PDA

View Full Version : Post deleted by ccboard_admin



05-28-2002, 07:44 AM

05-28-2002, 11:43 AM
Whitewolf, contrary to what the books might say, in my experience there's absolutely no benefit to playing with no english.

On virtually all "low-level" cut shots, a touch of outside english is usually a good idea. It reduces the chance of a skid and it's easier to aim. On severe cut shots, I find a touch of inside is best, though that one is a little harder to justify.

I do agree with you that most pros use english on most shots, but not necessarily for your reasoning. If you are assuming an imperfect stroke then it won't matter if they aim at the center or with english, since the imperfect stroke might cause them to hit a place on the cueball they did not intend. Either way, english or no english, such an occurrence would necessarily cause a missed object ball.

- Steve Lipsky

05-28-2002, 12:39 PM
I found it confusing that it was suggested that some players use english on straight in shots...... Can't imagine why..

Jay M
05-28-2002, 03:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: JasonG NYC:</font><hr> I found it confusing that it was suggested that some players use english on straight in shots...... Can't imagine why.. <hr></blockquote>

Because the cue ball will slide to the appropriate side with a good stroke. In other words, if you have a straight in shot with a couple of inches to the right to travel for the leave, you can hit that with a TON of right english, hard, and the cue will move to the right after pocketing the ball... very hard to be conistent this way, but it works.

If you hit the ball with top, center or bottom, you don't get that deflection (assuming a straight shot somewhere near a rail where cheating the pocket isn't an option).

Jay M

phil in sofla
05-28-2002, 05:04 PM
The effect of throw varies with the speed of the stroke. A soft stroke magnifies the throw effect; a firm stroke lessens it to next to nothing.

I do not think most of these players are throwing the ball, as the firmness of their strokes prevents that. I think that, instead, they are using some side to minimize the cling/throw effect of the collision, to prevent the undercutting possibility should the cling/throw effect occur, which it seems to do more on a 'dead' ball, a skidding cue ball without English.

Byrne talks about this tendency of many good players to routinely use outside English on cuts, which Buddy Hall describes as 'helping' English.

05-28-2002, 05:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr>
Because the cue ball will slide to the appropriate side with a good stroke. In other words, if you have a straight in shot with a couple of inches to the right to travel for the leave, you can hit that with a TON of right english, hard, and the cue will move to the right after pocketing the ball... very hard to be conistent this way, but it works.

If you hit the ball with top, center or bottom, you don't get that deflection (assuming a straight shot somewhere near a rail where cheating the pocket isn't an option).

Jay M <hr></blockquote>

Im sorry to say but you are wrong about this.
The cueball wont speed up any more to the side then the object ball will to the other side...
Playing straight with english to get the cueball to move to the side is actualy exactly the same as playing at a slight cut angle.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-28-2002, 05:40 PM
When I was learning 14.1 many many many years ago, I was told that the there was always a little "helping" english used for almost every shot. Hitting center english was only used for stun shots or for the cue ball to roll just a little forward of the OB.

Lots of good players use the "helping english" to counter act the side hit induced spin on the OB, that can make you undercut.

I have seen more balls 'thrown' from what you call center (top or follow/and or draw) hits, than I care to remember.

05-28-2002, 06:05 PM
Yes I agree with Phil.

Outside english is used to take contact induced throw out of the equation. Outside english is also known as natural english because in a cut shot with a centre ball hit after the colision between object and cue ball the cue ball naturally takes on the same spin as if you hit it with outside english because of the gear effect. In order to eliminate this gear effect which shoots the object ball off the desired course just impart a minimal amount of outside on the cue ball and because it is spinning the way it would be after object ball contact during the actual contact it slides off the object ball instead of throwing it.

This means that the ghost ball aiming system becomes accurate when you use a tad of outside english. You will also note that when you use the outside when the cue ball hits the object ball the object ball reacts like a ball that you just hit with centre ball towards the pocket (ie it will slide towards the pocket and then gain natural roll). With a centre ball hit the object ball will be rolling with english from the throw of the colision.

In the end it is a trade off to eliminating contact induced throw by bringing in a little deflection on the shot. If you use a small enough amount deflection will only come into it on the longest of shots. Deflection is a cue variable where as contact induced throw is a table and ball variable. Because a pro plays on a lot of different tables, it is preferable to take one variable out of the table and put it into the cue which remains constant from game to game.

Personally my shooting accuracy went from 80% to 97% when I started using a miniscule amount of outside on all my shots.

Cheers - Ozzy8

Jay M
05-28-2002, 07:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Im sorry to say but you are wrong about this.(using english to throw the cue to the side on a straight in shot)
<hr></blockquote>

I'd welcome comments from any of the other pros on here. I actually know the accuracy of my comment and can demonstrate it at any time. Fran? Steve? Melissa? Chris? Grady? anyone care to validate or invalidate my comment?

Btw, a softer shot will accomplish the same effect, however they are much harder to execute as you have a lot of factors to compensate for.

Jay M

Tom_In_Cincy
05-28-2002, 07:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Im sorry to say but you are wrong about this.
The cueball wont speed up any more to the side than the object ball will to the other side...
Playing straight with english to get the cueball to move to the side is actualy exactly the same as playing at a slight cut angle.<hr></blockquote>

Malcomb.,

What Jay is saying.. is exactly correct. I use it all the time to get more speed and direction on the cue ball than with center... you have to aim to compensate for the cue ball deflection, which will also increase the angle..

05-28-2002, 11:17 PM
I agree with you, Jay. I've had success with it the way you describe, but out of curiosity have you ever tried the shot with inside english?

When the cueball and object ball are relatively close to each other, the shot can be hit hard and aimed slightly to the left of the pocket. A ton of inside english will throw the object ball in, and the angle will have been created naturally to get shape to the right.

For the not-so-faint-of-heart, the shot can be hit slowly with enormous outside english (as Jay mentioned). Here, the cueball will initially swerve to the left, and then curve back in to make the proper hit on the object ball. The angle is being artificially created, but the net effect is the same - the cueball will drift to the right after making the ball.

Incidentally, I don't really recommend either shot in serious competition. But if the situation arises, and there's simply no other choice, it's a great shot to know.

- Steve Lipsky

Rod
05-29-2002, 01:11 AM
Good Post Steve and a good explanation. Also inside is over looked many times on certain shots, where players "natural" tendacy is to use outside. This is not in reference to the original post where a touch of outside works best.

05-29-2002, 05:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;Im sorry to say but you are wrong about this.
The cueball wont speed up any more to the side than the object ball will to the other side...
Playing straight with english to get the cueball to move to the side is actualy exactly the same as playing at a slight cut angle.&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Malcomb.,

What Jay is saying.. is exactly correct. I use it all the time to get more speed and direction on the cue ball than with center... you have to aim to compensate for the cue ball deflection, which will also increase the angle.. <hr></blockquote>

It is not correct what makes you think this spin isnt gonna throw the object ball just as much as the cueball? When you can play the object ball at a slight angle you can play it straight with a litle spin to throw it in and throw the cueball the other side but you can do exatly the same with making a litle cut.

JimS
05-29-2002, 06:42 AM
What I hear Jay saying, and I may be incorrect,is that you may, for instance, have a straight in shot where you need to have the cb end up a little to the right. You can aim to the left edge of the pocket, or even well outside the pocket if you have enough distance for the throw to take the ob that far, use left english to throw the ob back to the center of the pocket and the cb will slide a little to the right.

Do I have the right take on what you were saying Jay? I know I use this method where necessary and it certainly works if hit softly enough for the english induced throw to take effect. I've seen the ob thrown a full diamond on table length shots hit at pocket speed with max english.

I went back and re=read Jays post and this was not what he was saying. Jay suggests hitting the cb HARD into the ob with max english causing the cb to slide to the side after contact. Wouldn't this slide be the result of a slightly off-center hit on the ob, because of deflection, with the english then throwing the ob back into the hole?

Jay M
05-29-2002, 07:28 AM
Malcolm:

When you hit the shot hard, you don't have enough contact to actually throw the object ball, that's not what the shot does. the spinning action of the cue ball causes the cue to bounce off the object ball in the direction of the spin. It's similar to what happens if you have a gear spinning against a stationary object. Here's a way for you to see what is happening. Take two balls, hold one in place, take the second ball and push it against the first and then rotate it to either side. you'll see what is happening that way. It happens a LOT faster during the shot, but it's the same effect.


Steve:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>but out of curiosity have you ever tried the shot with inside english? <hr></blockquote>

Yes, but that tends to be harder to control for me so I don't use it very often. Given the choice, I'd rather use outside personally.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Incidentally, I don't really recommend either shot in serious competition. But if the situation arises, and there's simply no other choice, it's a great shot to know. <hr></blockquote>

I agree, it's only come up once in competition for me that I can remember (against Bill Fergueson during a florida tour event), but that was a make-or-break shot in a case game. The only reason that I chose to shoot it then was because there was traffic all around the cue ball and having to get point position with draw was too chancy. The window was about an inch or so and I was near a rail so I used the shot to move the cue out to the side and pushed lightly off a second ball to get the leave.

Definitely a shot that I was happy with, but that I never want to have to shoot again...

Jim:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
I went back and re=read Jays post and this was not what he was saying. Jay suggests hitting the cb HARD into the ob with max english causing the cb to slide to the side after contact. Wouldn't this slide be the result of a slightly off-center hit on the ob, because of deflection, with the english then throwing the ob back into the hole?
<hr></blockquote>

It may have a bit to do with deflection, but I've never really analyzed it to see, it's one of those shots that I discovered by accident and then played around with because it seemed like it may be useful to know. it's the spin that causes the movement and there really isn't any object ball throw to speak of. When I say hit it hard, I'm talking about nearly break speed, well, not quite, but it feels like it when you shoot the shot.

Jay M

05-29-2002, 07:29 AM
It doesnt mather how you say it, the cueball will never go more to the side with english then without english when the object ball enters the pocket at the same place.
Cueball and object ball will always have the same opposite speed going from the the straight line you shoot the cueball.
English can only slow both down or accelerate them both but this is the same as shooting at a different angle.
Shooting at an angle even has more potential cueball speed because the cueball goes faster when you hit it in the centre.

05-29-2002, 08:03 AM
I think i know what you are talking about but it isnt because of the contact with the object ball.
You probably shoot with the cue at a slight angle and then the cueball draws to the side from the sidespin.

Patrick
05-29-2002, 08:11 AM
You are wrong, the contact of the balls have nothing to do with it, it is the cloth.

The reason why the cueball goes to the side with spin is because it jumps a little in the air, when it comes back from the air and contacts the table, then it goes to the side from the spin, this is a warp shot. This shot is very easy when the both balls are close to each other.
This shot is the same as with draw or follow, elevate the cue and shoot with draw, when it contacts the cloth it will accellerate on the direction of the spin. It is the same as with side spin. When it comes down from the air, if you look from the side, it has draw on it.

On a longer distance shot it is harder and you will need more spin and more elevation of the cue to get the same result, like a massé shot, if the cueball jumps when it hits the object ball, then you will need more draw to make it come to the side, because when you hit the upper part of the ball it will have another direction. When the balls are close to each other, the cueball's direction is to the side and not forwards.
The warp shot comes up about 10% of the time in Rotation Straight Pool.

If the cue is level, the only way you can make the cueball go to the side after contact is by using the nap of the cloth so the cueball will drift on the cloth.

You can change the contact on the object ball with side spin, so the cueball will hit fuller or thinner on the object ball, I think everyone knows this already.

Patrick

Jay M
05-29-2002, 08:18 AM
Malcolm,

I shoot this shot with a level cue and extreme outside english (and that would be in the outside ring on one of those practice cue balls, I think Hopkins distributes them). I do not elevate the cue at all for this. In the shot against Bill that I mentioned, I chose this shot partially because I didn't want to jack up over the edge of a ball, but there was a gap between two balls that allowed me to shoot with the cue between them.

It IS the spin that causes the effect. Note that I said that hitting it VERY hard will only cause the cue ball to travel an inch or two at most. That's because the shot doesn't have any angle and the only motivating force is the spin, the momentum of the cue ball is stunned by the contact. I can't explain it any better than I have without showing you on a pool table. You'll just have to take my word and the word of Steve Lipsky (BTW, both of us are active players, although Steve is more active than I am {glances meaningfully at the non-existent Florida Tour}).

Jay M

Jay M
05-29-2002, 08:23 AM
You know, Patrick actually hit very close to what happens when I shoot the shot. The cue ball DOES drift on the cloth after the shot, most likely from the friction between the CB and the carpet. Note that the cue ball generally spins for over a minute after the shot although it settles into one place to spin after the initial drift.

Kudos Patrick, you got this one right =) (j/k)

Jay M

Patrick
05-29-2002, 08:23 AM
When you use outside spin, the cueball contacts the object ball in another place, using outside spin is like moving the cueball so the shot would be straighter.

Patrick

05-29-2002, 08:56 AM
Jay what i was saying is exactly the same as patrick just without the details ( i tought youd know them without me explaining it )
You always shoot at a slight angle and when you play hard this angle is anough to get anough sidedraw on the cueball.

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr>Because the cue ball will slide to the appropriate side with a good stroke. In other words, if you have a straight in shot with a couple of inches to the right to travel for the leave, you can hit that with a TON of right english, hard, and the cue will move to the right after pocketing the ball... very hard to be conistent this way, but it works. Jay M <hr></blockquote>
The devil is in the details.

If you hit a ball full in the face using, say right-hand spin, then if you hold faith in such nonsense called 'throw', then yes the cueball will go to the right. But that's only because the object ball is thrown to the left. Conservation of momentum and such. However, this clearly can only be true if the hit is full in the face and you're willing to concede that the object ball doesn't go dead straight. Tighten up the pocket with chalk cubes and test it again. If you can get that object ball to go dead straight and straight in the pocket without hitting the chalk cubes *and* still have the cueball drift to the right on a level table, then you're defying physics. When I shoot this shot, the cueball is left spinning madly in place.

If you do believe in the effects of throw, then a good argument can be made that if the object ball in your example goes dead straight, then the cueball with right-hand english would actually go *left*. Again, the devil's in the details.

Check out what Jewett has to say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;threadm=shepard-1001971256250001%40macrls.tcg.anl.gov&amp;rnum=9&amp;prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dspin%2Bright%2Bleft%2Bstraight%2Bauth or:Shepard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dshepard-1001971256250001%2540macrls.tcg.anl.gov%26rnum%3D9 (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=spin+right+travel+Jewett&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;selm=8 opurm%244vm%241%40slb7.atl.mindspring.net&amp;rnum=8>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=spin+right+travel+Jewett&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;selm=8 opurm%244vm%241%40slb7.atl.mindspring.net&amp;rnum=8</a>

and)
Pay particular attention to the Ron Shepard and Bob Jewett posts.


Fred

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 09:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Patrick:</font><hr> You are wrong, the contact of the balls have nothing to do with it, it is the cloth.
. When it comes down from the air, if you look from the side, it has draw on it.<hr></blockquote>
If it's only spinning on its vertical axis, then when it lands, the motion vectors (choose your poison of velocity or acceleration, I don't care which) are equal and opposite in all directions.

Fred

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> You'll just have to take my word and the word of Steve Lipsky <hr></blockquote>
That's not going to cut it on a discussion board, Jay. Even long time discussion board participant Steve Lipsky will agree to that. There are several things written by players better than you that are still dead wrong. Being wrong doesn't make them worse players. Being better players doesn't make them right.

Your observation is just that: your observation (and a good one). However, your explanation of your observation is up for debate. And your particular explanation has been discussed many times on the internet and has been debunked or at least clarified on the details level.

Fred

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr>
On virtually all "low-level" cut shots, a touch of outside english is usually a good idea. It reduces the chance of a skid and it's easier to aim. On severe cut shots, I find a touch of inside is best, though that one is a little harder to justify.<hr></blockquote>
I was playing with Paul Mon one time, aiming a really thin cut using outside. After I hit it, he said that he always hits that shot with inside. Same as you, I suppose. Same as a lot of people. I'm guessing that inside let's you swerve that ball from outside in, similar to a shaping a golf shot. The reason I was using outside? For position of course. No other reason.

I used to use outside on every cut shot like most people. It's the natural progression, but no longer. Ever since I decided to incorporate both inside and outside as equals, and incorporating and understanding "squirt" in my game (which IMO is a zillion times more important than throw will ever be), I no longer use english to help make shots. Let me clarify: it's been 10+ years since I ever used english to help make a ball (not including banks).

The good side is that inside english shots are as easy as outside english shots for me. That is, given a choice, I can go the better way with equal gusto. Most players cannot truly say the same if they are of the "use english to help shots" shotmaker. They will favor one over the other, which may be detrimental for that particular shot.

The bad side is that outside english shots are nearly as difficult as inside english shots. That is, given both choices, neither is advantageous for me the way I aim today.

Fred

05-29-2002, 12:07 PM
hmmmm I'm not sure i agree with this post at all hitting the CB with masse with cause the Cb to come into the OB at a different angle than if you hit it straight in... this will in my opinion definatley help send the CB down table with considerably less effort than say a power stun shot.

05-29-2002, 12:10 PM
If what youre saying is true Malcom then why would anyone need to use any spin at all to help "speed Up" thier shots?


****would love to never have to sue english****

05-29-2002, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> hmmmm I'm not sure i agree with this post at all hitting the CB with masse with cause the Cb to come into the OB at a different angle than if you hit it straight in... this will in my opinion definatley help send the CB down table with considerably less effort than say a power stun shot. <hr></blockquote>

What i was saying isnt something you can discuss.
Its the way it works ...
I think very lilte of you realy know what goes on on the table.

05-29-2002, 12:16 PM
ya but thats only assuming that the CB stopped dead after contacting the ob fred which is highly unlikely given force,angle and spin upon impact

05-29-2002, 12:18 PM
hmmm I was gonna say the same thing about you only I would have spelled it correctly

05-29-2002, 12:31 PM
By the sounds of him Malcom seems to be very intelligent and seems to know his physics but in my most humble opinion physics can only be applied to pool as a DEFINATE only if ALL of the factors of the shot, ie squirt, throw, deflection, cloth, humidity, stroke and many many more factors that I just do not know to list. And since there is no possible way for me, Malcolm or anyone else here to know exactly what all of the variables are in any shot in pool I am going to take what I percieve as being correct as waht is right for me and I inveite all others here to do the same for themselves.

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 01:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> ya but thats only assuming that the CB stopped dead after contacting the ob fred which is highly unlikely given force,angle and spin upon impact <hr></blockquote>
That's right. It is assuming that the CB stopped dead. But, it's not highly unlikely. Maybe that's the disagreement. I think everyone can find the spot that will pot the object ball *and* stop the CB dead/spinning on a straight in firm shot. If I can do it, hell, anyone can.

All that being said, I also agree with you that it doesn't matter what the details say. If in your game on a straight in shot, you hit right hand english and the cueball drifts to the right, then by all means use that observation to your best advantage. I'm simply saying that it's not the the spin, and that others shooting the same shot will notice the cueball drifting the other direction (left in this case). Neither observation is incorrect.

Fred

05-29-2002, 02:22 PM
Good call Downtown. Pool has far too many variables in it for Physics to have much bearing at all.Just read Physics for the amateur pool player. With 50 yrs of school experience I still wouldnt be able to understand this book. And most of what the guy is talking about doesnt apply because of the extreme number of variables.
Glen~~~~better in pool than Physics

05-29-2002, 02:36 PM
What do you mean extreme number of variables?
The only thing wich is complicated in pool is what happens in the rails.
But a ball hitting an other ball or the effect spin has on the cloth is very simple actualy ...
Maybe the variables you are talking about are things like dust or chalk on the cloth or on the balls ... But these things dont change anything that mathers for this discussion.

05-29-2002, 02:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> If what youre saying is true Malcom then why would anyone need to use any spin at all to help "speed Up" thier shots?


****would love to never have to sue english**** <hr></blockquote>

What i mean with speed up is throw obviously.
And what this discussion is about is that throw is always exactly the same for the cueball as for the object ball...
And you dont need to consider any other variables for this, this is very simple.
If the cueball would have some chalk on it and it would hit the object ball there the throw would just be more for both balls but still equal.
So you can not play an object ball straight with english and only make the cueball throw to the side, the object ball will throw the other side.

And i dont think you should chose what english you use to make the shot, you should chose your spin to play possition and know how much throw youre gonna get from that spin.

Only follow and draw are realy usefull to make shots easyer since this directs a big part of the throw vertical and so changes the angle of the shot a lot less especialy on smaller cuts.

05-29-2002, 02:51 PM
What I was getting at Malcolm was that if a novice player was reading this post to try and understand the game a little more he/she would get so damn confused from what everyone was talking about. I know what im doing and I was getting lost.I think when 20 different pool try to explain what happens in a certain situation we all tend to forget that only one thing matters in a game of pool, and that is putting the ball into a pocket.

Glen~~~fares quite well at the last statement.

05-29-2002, 02:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Hoppy:</font><hr> Good call Downtown. Pool has far too many variables in it for Physics to have much bearing at all.Just read Physics for the amateur pool player. With 50 yrs of school experience I still wouldnt be able to understand this book. And most of what the guy is talking about doesnt apply because of the extreme number of variables.
Glen~~~~better in pool than Physics <hr></blockquote>

I havent seen this book but im pretty sure the guy is just using fancy words for easy things you already knew but now you obviously think you dont ...
This is what i found on every website about pool physics anyways.
I was looking for detailed analysis of what happens in the rails ( take my word for it this is by far the most complicated thing in pool ) but what i found on the websites were things like when you hit an object ball straight in at 10mph the object ball will go 10mph and they used some strange words to explain this.

05-29-2002, 03:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Hoppy:</font><hr> What I was getting at Malcolm was that if a novice player was reading this post to try and understand the game a little more he/she would get so damn confused from what everyone was talking about. I know what im doing and I was getting lost.I think when 20 different pool try to explain what happens in a certain situation we all tend to forget that only one thing matters in a game of pool, and that is putting the ball into a pocket.

Glen~~~fares quite well at the last statement. <hr></blockquote>

What i was saying isnt complicated im just not to good with words so you might misunderstand me.
And actualy i like pool for control, for me pockets in pool are a way to lock where you have to hit the object ball so you have to be a lot more creative to get the cueball where you want then in 3cusion where most of the time you can just use the natural angle.
I like to play all my shots at very high speed with a lot of spin.
This is the art of pool, its what makes the game interesting.

05-29-2002, 03:09 PM
Fred, I normally use outside english. I find on really tough cuts inside english throws the object ball in the opposite direction that the cue ball is spinning.

Jay M
05-29-2002, 03:20 PM
Fred,

I agree, the statement I made was put that way because I just don't have the words to explain the phenomenon any better than what I had already said. I can reproduce the effect and show it to someone at any time, I just can't explain it any better(in fact I doublechecked myself on it during practice today). I still stand behind what I said, I just don't have the words to explain what happens.

Jay M

05-29-2002, 03:24 PM
Jay, there are only two possibilities: either the object ball doesnt go as straight as you think or you sidedraw the shot.
Im thinking both actualy, depends on how flat your cue is :-)

Tom_In_Cincy
05-29-2002, 03:34 PM
Wish I could have said it better.. but, as usual, Fred has the best and last word as far as I am concerned..

Nuff said

05-29-2002, 06:50 PM
Malcolm have you ever considered one other possibility? the one that you could be mistaken and that just because you believe something to be so, does not mean that it is.


***makes mistakes everyday***

05-30-2002, 04:57 AM
No this is very simple and there realy is no other way.

05-30-2002, 05:04 AM
Im probably starting to look like an [censored] here?
Realy not my intention but this is something i know so i tried to explain, i realy didnt want this long discussion about it...

05-30-2002, 05:05 AM
hmmm ok cant say those words here i guess :-)

Alfie
05-30-2002, 06:02 AM
WW-- "it seems that if they have a shot on the 9 which is not exactly straight in, they will use a little right or left to throw the ball into the hole. My own theory as to why this works is: w/o a perfect stroke, it is harder to just hit the cue ball with only top, center, and bottom and make the OB consistently."

A-- If you have an imperfect stroke before using side, you will still have it after. And side won't fix an imperfect aim either.

WW-- "Conversely, if you use a little English, you will be decreasing this margin of error (i.e. sometimes with no English, you can end up hitting right or left accidentally, which can really mess you up"

A- So you believe that it is easier to coordinate the affects of three variables (squirt, swerve,and throw; four if you want to separate throw into contact induced and spin induced) than for one (throw)?

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 06:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm on Amateur Physics for the Amateur Poolplayer:</font><hr>I havent seen this book but im pretty sure the guy is just using fancy words for easy things you already knew but now you obviously think you dont ...
This is what i found on every website about pool physics anyways.<hr></blockquote>
You seem to be open to the discussion of the details of the game. You may actually want to read that book before making such statements. APAPP is about one thing and one thing only: the Physics of the game, presented as a college textbook. It's not intended as an instructional course for pool, though several useful bits of information can be "discovered." The author is Ron Shepard, a physical chemist professor from the Chicago area. And, yes, Ron's a player as well. As with most people who discuss the physics of pool, he doesn't do extraneous calculations at the table. He just plays.

You can download a full PDF copy at <a target="_blank" href=http://www.playpool.com>http://www.playpool.com</a>

Fred

05-30-2002, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
You seem to be open to the discussion of the details of the game. You may actually want to read that book before making such statements. APAPP is about one thing and one thing only: the Physics of the game, presented as a college textbook. It's not intended as an instructional course for pool, though several useful bits of information can be "discovered." The author is Ron Shepard, a physical chemist professor from the Chicago area. And, yes, Ron's a player as well. As with most people who discuss the physics of pool, he doesn't do extraneous calculations at the table. He just plays.

You can download a full PDF copy at <a target="_blank" href=http://www.playpool.com>http://www.playpool.com</a>

Fred <hr></blockquote>

Thanks fred i will download it :-)
I was actualy just saying this is what i found on physics of pool on the internet and so i wasnt expecting this to be very detailed either...
There are always many new words but nothing you didnt already know.
I realy hope this is better.

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 06:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr> A- So you believe that it is easier to coordinate the affects of three variables (squirt, swerve,and throw; four if you want to separate throw into contact induced and spin induced) than for one (throw)? <hr></blockquote>
I hear what you're saying Alfie, but the reality is that players do not coordinate consciously the effects of swerve, squirt, and throw. They control two variables: aimpoint and speed. That's it. That exists in every sport be it free throws or bowling.

All of the adjustments and variables are like a black box. Most people will treat it such. For example, if Steve Lipsky knows that if he aims at the theoretical ghost ball with a touch of outside, and the ball goes in *and* he can control the speed, then what more can be asked as a player? Sure the ball squirts, swerves, and throw occurs at contact, but do all of those variables need to be adjusted to individually? I don't think so.

Even detail-happy guys like myself break down the shot to the fewest variables that I can control. Speed and aimpoint. And if I can get away with a specific aim point like the ghost ball or a ball/ball relation, *that* makes the aimpoint variable that much easier.


Fred

05-30-2002, 06:22 AM
Ofcource you dont make calculations on the table but i want to know exactly what is going on on the table so i can play good possition...
i dont want to practice every single possition shot i just want to be able to predict any shot ( realy play the shot instead of thinking i played it this way before so it should work... ).
I think you can understand how usefull this is.
If you know what throw you get with different speeds, angles, follow , draw and sidespin you know where the cueball has to hit the object ball so you can realy play any shot you want instead of just the ones you played before.
And this is just throw...
Im gonna memorize a lot more then this, this is realy just a fraction.
This is actualy creating visual memory of what goes on on the table.

Alfie
05-30-2002, 07:26 AM
Phil-- "The effect of throw varies with the speed of the stroke. A soft stroke magnifies the throw effect; a firm stroke lessens it to next to nothing.

"I do not think most of these players are throwing the ball, as the firmness of their strokes prevents that."

Alf-- They are throwing the ball. See table in Capelle's "Best Pool," p.40.

Phil-- "I think that, instead, they are using some side to minimize the cling/throw effect of the collision, to prevent the undercutting possibility should the cling/throw effect occur, which it seems to do more on a 'dead' ball, a skidding cue ball without English."

Alf-- Cling is excessive throw (as described in Byrne's "New Standard Book," p.101. Cling is very difficult to compensate for for a couple of reasons-

The occurrence of cling is uncommon compared to that of no cling. So they are compensating for something that usually doesn't happen.

But, even if it did happen, cling is inconsistently excessive so they don't know how much to compensate for.

Now if you are talking about compensating for normal throw then, yes, throw is greater on a stun shot. However you can lessen this effect with a little top or bottom spin.

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> If you know what throw you get with different speeds, angles, follow , draw and sidespin you know where the cueball has to hit the object ball so you can realy play any shot you want instead of just the ones you played before.<hr></blockquote>
I think that the detailed knowledge can be very helpful to certain individuals, and can be very dangerous to others. Too much information can lead to the proverbial "paralysis by analysis." The word you used is "know" as in "if you know how much throw there is..." There is no quantitative measurement that can be conveyed to the shot. Understanding throw is one thing. Knowing how much on any individual shot is impossible. Surely you don't mean the word "know."

Having an understanding can lead to less rote time, for sure. However, practice (and rote) is still the majority of learning, whether you introduce the detailed understanding or not.

Fred

Alfie
05-30-2002, 10:20 AM
Alf-- So you believe that it is easier to coordinate the affects of three variables (squirt, swerve,and throw; four if you want to separate throw into contact induced and spin induced) than for one (throw)?

Fred-- "I hear what you're saying Alfie, but the reality is that players do not coordinate consciously the effects of swerve, squirt, and throw."

Alf-- Good morning, Frederico. How are things in Massachusetts?

Yes, I agree that good players usually don't consciously coordinate these effects.

Fred-- "They control two variables: aimpoint and speed. That's it. That exists in every sport be it free throws or bowling."

Alf-- I think of it as cue velocity and tip offset. Is your "aimpoint" the tip offset or are you referring to an aimpoint near the OB?

Fred-- "All of the adjustments and variables are like a black box. Most people will treat it such. For example, if Steve Lipsky knows that if he aims at the theoretical ghost ball with a touch of outside, and the ball goes in *and* he can control the speed, then what more can be asked as a player? Sure the ball squirts, swerves, and throw occurs at contact, but do all of those variables need to be adjusted to individually? I don't think so."

I appreciate the black box concept. Let me try to refine my idea.

Each of the three effects are associated with aim and/or execution error. The amount of error can be measured on a sliding scale. I believe this can be demonstrated with progressive drills. The more side spin, the more squirt and swerve error. No side, no squirt and swerve error. The less possible error the better.

How am I doing?

05-30-2002, 10:58 AM
Malcolm Quote
**The only thing wich is complicated in pool is what happens in the rails.
But a ball hitting an other ball or the effect spin has on the cloth is very simple actualy ...**

I'm sorry Malcolm but I will personally never be able to buy into the theory of "I went to school and learned all of these things so they must be true" In my opinion the only way you can have DEFINATES is if you have CONSTANTS and constants are almost impossible to achieve on a pool table because of at least 100 factors in a shot that are not constants.. what you are saying works in theory but only if the cueball ALWAYS travels in a perfectly straight line towards the object ball. In that case then yes you would be somewhat correct that the spin would have little effect upon contact with the object ball because it would have no sideward motion only due to the fact the the CB will not bounce off of the OB as the OB will give way due to the force of impact. But as soon as you put spin on the cueball you are altering the path/course of the cueball to the object ball which in turn gives you some kind of sideward motion after contact with the OB in which case the SPIN assists the CB along its new path.

I also believe that an exact full-on contact with a spinning CB to an OB will cause the CB to deflect slightly to the side of the spin. this will not be as prominent as it is when the CB hits a rail as the rail is an immovable object where as the OB gives way and somewhat dampens the effect of spin on the CB. I also believe that in order to get the CB to sit there and spin without moving you must hit the OB at just slightly to one side to counteract the forced sideward motion of the spinning CB. This is what I believe and I will continue to believe so. I invite you to do the same with your beliefs.

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr>
Alf-- I think of it as cue velocity and tip offset. Is your "aimpoint" the tip offset or are you referring to an aimpoint near the OB? <hr></blockquote>
Aimpoint (for lack of a better term) to the Object Ball. Whether it's with a ball relation, ghost ball, contact point, or stick aim.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr>The more side spin, the more squirt and swerve error. No side, no squirt and swerve error. The less possible error the better.How am I doing? <hr></blockquote>
And here's the crux of a lot of disagreement about english compensation and such. I'm not sure that "less possible error the better" is agreed by all. I know that's completely ass backwards, but if you subscribe to the "black box" theory, then "error" never comes into play. It's just an input of variables, and an output results .

Fred

Jay M
05-30-2002, 11:14 AM
Personally I subscribe to the shroedinger's cat theory. The cat doesn't exist unless someone believes it exists...lol

Jay M

05-30-2002, 11:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> Malcolm Quote
**The only thing wich is complicated in pool is what happens in the rails.
But a ball hitting an other ball or the effect spin has on the cloth is very simple actualy ...**

I'm sorry Malcolm but I will personally never be able to buy into the theory of "I went to school and learned all of these things so they must be true" In my opinion the only way you can have DEFINATES is if you have CONSTANTS and constants are almost impossible to achieve on a pool table because of at least 100 factors in a shot that are not constants.. what you are saying works in theory but only if the cueball ALWAYS travels in a perfectly straight line towards the object ball. In that case then yes you would be somewhat correct that the spin would have little effect upon contact with the object ball because it would have no sideward motion only due to the fact the the CB will not bounce off of the OB as the OB will give way due to the force of impact. But as soon as you put spin on the cueball you are altering the path/course of the cueball to the object ball which in turn gives you some kind of sideward motion after contact with the OB in which case the SPIN assists the CB along its new path.

I also believe that an exact full-on contact with a spinning CB to an OB will cause the CB to deflect slightly to the side of the spin. this will not be as prominent as it is when the CB hits a rail as the rail is an immovable object where as the OB gives way and somewhat dampens the effect of spin on the CB. I also believe that in order to get the CB to sit there and spin without moving you must hit the OB at just slightly to one side to counteract the forced sideward motion of the spinning CB. This is what I believe and I will continue to believe so. I invite you to do the same with your beliefs.
<hr></blockquote>

What you are saying realy doesnt make any sense and if you would know a litle more you would realize this...
I dont even know where to begin explaining this.
All i can say is you can predict exactly whats gonna happen on the table.
If pool wouldnt be predictable it would be impossible to play.
Its just that people play pool from memory of previously played shots instead of realy knowing whats going on, some people more then others obviously.
I dont realy know what you mean with all those variables.
Maybe you mean error in stroke, in speed of stroke, maybe the table isnt perfectly flat, there might be some chalk on the cloth and things like that?
The stroke direction and speed imperfections are your margins of error and you should know these margins of error, you can know the range of possible shots youre gonna make.
Chalk on the cloth or on the balls and slate imperfections are not predictable wich make them luck ( bad luck ).
So a player will either make his shot in his accuracy or it will be messed up by a kick.
The imperfections of the slate arent predictable but you can know before you shoot you shouldnt trust it, this is why you know not to softroll a long shot on the table ( so it is predictable -&gt; not play a shot where its possible for the table to mess it up ).

Its possible to make a robot play perfect pool within the error margins of its mechanical parts the only thing that will make its shots realy fail is a kick.

05-30-2002, 11:37 AM
I should say it a litle shorter maybe:
Pool is predictable within the predictable margins of error of what you cant predict exactly ( like strength of the table that effects the cussions and the slate imperfections )
and then there are those others variables you where talking about you shouldnt realy think about since when they happen your shot will fail and its just bad luck... ( the kick obviously, i cant think of anything else that realy has anough influence to care about )

Scott Lee
05-30-2002, 11:39 AM
Quote: And actualy i like pool for control, for me pockets in pool are a way to lock where you have to hit the object ball so you have to be a lot more creative to get the cueball where you want then in 3cusion where most of the time you can just use the natural angle. I like to play all my shots at very high speed with a lot of spin. This is the art of pool, its what makes the game interesting.

Malcolm...Now you're REALLY getting off base (however...
different strokes for different folks)! LOL The "art" in pool is using the least amount of speed and spin to get the job done...not the most! Keep it simple, and you will pocket more balls.

Scott Lee

05-30-2002, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Scott Lee:</font><hr> Quote: And actualy i like pool for control, for me pockets in pool are a way to lock where you have to hit the object ball so you have to be a lot more creative to get the cueball where you want then in 3cusion where most of the time you can just use the natural angle. I like to play all my shots at very high speed with a lot of spin. This is the art of pool, its what makes the game interesting.

Malcolm...Now you're REALLY getting off base (however...
different strokes for different folks)! LOL The "art" in pool is using the least amount of speed and spin to get the job done...not the most! Keep it simple, and you will pocket more balls.

Scott Lee <hr></blockquote>

That is the art of winning, not the art of pool and the only reason why it is the art of winning is because 9ball doesnt require much pool art, its way to simple.
You understand?

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:46 AM
"However you can lessen this effect with a little top or bottom spin."

Yes, or you can add a little outside spin. The point that Phil was trying to make was that people are not "throwing" the ball into the pocket. Rather, they are using a bit of outside english to eliminate "throw".

The distinction is apparent to me.

Tony
-and I don't think using outside english as a habit is a particularily good thing at all!

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 11:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> I also believe that an exact full-on contact with a spinning CB to an OB will cause the CB to deflect slightly to the side of the spin. <hr></blockquote>
I believe this,too. But at the same time, I think the OB must get thrown slightly as well.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr>I also believe that in order to get the CB to sit there and spin without moving you must hit the OB at just slightly to one side to counteract the forced sideward motion of the spinning CB. <hr></blockquote>
I believe this,too. That is, with right-hand spin, you have to hit the object ball a hair on its left. The question is, if you do hit the object ball to that hair to the left with right hand english, what happens to the object ball? I think it goes straight. The cut angle is a hair to the right, but the right-hand english will throw it a hair to the left.

Fred

05-30-2002, 11:51 AM
Malcolm Quote:

***What you are saying realy doesnt make any sense and if you would know a litle more you would realize this...***


Malcolm Quote:

***What i was saying isnt something you can discuss.
Its the way it works ...
I think very little of you realy knowing what goes on on the table. ***


Why do you continue to insult me like this Malcolm? you continue to talk as if your word is Gods word and only you can be right because you think you have the divine answer to pool.


Scientists believe in the theory of evolution but Christians believe in the Adam and Eve theory I could give you 100 million people from either side that totally believes they are right and the other wrong, truth is none of them know for 100% sure who is right.

In my own mind I am 99.9 percent sure of things I believe in untill someone can show me 100% for sure that I am wrong.

I BELIEVE you to be wrong about the robot theory as it relates to me playing a game of pool because over time variables come into play wear on cloth, humidity, dust , chalk to name but a few... in my opinion the robot theory only works 100% of the time if all of the factors involved in the shot remain the same 100% of the time and that is just not realistic as it relates to me or anyone else who plays pool.

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:52 AM
"I still stand behind what I said, I just don't have the words to explain what happens. "

An honest statement Jay!

It seems what the argument is about here is not what has been observed (we can at least agree that we have observed similar things) rather it is the actual cause and effect at work.

The good news is that in order to play the game, we only need the observation. We don't "need" the actual underlying cause in order to benefit from the observation.

Fred calls this a "black box" effect, and it is an accurate analogy of what a player does in practice imo.

Tony
-lost the black box in my last crash...

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:58 AM
"I also believe that in order to get the CB to sit there and spin without moving you must hit the OB at just slightly to one side to counteract the forced sideward motion of the spinning CB. This is what I believe and I will continue to believe so."

You may also wish to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and in the Easter Bunny. All are equally valid.
Well good for you. So you will continue to believe this, even if it isn't true?

Tony
-believes something until it is proven otherwise, then believes something else....

05-30-2002, 12:04 PM
Quote: d0wnt0wn:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also believe that in order to get the CB to sit there and spin without moving you must hit the OB at just slightly to one side to counteract the forced sideward motion of the spinning CB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe this,too. That is, with right-hand spin, you have to hit the object ball a hair on its left. The question is, if you do hit the object ball to that hair to the left with right hand english, what happens to the object ball? I think it goes straight. The cut angle is a hair to the right, but the right-hand english will throw it a hair to the left.

Fred

fred I totally agree with that statement but i do not agree that the amount of throw the OB gets is equal to that which the CB gets I think the OB gets slightly less throw.
i think it would be pretty much a consensus here that more spin = more throw and when you hit a ball with spin when it comes into contact with another ball it transfers that spin in an opposite direction to the ball but at a slightyl less level. For example 3 tips of outside english on the cuball means that 2 tips of inside english will be transfered to the OB. This means to me that the CB will throw slightly more than the OB and this is what we take advantage of when trying to gain that extra bit of position on straight in shots. just my opinion

05-30-2002, 12:07 PM
waht are you saying tony??? do you not believe i was correct in my assumption... please enlighten me tell me how you think it is. I cant wait to hear youre green cheesed explanation.

Scott Lee
05-30-2002, 12:09 PM
Malcolm...You must not be aware that I teach ALL games, including snooker and/or 3-cushion! I stand by my statement that keeping it simple is the path to success in ANY billiards game. It is true that a 3-cushion player will utilize sidespin (english) on most shots. For the majority of poolplayers, shooting hard, with a lot of spin, is NOT keeping it simple, and will result, more often than not, in missed balls and/or poor position play!

Scott Lee

05-30-2002, 12:11 PM
so you mean to say that when you play pool on an older cloth as opposed to a newer one you dont make adjustments to compensate? do you not test the rails to see how live or dead they are before trying to bank a ball?? all of these factors are beyond our control but still we are forced to adjust to them and I dont think either of these wo examples falls into the black box theory of insignificant variables.

05-30-2002, 12:13 PM
oh oh I dont like the sounds of this one :OP

05-30-2002, 12:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> Malcolm Quote:

***What you are saying realy doesnt make any sense and if you would know a litle more you would realize this...***


Malcolm Quote:

***What i was saying isnt something you can discuss.
Its the way it works ...
I think very little of you realy knowing what goes on on the table. ***


Why do you continue to insult me like this Malcolm? you continue to talk as if your word is Gods word and only you can be right because you think you have the divine answer to pool.


Scientists believe in the theory of evolution but Christians believe in the Adam and Eve theory I could give you 100 million people from either side that totally believes they are right and the other wrong, truth is none of them know for 100% sure who is right.

In my own mind I am 99.9 percent sure of things I believe in untill someone can show me 100% for sure that I am wrong.

I BELIEVE you to be wrong about the robot theory as it relates to me playing a game of pool because over time variables come into play wear on cloth, humidity, dust , chalk to name but a few... in my opinion the robot theory only works 100% of the time if all of the factors involved in the shot remain the same 100% of the time and that is just not realistic as it relates to me or anyone else who plays pool. <hr></blockquote>


Who is insulting who here?
And why would i want to insult anyone?
This is realy frustrating...
I never said im the only one thats right, i just say what i know to be 100% right, there can be many other people saying this, thats fine too, i wouldnt even have posted in this topic.
I dont benefit at all from what i am saying here, im just trying to tell you something you are wrong about so you learn, i never could stand people thinking wrong things, it always anoys me.
And being wrong about something isnt something that should insult anyone, just be willing to accept it and learn, it doesnt mather.

And for me the theory of evolution is stupid, i wont say more about this here.
( i say this because you seem to think im one of those ... )

And about the robot, again youre wrong, sorry ( am i not allowed to say this? ).
You can continualy test the individual factors of the table or even learn from the shots you make to know if the resistance of the cloth changes or other things like that.

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr>
For example 3 tips of outside english on the cuball means that 2 tips of inside english will be transfered to the OB. <hr></blockquote>
I don't know a good way to test this, but it seems to me that since the object ball and cue ball are the same weight and size, that the motion of each should be equal and opposite. At least the force should be equal. Maybe the fact that the object ball is still, and the cueball is in motion contributes to the cueball having more physical motion. I'll let TonyM respond to that one.

In the end, wouldn't cutting the ball a hair with no english not only get you the same result, but is more controllable?

Fred

05-30-2002, 12:35 PM
it would get you some result agreed and more controlable agreed also but the purpose of the spin is to manipulate the result ever so slightly to gain better position... albeate (spelling?) at a much greater risk of missing the shot.

05-30-2002, 12:40 PM
I'm sorry you are so closed minded Malcolm. I wont even bother trying to dispute things with you again as I can see whole heartedly that it is only falling on deaf ears. I am 100% sure that you THINK you are 100% right and I am also 100% sure that I think you are 100% wrong to think that you are 100% right.

last post to you

05-30-2002, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Scott Lee:</font><hr> Malcolm...You must not be aware that I teach ALL games, including snooker and/or 3-cushion! I stand by my statement that keeping it simple is the path to success in ANY billiards game. It is true that a 3-cushion player will utilize sidespin (english) on most shots. For the majority of poolplayers, shooting hard, with a lot of spin, is NOT keeping it simple, and will result, more often than not, in missed balls and/or poor position play!

Scott Lee <hr></blockquote>

yes path to success is winning ... art of winning remember not art of billiards.
art of billiards is controlling difficult shots.
You seem to think the art of pool is winning as much as you can with the abilities you have ... i understand this, but realy...
I play the way you should play in a more difficult game.
In 9ball or straight pool anyone can beat anyone.
But in a tough game where you woud need to control these tough, unnatural possition routes only the best who realy know billiards would be able to win.

so i think you know now that when i say art of pool i dont mean winning as much as you can, i mean controlling difficult good looking shots ( im sure this would get people interested in pool on tv, who wants to see boring softrolls ).

btw in the game id want youd need to take the route that allows you the most precise play because youd need the extra good possition to be able to get on the next shot.
But in 9ball you can chose to get good possition and make easy shots or get bad possition and still make the shots. It realy doesnt mather, you got so many options to run a table... its way to easy.

Ok by now i should have a lot of people against me :-) seems to happen a lot.

05-30-2002, 01:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> I'm sorry you are so closed minded Malcolm. I wont even bother trying to dispute things with you again as I can see whole heartedly that it is only falling on deaf ears. I am 100% sure that you THINK you are 100% right and I am also 100% sure that I think you are 100% wrong to think that you are 100% right.

last post to you <hr></blockquote>

closed minded ??????
you realy have no idea what you are talking about .....
There just are things you can not argue about, dont you understand that?
Do you argue about 1+1 being 2 or not? This is just as basic ...

Im gonna tell you a story:
If an intelligent person tries to explain something to a stupid person who then doesnt understand it, the stupid person will argue for a while and then tell the intelligent person to shut up and insult him or even make fun of him.
I cant tell you how frustrating this is.

Sorry you just got me pissed with that closed minded comment.

05-30-2002, 01:11 PM

05-30-2002, 01:13 PM
ya I seem to remember trying to explain something to you then you insulting me
thanks for clearing up for me who the intelligent person is.

05-30-2002, 01:16 PM
The only way for me to be popular anywhere is to act stupid and agree with everybody, well im sorry i just cant do that ...
Here is the result already after one day ! :-)

05-30-2002, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> ya I seem to remember trying to explain something to you then you insulting me
thanks for clearing up for me who the intelligent person is. <hr></blockquote>

lol what did you explain to me ?

The problem is that when i explain a sure thing people are always still discussing it like there isnt a clear answer when i just gave it ....
Dont you understand that?

Im thinking fred and many others know more about this but are keeping polite.
I just say what i have to say.

05-30-2002, 01:30 PM
sure to whom??? are you telling me that just because you believe something to be so it is so??? you must be kidding me malcolm. you have offered no proof of anything you say other than that of your own word. personally from reading your posts i dont think you have a very strong understanding of what actually happens on a pool table. And this is just a guess but I am also guessing by your lack of understanding that you are probably no better than a "B" player who is taking one thing that you were told once about a subject and making it part of your own personal bible of pool.
I may be wrong about the B player .... but if you are better than that than I find it even more incredible that you know so little about what happens in reality on a pool table.

05-30-2002, 01:38 PM
What exactly do you mean?
I know so litle?
Everything i know, i know from myselve, not because anyone told me( well ofcource i got a basis for this in highschool ).
Im just gonna say wait and see when it comes to my playing.
I realy didnt want this but i think you know that the only way to avoid this argument was to keep what i know to myselve.
This doesnt go anywhere so why not just quit now, its no use...

Scott Lee
05-30-2002, 01:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr>
yes path to success is winning ... art of winning remember not art of billiards. art of billiards is controlling difficult shots. You seem to think the art of pool is winning as much as you can with the abilities you have ... i understand this, but realy...I play the way you should play in a more difficult game. In 9ball or straight pool anyone can beat anyone. But in a tough game where you woud need to control these tough, unnatural possition routes only the best who realy know billiards would be able to win.
__________________________________________________ _________
I disagree. Pick your game, it doesn't matter...8-ball, 9-ball, rotation, banks, straight pool, or one pocket...to see the game played at professional levels, precisely, and simply, to me is high art! It doesn't matter who's playing, or even who wins. It's just seeing that precise, simple ability played out on the table. Wild shots (because, obviously, you got way out of line), using tons of english and lots of speed, are prescriptions for disaster
(although I admit I love to see them played too!).
__________________________________________________ __________
so i think you know now that when i say art of pool i dont mean winning as much as you can, i mean controlling difficult good looking shots ( im sure this would get people interested in pool on tv, who wants to see boring softrolls ).
__________________________________________________ __________
It's not about controlling difficult shots, Malcolm. It's about not having to shoot difficult shots (but still having the ability to, when needed)! LOL As far as "boring soft rolls"...Apparently lots of people...the ratings for pool on tv are higher now than they ever have been...and if you watch them play on tv, they are shooting soft most of the time.
__________________________________________________ __________
btw in the game id want youd need to take the route that allows you the most precise play because youd need the extra good possition to be able to get on the next shot.
But in 9ball you can chose to get good possition and make easy shots or get bad possition and still make the shots. It realy doesnt mather, you got so many options to run a table... its way to easy.
__________________________________________________ __________
Precise play comes from simplifying your game. 9-ball is just one game. The principles of simplicity and excellence can be applied to any pool game, as I mentioned above. A player running 100 in straight pool, even if he is practicing by himself, if he/she does it simply and easily, that is (imo) real art in pool...not watching somebody hack their way through racks, just because they can make every shot. That isn't elegance, and elegance is what I associate with art in pool. It's the same whether someone runs a rack of 9-ball, runs 8 and out in 8-ball, banks, or one-pocket, or runs 10-15 points in 3-cushion.
The best players usually opt for the path of least resistance. KISS works!

Scott Lee

05-30-2002, 02:18 PM
Dont you think running 100 in straight pool is a litle easy?
And what about running 9ball...
I wasnt talking about wild hard shots with a lot of spin, i was talking about controlling them.
Ofcource it is stupid to use them when you dont have to but thats the problem with these games ...
There should be a different game where you need that multirail possition play to win, and not only this, also more bankshots, kickshots, combinations and some other things should be needed ...
Dont you see that running 9ball is just way to easy for proffesional level?
A game shouldnt even be runable, you should have to win at least one tactical batle to win a rack or frame, no mather how good the players are.
Plus those extra long runs in straight pool are far from good...
You should be playing your opponent not just running rack after rack, whats the fun in that?

Im sorry im disagreeing again... I realy dont just want to disagree, this is what i was thinking even before you made the post, not after :-)

Alfie
05-30-2002, 02:56 PM
TM-- "Yes, or you can add a little outside spin."

Alf-- Yeah, that's what he said they were doing.

TM-- "The point that Phil was trying to make was that people are not "throwing" the ball into the pocket."

Alf-- I paid no nevermind to that first part of his sentence, or the players' motives or intentions. I merely took exception to his explanation that their shot speed ("firmness of their strokes") precluded any possibility of throw. Perhaps I should have used the passive voice- "the ball is being thrown" instead of "they are throwing the ball"- that takes the idea of intent out of it somewhat.

TM-- "Rather, they are using a bit of outside english to eliminate "throw"."

Alf-- Yep, got that. Actually his word was "minimize."

TM-- "The distinction is apparent to me."

Alf-- IMO the part about them not trying to throw the OB is irrelevant to my poorly made points, so making a distinction is irrelevant, too.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

MikeM
05-30-2002, 03:17 PM
I tried to throw an object ball into a pocket last night in league. They told me to put the damn ball down and that it was a ball in hand foul! I missed anyway and put a hole in the wall.

MM...just lightening things up a bit.

Alfie
05-30-2002, 03:29 PM
Fred quoting Alf here-- The more side spin, the more squirt and swerve error. No side, no squirt and swerve error. The less possible error the better.

Fred-- "And here's the crux of a lot of disagreement about english compensation and such. I'm not sure that "less possible error the better" is agreed by all."

Alf-- Explain, please. And how do YOU think about it?

Fred-- "I know that's completely ass backwards,"

Whoa, whoa, whoa,.... ass backwards from what? How so?

Fred-- "but if you subscribe to the "black box" theory, then "error" never comes into play. It's just an input of variables, and an output results"

Alf-- At my current level of understanding, I have no choice but to reject the black box in favor of the many errors theory.

JimS
05-30-2002, 03:39 PM
I follow you perfectly but I know I've read, in more than one place, that inside english will make no difference in the amount of throw. Go figure. I'm sure this will clear the somewhat murky waters...right?! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif LOL.

Rod
05-30-2002, 03:54 PM
Yep, I agree Fred. However I believe there is a third variable, which is cue angle. Now maybe we can say it belongs in the black box theory, but I don't think so. Elevated Cue angle will make whitey respond completely different compared to a level cue. Sometimes, and more that most people would think, we need this element. I use it at times to delay the draw or follow effect. This changes the angle the cue ball comes off the o/b compared to a near level stroke. If people don't know this then it would not be a third variable for them or in the black box. Sometimes it's very subtle with a slower stroke, but can be very drastic with a firm stroke. Bottom line is it creates a different angle, and can be controled with speed, aim and practice. Ok maybe it's black box, but not if you know what your doing. BTW including speed, swerve is controlled by cue angle.

Boy the original post sure went sidesways. I'm kind of like Harvey Penick, when asked why do you not charge more for your lessons? His reply, I don't use big words so I don't have to charge as much.

There has been controversy, to say the least, about english and throw. I'm going to set up a simple little trick shot.
Not that this is real scientific, but I'll let you people come to your own conclusions, using the wei table.
Shoot the one ball into the end rail and make it in the side pocket. It's shot at slow speed, and the hardest part is being able to actually spin the 1 ball fast enough and have it stay in place. One other factor is hitting the end rail where your aiming because of the spin induced throw.
The line I will show is appx where you need to hit on the end rail, not where you aim the ball. Most people can't spin the ball that well, but even if you can't you'll get the idea. Vary your speed to see the effect, whether you make it or not. Hum maybe more usless dribble but you can see what happens to both balls. Well I'm allowed to do this since there has been a lot of band width already used on this subject. Spin the 1 ball clockwise.

START(
%Am3F3%Pq0F3%W[2[8%XC0F5%YD5F7%Zr9F2

)END

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html

Rod
05-30-2002, 03:58 PM
You did lighten things up Mike. I imagine 5.7 OZ, isn't that what the ball weighed? /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

phil in sofla
05-30-2002, 04:20 PM
These variables can be ignored an analysis altogether, and instead, relying on experience, compensated for automatically on shots you recognize. And this is probably the way most players, including many pros, handle these matters.

That is, people using a center cue ball hit will eventually find they are aiming a little thinner on certain cuts of certain speeds than the exact geometry would dictate, and they'll eventually 'see' that line as correct, even though it is a bit of an overcut line if the balls don't experience the contact throw effect.

And it is an unconscious adjustment, requiring no analysis other than paying attention to what happens when you shoot down a given line with a given stroke and English. I think that is what was meant by calling this a 'black box.' The exact reason, or even the exact adjustment being made, doesn't need to be consciously known. Your pool playing mind/body system figures it out on its own, just as you develop a touch for table speed of stroke that isn't analytical, but a performance ability that you develop over time and experience.

That said, it is when you are playing outside your normal shot parameters that you find things relating to these phenomena that cause you to miss the shot (as played by the normal rules you've learned by experience). With very dirty balls, you learn you have to overcut still more, with a very hard shot, undercut, with a very slow shot, overcut, or with a lot of high side on the shot, compensate for deflection with either an under or overcut, depending. All these adjustments can come naturally, out of experience, without any understanding of the physics involved (just watching the results).

That said, I disagree as to the worse problem you think inside English may present. That's just another variable that can be handled the same way as above, IF people didn't shy away from trying the shot that way often enough to get their compensations down. George Fels makes the case for shooting most shots with inside, and I have found that idea very useful. Again, perhaps surprisingly, it ALSO takes away the collision induced throw, and whatever English throw is induced is no worse than what outside English will do.

To compensate for whatever English induced throw may be there, I aim to the same side of the pocket as the English I'm using. That is, if using right English, I aim to the right side of the pocket. Then, if there is any throw effect, I have a full ball's width margin of error (the pocket being about two balls wide) to still pocket the ball. Got that from CJ Wiley's tape, and I am a firm believer in always doubling your margin of error that way, all other things being equal. If you're aiming at center pocket, you've only got about 1/2 ball's margin on either side before you clip the edge of the pocket.



.

05-30-2002, 05:42 PM
Ouch!! My brain hurts.

cheesemouse
05-30-2002, 05:49 PM
Malcom,
Loosen up that bow tie. LOL /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

heater451
05-30-2002, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: whitewolf:</font><hr> . . .the friction/throw created during this type of hit is greater and the throw created is thus greater, increasing the margin of error. Hope someone is following me, but if not, that is okay too. <hr></blockquote>

I believe the extra "friction/throw" that adds to the forward movement is the "skid" effect that is sometimes mentioned.

In the following, grossly exaggerated animation, this is what I think happens:

http://heater451.home.mindspring.com/images/skid.gif

The green line/arrow represents the "center-pocket aim" for the shot. The yellow line represents the object ball vector that would be induced by throw, from the dead-right english. When the two balls connect, they momentarily move in the same direction (skid), and the resulting red line/vector is a combination of skid and throw, which cause and 'undercut' result.

Am I way off base here?


p.s.--My apologies, for sending this huge thread to the top again. . . .

stickman
05-30-2002, 06:48 PM
Boy, you really started something with this post. LOL /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif I've never observed or noticed the use of english like you discribe. Maybe I should pay better attention.

I try to limit the amount of sidespin that I use, but still use quite a bit of it.

On fairly rare occassions I intentionally throw the object ball into the pocket when another ball just barely prevents me from striking the object ball where I need to.

I was taught to use inside english on rail shots, supposedly to cause the object ball to cling to the rail. If the ball clings to the rail, I would think it is for only a brief instant before friction overcomes any cling effect. I don't always shoot inside english, but use it often.

Often I use english to get the desired cue ball position. In this case, I throw the object ball, but not necessarily by desire.

The other place I use english is in my bank shots. I have learned to shoot my banks with varying degrees of english. Some pretty amazing banks are possible this way. Some people will warn against adding another variable to bank shooting, but I learned banks this way and find it quite natural. For me, banks are strictly a matter of touch or feel.

So for three of the four uses I have of english, my intent is to throw the object ball. When using english for position, the object ball is unintentionally thrown as a result and the aim must be compensated.

Rod
05-30-2002, 07:05 PM
No your not off base Heater. However you don't need right english, it can be hit with center and get the same effect.
It's the cling effect and is caused by dirty balls at the contact point. That causes the o/b to skid. I don't see a red line, but I'll assume it went long. Thats why many players will use a touch of outside to prevent that from happening. If right or center is used then the aim would be to the right side of the pocket. This is more in reference to new cloth because the effect is greater on a new slick surface. It will happen on used cloth also. When shot with enough speed skid is not likely to happen or very minimal.

05-30-2002, 07:20 PM
The amount of spin that is transfered from cueball to object ball is very small and increasing the spinning speed doesnt increase the grip the cueball has on the object ball so it doesnt increase the spin transfered.
So what this means is that a shot with maximum spin wont throw any more then a shot with just anough spin to get the maximum amount transfered ( wich is very litle ).
This also means that on a cut shot inside spin wont make the object ball throw any more. ( starting from a certain angle wich i dont exactly know, probably about 10 degrees at most ).
In the same way on higher degree cut shots a litle outside english wont make the balls throw any less either...

If on a cutshot you use follow or draw it will throw less because a big part of the throw is directed verticaly.
If you use inside english with this follow or draw you will again increase the throw because you change the overal direction of the throw again, more horizontal ( so inside english does increase the throw but only together with follow or draw )

you might think that if the maximum ammount transfered is reached with such litle ball surface speed difference then why does the throw keep increasing when you shoot thinner and thinner cut angles ( cueball sliding over object ball faster -&gt; so more surface speed does increase the throw (wrong) ).
This is because when you shoot a thinner cut, the speed the cueball hits the object ball gets slower and you know that the maximum throw gets more with smaller speeds...
So the maximum throw on a 60degree cut at 10mph is the same as on a straight in shot at 5mph

05-30-2002, 09:43 PM
A lot of people who say they use inside on rail shots are actually using outside if they are hitting the rail a fraction before the ball, which is the most popular method. The reason of course is that the cue ball has changed direction on the cushion before contact with the ob and you are hitting it from the other side (making it outside rather than inside). The same effect can be achieved by contacting rail and object ball at the same time with a bit of outside.

Also the use of outside in a cut bank is very useful because of what I wrote about before. The use of outside to minimise the cling effect means that the ob does not have english applied to it when it hits the rail meaning that its path is truer than when hit with centre ball which would impart english on the ob thus veering it off course.

May people find it surprising that you can use a little outside to actually eliminate english on the ob making your accuracy go up.

Cheers - Ozzy8

Patrick
05-30-2002, 10:47 PM
I agree to everything Malcolm have said, I have discovered everything on my own also. It is unfair that a human half our intelligence argues about something they can never fully understand.

Patrick

Chris Cass
05-30-2002, 10:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;Im sorry to say but you are wrong about this.
The cueball wont speed up any more to the side than the object ball will to the other side...
Playing straight with english to get the cueball to move to the side is actualy exactly the same as playing at a slight cut angle.&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Malcomb.,

What Jay is saying.. is exactly correct. I use it all the time to get more speed and direction on the cue ball than with center... you have to aim to compensate for the cue ball deflection, which will also increase the angle.. &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

It is not correct what makes you think this spin isnt gonna throw the object ball just as much as the cueball? When you can play the object ball at a slight angle you can play it straight with a litle spin to throw it in and throw the cueball the other side but you can do exatly the same with making a litle cut.
<hr></blockquote>

Hi Malcolm,

Dude, your getting all in a fuss over this. Think about it for a second. Were all friends here right? Jay say's, if your dead straight in on a shot and can't cheat the pocket, Can't is the key word here, and have to move right for the leave. This shot doesn't come up that often in a game. When it does, most players will draw out of it but, if it's required to just move to the side. It turns into a stun shot.

I ran across the same shot the other day, only a little tougher. My 9ball was on the foot rail. My cb was dead straight in on the 8ball, in the side pocket. I slammed this ball with high right and forced a slow roll left to the head rail. After hitting the head rail the right took, going 2 rails to come to rest straight in on the 9ball on the end rail.

Try it yourself. It hit's the head rail then when it hit's the other, it takes off like a banshi. Cool shot but one I'd rather not do, for the doe. This shot can be seen in the Artistic BCA book. Dr. Cue Rossman can vouch for me. Believe me, I knew it long before I seen it in the book.

I learned the stun shot yrs ago in the bar scene. Since then, I learned how to take it, to the extreme. I know it's hard to understand something unless you see it so, no biggy. The players here have vast knowledge of cb control. Not that I'm saying, you don't.

In order to learn anything, you must have an open mind. Before you believe it, you must see it. To become higher in skill, you must be teachable. Copy this and go to the wei table. Try the shot when your not doing anything one day.

START(
%H[0K4%Ir6L3%P[1R7%QX2K9%RB8G1%SG9C1%Tn4Z1%Up5Z1%Vs2W7%WZ9M3
%X[0Q9%YE0H2%ZZ9L2%[G9D1%\C8G5%]r3W3%^H2D2%eC2`7
)END

No disrespect intended,

C.C.

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:04 PM
Well Alf, I guess we know what we're talking about. Now if everyone else would get on the same page......

Tony
-not holding my breath mind you....

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:09 PM
Green cheesed? Oh yeah, now I get it...
Actually, I agree with you. I was just making a point that you seem to want to believe in something regardless of whether what you believe in, might or might not be correct. It just seemed to be a "hardheaded" that's all.

Back to the green cheese now..

Tony
-mmmmmm, cheese...

Patrick
05-30-2002, 11:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris Cass:</font><hr>
I ran across the same shot the other day, only a little tougher. My 9ball was on the foot rail. My cb was dead straight in on the 8ball, in the side pocket. I slammed this ball with high right and forced a slow roll left to the head rail. After hitting the head rail the right took, going 2 rails to come to rest straight in on the 9ball on the end rail.

Try it yourself. It hit's the head rail then when it hit's the other, it takes off like a banshi. Cool shot but one I'd rather not do, for the doe. This shot can be seen in the Artistic BCA book. Dr. Cue Rossman can vouch for me. Believe me, I knew it long before I seen it in the book.

I learned the stun shot yrs ago in the bar scene. Since then, I learned how to take it, to the extreme. I know it's hard to understand something unless you see it so, no biggy. The players here have vast knowledge of cb control. Not that I'm saying, you don't.

In order to learn anything, you must have an open mind. Before you believe it, you must see it. To become higher in skill, you must be teachable. Copy this and go to the wei table. Try the shot when your not doing anything one day.

START(
%H[0K4%Ir6L3%P[1R7%QX2K9%RB8G1%SG9C1%Tn4Z1%Up5Z1%Vs2W7%WZ9M3
%X[0Q9%YE0H2%ZZ9L2%[G9D1%\C8G5%]r3W3%^H2D2%eC2`7
)END

No disrespect intended,

C.C.
<hr></blockquote>

That shot is not difficult at all, I know Malcolm agrees.
There is very little to go wrong here, there are only 2 object balls on the table!!
Try to put balls in the way and control the cueball through the gaps. Or carom the cueball on many other balls for long position play.

Patrick

TonyM
05-30-2002, 11:24 PM
" For example 3 tips of outside english on the cuball means that 2 tips of inside english will be transfered to the OB."

I doubt that this is true. Certainly it would depend on the surface condition (more correctly the coefficient of friction) of the two balls. Transferred spin is related to throw. The more the ball throws, you can be sure that more spin was transferred as well. There is a limit to how much spin can be transferred. If you add additional surface speed to the cueball (ie: more spin) the net effect might be less transferred spin not more (the surfaces would begin to slip).

Fred is right, it is difficult to test. Perhaps you could measure the rebound angle of an object ball off-of a rail, when it was struck by a spinning cueball. The object ball would have to travel down a channel that corrected it's path, but still allowed the ball to spin freely (Jack Koehler has a fixture like this in his book the Science of pocket billiards,he calls it an "alignment box").

The idea would be to then shoot a cueball into the same rail (at the same initial angle and speed, using the same fixture) and vary the amount of sidespin until you duplicate the angle found with the object ball.

Koehler suggests that the maximum amount of tranferred english that can be applied to an object ball will produce a deviation in rebound angle of 4 to 5 degrees (when a rail is struck perpendicular). I suggest that this is much less than 2 tips of english! More like about 1/2 tip or even a bit less.

Tony

Chris Cass
05-30-2002, 11:30 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

Hello Patrick.....
I put a little Rob Zombie on it and it took off like a Steven King novel. By the way, how's the throat?

C.C.

05-30-2002, 11:50 PM
lol

05-30-2002, 11:53 PM
I agree with you whole heartedly tony I just used those numbers to indicate the difference between spin of CB and OB I have no idea at all what the actual transference of spin is... i only know that the amount of spin on the OB is much less than that of the CB.

05-30-2002, 11:55 PM
If you keep talking like that Im going to cancel my checks for all the lessons of yours I signed up for.

05-30-2002, 11:59 PM
I have heard many times to add a little outside english to a natural bank to keep the line true and i do believe this to work for me

Patrick
05-31-2002, 01:17 AM
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, I never said you are stupid, I assume your IQ is 100, it is the average among the human population.
How can you send checks for my lessons when I haven't given you my address?

Patrick

Alfie
05-31-2002, 06:28 AM
TM-- "Well Alf, I guess we know what we're talking about."

Alf-- Hey, speak for yourself. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

TM-- "Now if everyone else would get on the same page......

Tony
-not holding my breath mind you...."

Alf-- It's frustrating to me. I have enough knowledge to recognize the mess but not enough to straighten it out. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

My best advice to those who want to know more about the physics of the game is to get thee to google usenet advanced search for RSB. Read Jewett and Shepard. (Did Fred already say this?)

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?as_ugroup=rec.sport.billiard &amp;num=100&amp;as_scoring=d&amp;lr=lang_en

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 06:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Rod:</font><hr> Yep, I agree Fred. However I believe there is a third variable, which is cue angle. Now maybe we can say it belongs in the black box theory, but I don't think so. <hr></blockquote>
I think this is a very good point. I don't know really where to put the cue angle as a variable. In my observation, players just naturally elevate subconcsiously on feel. Therefore, I think it goes in the black box.

Question to anyone, when you use english, do you consciously adjust your cue angle (presumably to swerve the cueball in)?

Fred

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr>
Fred-- "And here's the crux of a lot of disagreement about english compensation and such. I'm not sure that "less possible error the better" is agreed by all."

Alf-- Explain, please. And how do YOU think about it?

<hr></blockquote>
Isn't this entire thread answering you on this? Half the participants are saying that they use outside english on cut shots, or even straight in shots with success. That's certainly "more english" which would by your definion constitute more error, etc. D0wnt0wn made an excellent statement in that people will on certain shots "risk" using english to gain better position. That's true of all of us, I think. Whether we consider it a risk or introducing more error or doing what's necessary is a matter of semantics, I suppose, but in the end, you have to "risk" more error in the shot (sorry Scott Lee) sometimes as you improve in this game.

When I aim, in general terms, if I hit with firm english, I compensate for squirt. If I hit with soft english, I compensate for swerve. I don't figure the path of the cueball. I say "I've got to aim thicker" or "I've got to aim thinner." C'est tout.

Fred-- "but if you subscribe to the "black box" theory, then "error" never comes into play. It's just an input of variables, and an output results"

Alf-- At my current level of understanding, I have no choice but to reject the black box in favor of the many errors theory. <hr></blockquote>
I don't know how to answer this without being insulting, but here it goes. If you treat the sum of all the errors as one variable (black box output), this is more palatable to the vast majority of pool players, rather than treating each error individually. If you are saying that when it's time to shoot the balls, that you treat every variable individually, and then sum up the errors and figure your aim, then I think that's a tough road. If this works for you, fine. But, the vast majority of players don't do this, they don't want to do this, and they simply don't need to do this. Black box. One output.

To really put it in a crazy way, when I hit things with english, I almost never compensate for throw, as it simply is negligible compared to the other more important things. But, whether I know that detail is unimportant.


Fred

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 07:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> Im thinking fred and many others know more about this but are keeping polite.
I just say what i have to say. <hr></blockquote>
What I'm thinking is that you do know what you're talking about, but you aren't giving credit to the other people's observations. You're also insulting a lot people, which never helps. Maybe this is a language issue.

And believe me, when you're talking about polite, I don't believe there were too many polite moments between d0wnt0wn and Fred early on.

Malcolm, with your ideas, you should go to news:rec.sport.billiard. Your ideas that "you've come up with by yourself" will either get confirmed or shot down in any way you want. I would suggest like any other newbie on a board to read first to get a flavor of the group.

Fred

05-31-2002, 07:29 AM
It just kinda went wrong here when i saw the post about all those unknown variables ...
Sorry this just doesnt make any sense at all.
And i get frustrated trying to explain this in words, internet realy sucks for discussing these things.

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 07:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> you might think that if the maximum ammount transfered is reached with such litle ball surface speed difference then why does the throw keep increasing when you shoot thinner and thinner cut angles ( cueball sliding over object ball faster -&gt; <hr></blockquote>
It doesn't. Consider a cut so thin it barely touches the object ball. Then the spin transfer and the spin-induced throw is a real world number nearly zero. Therefore, as the cut angle gets thinner, the real world throw and spin transfer approaches zero.

Although treating them separatly might not be technically, correct, for cut/contact induced throw with a stun shot, the maximum throw occurs at a half-ball hit. However,the maximum spin-induced throw occurs at a full-ball hit. And, the spin-induced throw is dependent on the spin/speed ratio, not just the spin or the speed. As the cut decrease, the spin-induced throw decreased proportionately, IIRC. That is, for a given spin/speed ratio, the maximum spin throw and spin transfer is at full-ball hits. At half-ball, it would be half.

Fred

05-31-2002, 07:43 AM

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 07:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: whitewolf:</font><hr> You bring up an interesting point, so I have another question. It seems easier to me to use outside english when trying to make most normal shots (w/o a severe break). Is this just my preference, imagination, or what? I used to think that the throw of the inside english was harder to handle (making the shot), but for what reasons I am completely at a loss after reading all of these threads<hr></blockquote>

The vast majority (99%?) start out like this (using outside to make things easier), and end up being quite proficient, even professional, rarely hitting the inside english shots. To each his own. But, I'll tell you what, there is no more religious enlightment experience than to be able to hit that power inside 3-railer for the cheese, or the soft inside for that matter, without hesitation.

Fred

05-31-2002, 07:54 AM
Its a lot more complicated then that but whats the point of putting it all on here.
Throw actualy gets bigger on harder shots but the throw angle gets less because the forward speed increases faster then the throw does.
I actualy think that the throw angle caused by resistance is the same at all speeds, the final throw angle gets less because of the time the balls contact at high speeds ( well not time, more like distance )
The balls turn around the axis while they contact, making the cut thinner so making the throw less.
probably on 100mph shots you would have to aim thicker on shots to compensate for throw instead of thinner.

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 09:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> Throw actualy gets bigger on harder shots but the throw angle gets less because the forward speed increases faster then the throw does.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the physics agrees with you. When you say "harder shots", I assume you mean "thinner cuts." The physics say that the throw decreases as the cut angle increases (assuming spin shots). And "throw" and "throw angle" are really the same thing.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr>I actualy think that the throw angle caused by resistance is the same at all speeds, <hr></blockquote>
Intuition may not be serving you well here. The coefficient of friction decreases with increasing speeds, all else being equal. I can give you a reference if it's needed.

Fred &lt;~~~ really thinks Malcolm should read rec.sport.billiard and APAPP

05-31-2002, 09:25 AM
This is not what i was talking about.
And throw angle is not the same as throw.
with throw i ment the amount of speed that is transfered between the balls.
throw angle is the normal speed the object ball gets + the sideways throw speed.
harder shot is faster shot.

im sick of discussing this... i know what im saying you just comprehend it the wrong way ....

05-31-2002, 09:27 AM
on both quotes youve replied at something i didnt say

05-31-2002, 09:29 AM
im gonna stop caring what everyone thinks about these things ...
just keep using the black box theory :-)

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 09:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> This is not what i was talking about.
And throw angle is not the same as throw.
with throw i ment the amount of speed that is transfered between the balls.
throw angle is the normal speed the object ball gets + the sideways throw speed.
harder shot is faster shot.

im sick of discussing this... i know what im saying you just comprehend it the wrong way .... <hr></blockquote>
Malcolm, in quoting, I use the quote feature of UBB. So, what you wrote, I quote.

Secondly, it is not my fault that you decided to make up your own definition of words that already exist and are defined in pool.

"Throw" is not a term to describe speed transfer. Throw is the term to describe the deviation angle from the theoretical angle of a cut shot due to the surfaces of the balls relative rubbing against each other. This can be expressed as an angle or a distance. Maybe you should have gotten this straight ahead of time?

Fred

JimS
05-31-2002, 10:43 AM
My experience, albeit limited, has been that my primary, maybe only, problem when using inside english is that it somehow messes up my aim. I don't think it has anything to do with squirt/deflection/throw or any physical manifestation of inside english. I think, for me, it has to do with the change in the way the shot looks from behind the cb. Setting up with inside makes the shot look different and I aim incorrectly. So......I'm working daily on shooting with inside! Got to normalize that view of the shots.

Fred Agnir
05-31-2002, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: JimS:</font><hr> My experience, albeit limited, has been that my primary, maybe only, problem when using inside english is that it somehow messes up my aim. I don't think it has anything to do with squirt/deflection/throw or any physical manifestation of inside english. I think, for me, it has to do with the change in the way the shot looks from behind the cb. Setting up with inside makes the shot look different and I aim incorrectly. So......I'm working daily on shooting with inside! Got to normalize that view of the shots. <hr></blockquote>
Without seeing you shoot, I'm generalizing that the majority of people who have problems aiming with inside english are compensating (consciously or sub-consciously) for throw. This is exactly backwards for firm inside-english shots. If you compensate for throw on firm inside-english shots, you will miss worse. Release all you think you know, and aim thicker (yes thicker), and good results will follow. It's squirt.

BION, there is actually *less* throw with inside english than without any english (stun). Observation would lead you to believe otherwise. It's swerve, not throw.

Fred

05-31-2002, 11:03 AM
wait a minute did someone just give me a compliment???
you know I wont stand for this!!! ;O)

05-31-2002, 11:08 AM
Absolutely, one of my favorite shots when i want my CB to come very sharply but softly off of the rail when the OB is close to the rail and I have quite a bit of angle on the shot. I aim about 3/4 ball with as much outside lower english as I can and use the soft drag/spin method and throw the OB quite a substantial amount into the pocket. This throw would greatly decrease the more I had to cut the ball.

05-31-2002, 11:18 AM
You see this is where I think Malcolm gets confused.... when you apply more "hardness" to a shot that requires spin you are actually pushing the CB away from the shot with inside english and into the ball with outside english due to the fact that you are not hitting the cueball perfectly square. if you hit the ball hard with inside you have to aim thicker on the OB and hopefully if you adjusted for the right amount of "squirt" and the very small amount of throw at this speed you will make the ball. But if you were hitting this shot softly with inside english you would have to "over cut the ball" because the throw will be much more prominent and the inside spin causes the ball to "undercut" the exact opposite is true if you are using outside spin. any one agree with this?

05-31-2002, 11:20 AM
&lt;-------------- does not need a dictionary as long as Freds around

05-31-2002, 11:34 AM
Quote: Fred

Without seeing you shoot, I'm generalizing that the majority of people who have problems aiming with inside english are compensating (consciously or sub-consciously) for throw. This is exactly backwards for firm inside-english shots. If you compensate for throw on firm inside-english shots, you will miss worse. Release all you think you know, and aim thicker (yes thicker), and good results will follow. It's squirt.



Bang on Fred, this is exactly as I see it

Quote: Fred


BION, there is actually *less* throw with inside english than without any english (stun). Observation would lead you to believe otherwise. It's swerve, not throw.

Fred



This becomes less true the softer you hit the Cb it is just that the thro is lessening the angle of the shot so it does not stand out as much as soft outside english which over cuts the ball.

05-31-2002, 11:38 AM
The check is in the mail Pat

05-31-2002, 01:11 PM
Hey i realy didnt want to insult anyone here you know.
This just pisses me off actualy, im pissed off at about everything in life.
So i guess its just me, sorry.

05-31-2002, 01:38 PM
malcolm I mean no disrespect to you either... but I found out the hard way that people here (and rightfully so) will not accept anyone here saying "this is the way it is because I say so" and taking that as a definate. We all welcome your opinions and we will take from them whatever we feel applies to us but remember we may not always agree... right or wrong.

05-31-2002, 01:43 PM
ok thanks

TonyM
05-31-2002, 10:17 PM
No I can't say that I ever consciously or subconsciously adjust the cue angle to swerve the ball for a standard cut shot with english. Sure I elevate the cue to swerve the ball around another, but that's another story. I do however subconsciously adust the speed. For example, if I have a thin cut that requires outside english for position, I will back off the speed a little so that the ball swerves a touch and doesn't undercut the shot.

Definitely black box, as I just do it instinctively. I should really use whatever speed seems right and then just make sure that I have squirt fully covered, but that isn't how I seem to "see" the shot. I "see" the shot as going inside out, with the swerve happenning at the last moment to achieve the thin cut.

Tony

TonyM
05-31-2002, 10:28 PM
"If you are saying that when it's time to shoot the balls, that you treat every variable individually, and then sum up the errors and figure your aim, then I think that's a tough road."

I agree Fred. I remember having a discussion on RSB a few years ago with Deno Andrews about BHE. His argument was that it was a poor technique because you didn't really have a good idea of all of the variables that you were compensating for. In other words, he considered it "aiming at nowhere" and hoping for the best. He then gave a long response about how he first compensates for the squirt, then swerve than throw and so on until he gets his final aim. I have always felt that this is counter to what most good players actually do.

I believe that good players look at the final stick alignment (or aim point) and decide if it will go or not.

Shoot enough of them, and your brain tells you if the shot is being aimed correctly or not. I believe that this is your black box idea n'est pas?

I can do it by pure feel (just aim with the compensation and trust) or with BHE (aim, pivot and then trust) and now, it doesn't really matter to me, as long as the outcome was good. But when using a house cue with lot's of squirt, I will often use BHE as either the primary method, or as a second opinion, as I am always surprised at how often I can get the compensation wrong when the shot is of a non-typical variety.

Tony
-I have a theory that most people stay within certain typical parameters when compensating by feel, but that's another story...

Alfie
06-05-2002, 09:33 PM
Quote Fred-- "Isn't this entire thread answering you on this? Half the participants are saying that they use outside english on cut shots, or even straight in shots with success. That's certainly "more english" which would by your definion constitute more error, etc. D0wnt0wn made an excellent statement in that people will on certain shots "risk" using english to gain better position. That's true of all of us, I think. Whether we consider it a risk or introducing more error or doing what's necessary is a matter of semantics, I suppose, but in the end, you have to "risk" more error in the shot (sorry Scott Lee) sometimes as you improve in this game."

Alf- Though whitewolf, the one who began this thread and to whose post I responded, did state in his initial post (more as an intro, IMO) “When I started playing pool (14.1) yrs ago, I thought it was a sin to use English, even though I knew how it worked. As I started to play more and more 9 ball, English became necessary,” his eventual question was about the more specific case of “helping” English. He is curious, in this case, only about pocketing an OB. He said nothing about getting position for the next shot. And that is what I addressed.

Quote Fred-- "When I aim, in general terms, if I hit with firm english, I compensate for squirt. If I hit with soft english, I compensate for swerve. I don't figure the path of the cueball. I say "I've got to aim thicker" or "I've got to aim thinner." C'est tout."

Alf- Yes, that’s what good players generally do.

Quote Fred-- "If you treat the sum of all the errors as one variable (black box output), this is more palatable to the vast majority of pool players, rather than treating each error individually. If you are saying that when it's time to shoot the balls, that you treat every variable individually, and then sum up the errors and figure your aim, then I think that's a tough road. If this works for you, fine. But, the vast majority of players don't do this, they don't want to do this, and they simply don't need to do this. Black box. One output.

"To really put it in a crazy way, when I hit things with english, I almost never compensate for throw, as it simply is negligible compared to the other more important things. But, whether I know that detail is unimportant."

Alf- I don’t fully understand the black box thing so I can’t talk in those terms, but I do think champions play the percentages, and I think champions try to reduce error at every opportunity; from their stable, comfortable stances to their stroke mechanics to their positioning choices to their safety and pattern play.

IMO, it can be demonstrated that even champions are more successful when (all else being equal)
the OB is closer to the hole.
the CB is closer to the OB.
they use less side.
they use side less often.
I don’t know how much more successful, but more successful, nonetheless.

I’m not advocating that “when it's time to shoot the balls, that you treat every variable individually, and then sum up the errors and figure your aim.” I am saying that if pocketing a ball was the only consideration (all else being equal), then generally speaking, the less side used the better.

But watch out for that stun throw, man, it’ll getcha! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

JackPot_George
06-25-2002, 10:38 PM
When there is a straight in shot and you are using english is to get the cue ball to come out using the rails. it allows more movement on the table and you can still get anywhere from a straight in shot since you can pocket the ball in 3 different spots of the pocket, left, right and center of the pocket which by default will angle the ball just enough to use the rails, and if the rails are used and you apply english then you can get very far.... far away...

Chris Cass
06-25-2002, 10:48 PM
George,

I don't know how many people I've told about the sections of the pocket. Finally, someone else using my terminology. LOL You know what your talking about.

Regards,

C.C.

Rod
06-26-2002, 12:05 AM
Same here Chris, George was right on there. I divide the pocket into thirds myself. Some people consider this cheating the pocket. I like to think it is nothing more than using the whole pocket. Hitting the rail first is cheating the pocket. Big tables give most bar table players fits because their so use to hitting the rail first.

Fred Agnir
06-26-2002, 05:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr> ...I think champions try to reduce error at every opportunity; from their stable, comfortable stances to their stroke mechanics to their positioning choices to their safety and pattern play.

IMO, it can be demonstrated that even champions are more successful when (all else being equal)
...
they use less side.
they use side less often.<hr></blockquote>

I guess I agree the way it's phrased. But, one difference between greats and also-rans is that the champions' percentages are better compared to others when they (either) use a lot of side. It's patently false that pros use less english. Any tournament observation proves that. Pros don't get to be pros by shying away from the heavy spin.

Fred

07-13-2002, 03:03 PM
Can you really throw an object ball? IMO if you hit the cue ball with perfect follow, left, right or draw english the cue ball will travel down the table in a straight path either rolling, spinning or skidding but going in a straight line. The cue ball will not curve left or right down the table unless masse is used whether intentional or by acccident. However, one may argue that by hitting the cue ball slow this will have an effect on the ball verses hiiting hard and fast. In theory it should not make any difference with how fast or slow if you hit the ball with perfect english. If the ball does curve left or right it is because of table imperfections or ball speed but not if the cue ball is spinning.

Now if what I said is true lets see what happens when a cue ball with spin/english hits an object ball. If the cue ball is spinning with left or right english and has a suffiecent amount of energy it will tranfer english to the object ball and cause it to spin as it travels down the table.

But will the object ball start curving left or right as it travels down the table? I do not think so! Because the cue ball hit with perfect english will also impart perfect english to the object ball. So therfore it must travel in a straight line. Its direction will be determined by how thick or thin it was hit by the cue ball.

So if a person throws and object ball or thinks he has is because of the spin on the cue ball or some factors such as masse or ball speed?

Regards, Kelly

Alfie
07-13-2002, 08:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Kelly:</font><hr> So if a person throws and object ball or thinks he has is [it] because of the spin on the cue ball or some factors such as masse or ball speed? <hr></blockquote> Any time the face of the CB is moving perpendicular to the line of centers at the point of contact the OB will be thrown. This is caused by CB side spin (spin induced throw, SIT), or the cut angle (collision induced throw, CIT), or a combination of the two. The OB nearly always gets thrown to one side or the other of the line of centers. The only time it doesn't is when the CB side spin exactly cancels out any CIT.

Masse will throw an OB but only because of the presence of CB side spin, not because masse has some special throwing property.

Shot speed does affect throw. See this thread. It's short.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20000307234258.03548.00001006%40ng-co1.aol.com

07-13-2002, 11:34 PM
kiss is right


to me the most difficult thing i ever do is try to keep it as simple as possible, there are far too many times when we will (me in paritcular) create the difficult out of the simple.


your right simple simple simple

bye---

SpiderMan
08-01-2002, 03:01 PM
Malcolm,

You are partly correct in your analysis, but not completely - it is indeed correct that with flat side english the object ball will move to the left as the cue ball moves to the right. But what you are overlooking is that they move sideways equal and opposite in SPEED ONLY, not in sideways distance traveled. The missing factor you didn't consider is that almost all of the cueball's FORWARD speed is transferred to the object ball. Therefore, despite the fact that the C/B and O/B have equal sideways speeds, the O/B doesn't move very far sideways while the C/B moves sideways a few inches. This is because they are both moving sideways very slowly, and only the C/B is allowed to finish this movement. The O/B has already hit the back of the pocket and been stopped, while the C/B continues to move sideways. When shot hard, the O/B doesn't even deviate perceptibly in angle.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
08-01-2002, 03:04 PM
His analysis of Jay's shot was incomplete, you should not have agreed without thinking about it /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

SpiderMan

08-01-2002, 05:01 PM
Whitewolf, I believe what you are refering to in your original post, is what the pros call "chinching a ball". They use a touch of out-side english to eliminate throw. We're talking a half a tip or less. In theroy what this does is allow the CB to roll off the OB instead of clinging to it, thus no throw. I agree with you, that using a touch of outside english just about eliminates the possibilty of accidently applying any inside english which would really cause you to miss if you weren't compensateing for it. Remember we are only talking a touch of outside english. The amount of swerve, curve, deflection, ect is not enough to even talk about. Jim R.

08-01-2002, 05:35 PM
Kelly, Throw does not cause an OB to curve. The only thing that can do that is an off-center jump shot, but that's another thread. Throw happens at the moment of impact between the CB and the OB. If at the moment of impact you draw a line from the center of the CB through the center of the OB and off into infinity, that is the line the OB will travel if there is no throw. Throw causes the OB eo deviate from that line. The OB still rolls straight, it's just that it's rolling down a different line. Jim R.

08-01-2002, 05:37 PM
Kelly, Throw does not cause an OB to curve. The only thing that can do that is an off-center jump shot, but that's another thread. Throw happens at the moment of impact between the CB and the OB. If at the moment of impact you draw a line from the center of the CB through the center of the OB and off into infinity, that is the line the OB will travel if there is no throw. Throw causes the OB to deviate from that line. The OB still rolls straight, it's just that it's rolling down a different line. Jim R.

09-20-2002, 12:10 PM