anything is just a "placebo". The same results can be achieved with any aiming method.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Trying new things, new thoughts, new pre-shot routines when having difficulties with anything, can have the effect of getting positive results, at least for a time (until it don't), as has been my experience.

Good to keep in mind.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Seems to me you are simply judging whether you like the hit you made based on the results, which you can do no matter your method or your target thought.

Of course. The question is which method gives the most consistent results. For me (and maybe Bill now too), aiming the shot like every other shot I shoot does that.

I aimed my one pocket break like you do for a long time before discovering this technique. But for me that was too "mechanical" to be consistently precise, especially with squirt/swerve.

pj
chgo

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I play with my own tips, and am accustom to med/hard. But I have a cue that the tip is medium, and I find that it creates more of a squirt on the cb, which surprised me somewhat until I rationalized it out. I feel as we go with ever softer tips the tip then stays upon the cb a miniscue amount longer thus giving it more squirt. I very well maybe wrong, but this is my opinion, and what I am noticing when playing with a softer tip.

As to how it relates to the break; In OP there is no requirement to only use your playing cue when playing except for executing a Jump Shot. Thus for me, I would rationalize using a cue and tip that effects the squirt less on the break. And I would imagine that some players do use a different cue on the break. Whitey

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I play with my own tips, and am accustom to med/hard. But I have a cue that the tip is medium, and I find that it creates more of a squirt on the cb, which surprised me somewhat until I rationalized it out. I feel as we go with ever softer tips the tip then stays upon the cb a miniscue amount longer thus giving it more squirt. I very well maybe wrong, but this is my opinion, and what I am noticing when playing with a softer tip.

As to how it relates to the break; In OP there is no requirement to only use your playing cue when playing except for executing a Jump Shot. Thus for me, I would rationalize using a cue and tip that effects the squirt less on the break. And I would imagine that some players do use a different cue on the break. Whitey

Dr. Dave has tested this question, and says this about it: "Tip hardness (in a typical range) has no practical effect on CB deflection (squirt)."

Here's a link to his "resource page" on that topic: https://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness

I have no personal opinion, but I tend to trust Dave's conclusions.

pj
chgo

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Dr. Dave has tested this question, and says this about it: "Tip hardness (in a typical range) has no practical effect on CB deflection (squirt)."

Here's a link to his "resource page" on that topic: https://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness

I have no personal opinion, but I tend to trust Dave's conclusions.

pj
chgo

I briefly read the resourse page. In 2008 a test was done which Dave thought was not controlled well. But a softer tip created more squirt, cue tip contact time longer. Another test states it seems a harder tip may of created a slightly more squirt. But Dave rationalize and attributes this more to added weight of the tip, than the hardness.

I say this to address the weight of a tip; you can not create weight. Meaning if you start out with x amount of the same material to make a soft thru to a hard tip, the only difference is how much you press the tip. A harder tip maybe press .030 more than a soft tip, but they would weigh the same. To get a heavier tip you would have to start with more material, and some mfg. may do this.

The 2008 test comes up with the same result as I rationalized from just doing shots.

This is just another thought that I do not believe had been discussed on this break thread. It may take some experimenting to see if another cue and tip gives you better break results. Whitey

 

[darmoose]

Of course. The question is which method gives the most consistent results. For me (and maybe Bill now too), aiming the shot like every other shot I shoot does that.

I aimed my one pocket break like you do for a long time before discovering this technique. But for me that was too "mechanical" to be consistently precise, especially with squirt/swerve.

pj
chgo

Thanks for your answer Pat. That's a very interesting comment and approach, which I have never considered before.

Would I be correct in assuming that you can make a spot shot more often than you can shoot the CB directly into the hole from the kitchen?

 

[darmoose]

The two best explanations of a one pocket break can be found on Billy incardone and Grady mathews DVD’s. They explain the why and where you break from certain positions according to slide of new cloth, the absolutes of all the balls touching on the side you are breaking from, and speed control of the stroke.

B

Ha Ha:lol Sorry, I just noticed this while looking back through this thread (obviously I am bored), and I couldn't pass it up..........

Does Dr Bill know he has this video?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Would I be correct in assuming that you can make a spot shot more often than you can shoot the CB directly into the hole from the kitchen?

Not sure why you'd assume that. A pocket is a huge target compared to the contact point for a spot shot (or a one pocket break).

Guess I misunderstand...

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I say this to address the weight of a tip; you can not create weight. Meaning if you start out with x amount of the same material to make a soft thru to a hard tip, the only difference is how much you press the tip. A harder tip maybe press .030 more than a soft tip, but they would weigh the same. To get a heavier tip you would have to start with more material, and some mfg. may do this.

All the tips I see for sale are about the same height. Harder ones, being denser, must be heavier. But I'd be surprised if that tiny difference in mass makes a meaningful difference in squirt.

pj
chgo

 

[darmoose]

Not sure why you'd assume that. A pocket is a huge target compared to the contact point for a spot shot (or a one pocket break).

Guess I misunderstand...

pj
chgo

Sorry Pat, I guess that question was not as obvious as I thought. I was using the pocket as the target because there's no doubt when you hit/miss it. Let me try again.

Would I be correct in saying that you can hit a target, like a diamond along the rail, using the CB (in the kitchen) to drive an OB (sitting on the spot), more often than you can simply shoot the CB directly into that target from the same place in the kitchen?

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I was betting this guy on making spot shots, and I was doing ok, but then he started taking me off to my surprise. He had it zeroed in so I had to get off that bet.
I talked to him afterwards and he said; "I started setting the cb whereas if I aimed at the middle diamond I would make the spot shot". It worked!

I got him back another day by betting him on wing shots on a 5x10 snooker table. The catch for him to wager was that I had to roll the ob on the far side of the center spot making the wing shot harder.

He got me back again when I propositioned him that he could not balance a ball on top of another ball. He asked if he could use a rail, I said; "ok", not really worried. But he did it, I was pissed and gave him his money and left. I asked the owner of the pool hall the next day; "how did he do that"? He replied; He found a huge clip in the 1 ball and the 9 ball and lined them up. I learned a lesson! I believe possibly it was Charles Peterson that could stack balls, and I heard from my mentor Curly that it is possible but everything has to be perfectly still and quiet. I could never do it! Whitey

 

[darmoose]

All the tips I see for sale are about the same height. Harder ones, being denser, must be heavier. But I'd be surprised if that tiny difference in mass makes a meaningful difference in squirt.

So no one on this thread has ever noticed that a softer tip produces more squirt? Not surprising, for I just realized it for I always shoot with a med/hard but when I tried out a med. I could not control the squirt. The tips weigh the same, the shafts are the same, the major difference was the hardness of the tip. Whitey

Whitey,

Pool/billiards, the reactions between CB and OB's, and between OB's with each other as well as with rails, and yes, the CB with the cue tip are all governed by physics, geometry, and math. The measurements can be tiny, as you observe, nevertheless they are there, and can't be denied.

I think you are correct that the hardness/softness of the tip affects squirt and swerve. Why would we have different hardnesses in tips if it were otherwise. Quite often the proof of theories is the practical application of how do we spend our money.

How is this any different than the well accepted idea that low or no deflection shafts are the result of minor weight differences near the end of the cue, among other factors.

If I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of aiming the headball at a target, as opposed to aiming the CB at a specific target, keeping in mind if you are to learn anything about your accuracy, you need direct feedback of what you are attempting to accomplish. To be clear, if you are aiming an OB at a target, but it never goes anywhere near the target, no matter how you hit it, you can have NO direct feedback.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Whitey,

Pool/billiards, the reactions between CB and OB's, and between OB's with each other as well as with rails, and yes, the CB with the cue tip are all governed by physics, geometry, and math. The measurements can be tiny, as you observe, nevertheless they are there, and can't be denied.

I think you are correct that the hardness/softness of the tip affects squirt and swerve. Why would we have different hardnesses in tips if it were otherwise. Quite often the proof of theories is the practical application of how do we spend our money.

How is this any different than the well accepted idea that low or no deflection shafts are the result of minor weight differences near the end of the cue, among other factors.

If I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of aiming the headball at a target, as opposed to aiming the CB at a specific target, keeping in mind if you are to learn anything about your accuracy, you need direct feedback of what you are attempting to accomplish. To be clear, if you are aiming an OB at a target, but it never goes anywhere near the target, no matter how you hit it, you can have NO direct feedback.

I've just barely scratch the surface of this thread. Back in the day I'd practice OP everyday, and I scratched a lot. Being self-taught I never knew why! So I just want to go through this thread and learn, I honestly do not do enough breaks to give you an honest opinion, not experienced enough. I just try to hit the head ball a certain thickness, that's all. I'll have to work through the different aiming suggestions before I can render an opinion. But it seems which ever one works for that person would be the best, for that person! There might not be a right answer/fits all! Just from the outside looking in, opinion. Whitey

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry Pat, I guess that question was not as obvious as I thought. I was using the pocket as the target because there's no doubt when you hit/miss it. Let me try again.

Would I be correct in saying that you can hit a target, like a diamond along the rail, using the CB (in the kitchen) to drive an OB (sitting on the spot), more often than you can simply shoot the CB directly into that target from the same place in the kitchen?

Yes, assuming the CB targets are equally small and the CB is hit the same way (slow with side spin).

For example, the OB contact "point" for a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket is slightly wider than 1/16" (allowing for pocket slop). I'm practiced enough at shooting OBs to visualize/hit that target, but not practiced enough at visualizing/hitting other kinds of targets equally small (again, especially with squirt/swerve to consider).

I'm not saying my break method is for everybody - but it might be worth a try if your break isn't as consistently accurate as you'd like.

pj
chgo

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose, to better answer your question, I then read all of the posts.

And then I took it to the table. I, 1st. put a chalk of the 1st. diamond side rail up from the scoring pocket, so I could better locate where to aim and hit the head ob into the chalk. Did a couple of breaks like this and they ended up well.

Next using this method of aiming I located a spot within the rack of balls that correlates to striking the head ball where I want to, as if aiming for the chalk, but not.

So now breaking from the left side towards the lower right corner, I aimed between the center ball and the ball to right of it in the last row of balls. So I am aiming through the head ball to the center of those balls. And it work well.
I prefer this method for it seems easier and more precise for you are looking directly at the aiming point, and of course it strikes the head ball where you want it to.

'For Me', PJ's method help me to initially realize a reference point of just where to hit the head ball, and then from there I located a spot within the rack to aim at.

I have been doing the method of locating a spot within the rack when breaking for some time now. I use it all games 9, 10, and 8 ball. Just I haven't really broke any OP, so have not located a spot until you asked me this question.

But, as I stated; "whatever works best for that player"! They both worked well for me. Thanks guys for offering up these methods, they work well. Whitey

 

[darmoose]

Darmoose, to better answer your question, I then read all of the posts.

And then I took it to the table. I, 1st. put a chalk of the 1st. diamond side rail up from the scoring pocket, so I could better locate where to aim and hit the head ob into the chalk. Did a couple of breaks like this and they ended up well.

Next using this method of aiming I located a spot within the rack of balls that correlates to striking the head ball where I want to, as if aiming for the chalk, but not.

So now breaking from the left side towards the lower right corner, I aimed between the center ball and the ball to right of it in the last row of balls. So I am aiming through the head ball to the center of those balls. And it work well.
I prefer this method for it seems easier and more precise for you are looking directly at the aiming point, and of course it strikes the head ball where you want it to.

'For Me', PJ's method help me to initially realize a reference point of just where to hit the head ball, and then from there I located a spot within the rack to aim at.

I have been doing the method of locating a spot within the rack when breaking for some time now. I use it all games 9, 10, and 8 ball. Just I haven't really broke any OP, so have not located a spot until you asked me this question.

But, as I stated; "whatever works best for that player"! They both worked well for me. Thanks guys for offering up these methods, they work well. Whitey

Whitey,

Thanks for taking the time and taking this question to the table. I agree with the idea of using whatever works for you, of course.

I don't doubt that Pat is right that cutting the head ball to the first diamond results in a proper hit for the break shot. But, since the head ball will never go towards the first diamond, therefore you are denied any direct feedback, how can you know if you hit it properly?

You can know that you liked the break or you didn't, but you cannot know if the head ball was going at the first diamond.

JMHO

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Whitey,

Thanks for taking the time and taking this question to the table. I agree with the idea of using whatever works for you, of course.

I don't doubt that Pat is right that cutting the head ball to the first diamond results in a proper hit for the break shot. But, since the head ball will never go towards the first diamond, therefore you are denied any direct feedback, how can you know if you hit it properly?

You can know that you liked the break or you didn't, but you cannot know if the head ball was going at the first diamond.

JMHO

I understand your premise of not seeing the 'direct' results of the head ball path, but other than that I think it is pure conjecture on your part, for the head ball might be heading right for that diamond. And who are we to know what makes it work for others. PJ method surely gave me a starting point, and others too, accordingly with these follow up posts. He has his method and you have yours. I, would not struggle over which might be the better, for its to no end.

Cutting a ball to do a combination, you have to visualize it, feel it, go with it and executed it. Picture it in your mind, and execute. See the ball go in the hole before you pull the trigger, and so on.

So who's to say you can not visualize the head ball going into the first diamond, and execute. Not easy for me to visualize the head ball path, but others it probably is. And sure, you can not see the direct results of the head ball path, but if you make a good break that is proof enough for me to believe, and if it helps others all the better. Whitey

 

[darmoose]

And sure, you can not see the direct results of the head ball path, but if you make a good break that is proof enough for me to believe, and if it helps others all the better. Whitey

Sounds great, Whitey. I think you got this figured out. I'm gonna try it first time I get to a table, but I need just a small bit of guidance?


If I hit a bad break and sell out the game, how do I adjust for my next break. Do I hit the head ball fuller or thinner?

Cutting a ball to do a combination, you have to visualize it. feel it, go with it and executed it. Picture it in your mind and execute. See the ball go in the hole before you pull the trigger, and so on.

Absolutely, and you can tell from the direct feedback if your plan worked, cause the ball goes in the hole, or not, no? If it failed, you know exactly how to adjust next time, no?



Thanks in advance

 

[darmoose]

darrell
we agreed in this thread eek:... )about aiming at the base or middle of the second ball
as an aiming aid for the break. You bet
with this method you dont know if you hit the second ball in the face because the head ball gets in the way
but you get a good visual if you are on targetbecause you can see momentarily if you are on target until the head ball interferes
.....
with patricks method
although you dont see if the object ball hits your target
but just like pocketing a ball
if you stay down and watch the cue ball and object ball collide
you can tell if you hit it good or badI disagree, when pocketing a ball, you get immediate direct feedback to know if you hit it where you were trying to, it either goes in or not.
jmho

Pat says the tolerance on the OB for pocketing a ball from the spot is about 1/16", less for hitting a diamond on the rail. I am sure we agree that doing something this exacting, simplicity counts. Picking a target in the stack to aim at is obviously simpler/easier than attempting to cut a ball to a target on the rail.

Here are some truths:

NO ONE has ever hit the break shot and made the head ball go to the first diamond.

NO ONE ever will hit the break shot and make the head ball go to the first diamond.

NO ONE has ever ever gotten any direct feedback attempting to do this, to know if they in fact did so, or if this is the proper place to hit the head ball. It is unknowable.

I don't know where to hit the head ball or what my target should be, other than I wanna hit that head ball. I can only look at the results and adjust from there. If I have any success, I will look for the easiest target that I can find to try to replicate that hit.

This is in no way an attack on Pat, whatever works for him, have at it. But, to others looking for a panacea, I don't think one exists, that's all.

JMHO

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I went back through all the posts, for Larry's comment on aiming at the 2nd ball to hit it in the face, I had missed.

First off we have not set a start standard of where the cb is placed, to set a standard for all these different aiming methods, will give us a starting point. I set the cb @ headstring with edge of the cb 4" from the cushion on a 5x10, this is probably 3-3-1/2" on a 4-1/2 x 9 table.

On Steve's post #2 there is a very nice diagram representing the hit with colors representing the different hits. Well the desired hit on the head ball is near a 90 degree cut, this flies directly in the face of what PJ is suggesting to contact the head ball to hit the first diamond. No comparison whatsoever.

On Billy's post # 75 if states; he uses PJ method as a reference point to contact the head ball which allows for the squirt which ends up hitting the head ball where he actually wants it, a thinner hit than what PJ is proposing and more inline with Steve's post #2. Backed up with discussions on aiming / squirt with Doc. Correct me if I am wrong!

Larry's method of aiming to hit the 2nd ball full, does put the angle of sending the head ball close to the 1st. diamond but it is more on an angle of a diamond and 1/4", a thinner hit.

They say the perfect hit is to hit the head ball and 2nd ball simultaneously or splitting them. When you just lay the cue ball in there by hand to touch both balls it is close to a 90 degree head ball hit. I did Steve's 3 ball test shot and sure enough the 2nd row ball went right in the hole.

Well so I took all these methods to the table. PJ's obviously hits the head ball the thickest if hit to direct head ball to the 1st diamond. Larry's shot hits it a little thinner like I pointed out. My shot of aiming between the middle ball and the ball next to it in the last row, is a thinner yet. But the shot that emulates the split hit best is to aim between the 2 center balls of the 4th. row. This gave me the best spread and cb control.

With all that said, on my table 5x10 being a longer distance the cb has more time to correct for squirt and hit where I aim. In all fairness to Larry if he aims at the 2nd ball full but knows he will get some squirt then he is expecting a thinner hit than I represented.

PJ's method, I took the cb by itself and froze it to the head ball on the angle to drive the head ball into the first diamond. Then lined up my cue on the cb inline with the 4" cb placement off the rail, and the aiming point is exactly straight on the middle ball of the 3rd row. When executing this shot when aiming at the middle ball of the 3rd row using inside english the corner ball pops out severely and the cb runs into it.

So I am at a loss with PJ's method for he does say to aim to contact the head ball to hit the 1st. diamond but does not say in using inside english it then will hit the head ball thinner, as I believe is the case in Billy's results. Once again correct me if I miss represented something. But, as with Larry's method I also will acknowledge PJ maybe is expecting to hit the head ball thinner than the actual aiming point, because of the cb squirt. Or if he is placing the cb farther out in the table, I then think it would hit the head ball thinner.

I like using Billy's 4 & 8 stroke. I hope this is not all to confusing but this is how I have analyzed these posts. Whitey