PDA

View Full Version : Throwing the OB, straight shot



heater451
05-29-2002, 10:57 AM
Okay, the other thread was getting confusing, so I went down to the basement and ran a few quick tests.

Shots were made with med-hard stroke.

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

The blue arrows show the general direction of the cue ball, post-contact.

I totally believe that Jay knows is stuff, but my results showed that he was wrong, only in one regard: cue ball position with dead-side spin was to the opposite side of the shot. That is, dead left english/spin, netted position to the right of the object ball. I believe this is due to the combination of squirt/throw in the shot (see red and yellow arrows).

The top-right and bottom-right spin shot results were what you would expect. I would add, however, is that the draw adds more 'cut' angle to the hit, so that the aimpoint needs to be off-center (to the opposite side of the ball to which the spin is applied). I have indicated an exaggerated "masse" arrow, to illustrate this.

BTW, I have used this "light" masse on straight-in side pocket shots, in order to position about 90 degrees to the side of contact, with about 50% success--I know it works, I just don't practice it. Plus, the shot is almost never necessary. (FYI)

Fred Agnir
05-29-2002, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> The blue arrows show the general direction of the cue ball, post-contact.

I totally believe that Jay knows is stuff, but my results showed that he was wrong, only in one regard: cue ball position with dead-side spin was to the opposite side of the shot. That is, dead left english/spin, netted position to the right of the object ball. <hr></blockquote>
That's the result I offered up. I'm glad someone tried it out.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr>
I believe this is due to the combination of skid/throw in the shot (see red and yellow arrows).<hr></blockquote>

Ummmm.... why are you using the term "skid" for what seemingly is on your diagram as "squirt"? "Skid" already means something completely different.

If you *do* mean "squirt", then your explanation is exactly correct for this shot and this object ball path (dead straight).

Fred

05-29-2002, 11:53 AM
I believe your third diagram to be incorrect as you explain it with regards to the masse portion of the shot... it has been my experience with bottom side english that the masse effect only happens on long soflty hit shots with a medium stroke I would offer no compensation at all for the hit as the amount of squirt and amount of spin counter act each other and with a hard stroke I would aim slightly to the SAME side as my english to allow for squirt. Perhaps you elevate your cue more than I do?? but if that was the case then you would have gotten the masse effect with the top right english shot to be more prominent. I just dont believe that the masse has time to take effect with a med-hard stroke unless there is quite some distance between balls... Is there???

Jay M
05-29-2002, 03:39 PM
Thank you for the compliment. I'd like to point one thing out though. I shoot the shot with a very hard stroke. Try pounding the object ball into the pocket a few times and report the results. I'd be interested in seeing if someone else can reproduce the shot. I went today for practice time and this was one of the shots that I messed around with for a while. In many attempts, more than 50, I had one time the cue ball sat still spinning, twice that it went counter to what I expected and the rest of them it did exactly what I expected. It is definitely a possibility that I unconciously adjust my point of aim, so I'd like to see the results of an independent person doing the same thing. As I said, use something very close to break speed on the shot and see what happens.

Jay M

heater451
05-29-2002, 04:15 PM
Fred,

You are correct. (imagine that)

After seeing you use the term "squirt", back in the former thread, I realized that I had used "skid" incorrectly (at least, the diagram still made sense).

"Squirt" is what I meant--and have edited the graphic and text to reflect--which I mean to be the movement of the cueball, away from the centerline of the cue tip upon strike. (You may have to clear your browser cache, in order to refresh the graphic.)

"Skid," I roughly define as the movement of the cueball and object ball in the same direction, upon contact, immediately before the object ball is 'released'.


. . .have I mentioned the battery of sinus medication I've been taking? . . .

heater451
05-29-2002, 05:01 PM
Jay,

I tried the shot again, with a firmer stroke, and I got the results you did.

What I observed was--I think Patrick described it--the cue ball rebounded off the object ball, into the air, and when it landed, it moved in the direction that the spin was applied (right==right).

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause. . . .

heater451
05-29-2002, 05:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> . . .I just dont believe that the masse has time to take effect with a med-hard stroke unless there is quite some distance between balls... Is there??? <hr></blockquote>

Generally, yes, there was a fair amount of distance between the balls--although, I did try this at a few different distances, I didn't log the variances or results.

You are also correct about the masse being more pronounced with a soft(er) stroke, but I think at some point the stroke/aimpoint variables work together enough to yield the same results at different individual values (this could probably be graphed, but I don't know the math to do it. . . .). And I'm guessing that the right amount of squirt/spin/speed would do the same--which may have actually been what I was observing (good catch).

Also, when I shot at varying distance, I may have subconsciously altered my stroke to match, and influenced the results, but I was only after the basic effects of the english on the resulting cue ball position.

Oh. . .yeah. . .our measurements of stroke speed/power may be very different as well.

05-29-2002, 06:03 PM
This is realy hopeless...
This is all easy to explain in person but on the internet this is just so hard with words alone ...
I give up sorry im to lazy.

heater451
05-29-2002, 06:42 PM
Malcolm,

From one of your earlier posts
<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 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.
<hr></blockquote>

Playing the cue ball "at a slight cut angle", will send the cue rolling forward, similar to adding topspin.

I think the confusion arises, when you consider the concept of "straight".

As Fred mentioned in his post-- http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccbboard&amp;Number=15846&amp; page=0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7#Post15846

If we allow that perfect, center contact ("straight") would be the exception, and not the norm, then Fred is correct in saying that the object ball "doesn't go dead straight".

Your point would be correct, if you consider a barely off-center hit equal to a cut angle. However, I believe that the difference would be found in the actual, final position of the cue ball. Now, you may also get the same side movement, with a little stun, if you accidentally jack-up, and/or drop the tip of the cue during the stroke. That brings up stroke variance.

You, I, Jay, and Fred all have different strokes, and 'feel' for our aimpoints.

It's possible, that Jay and I strike similarly, and so get the same results.

Fred, on the other hand, says, "When I shoot this shot, the cueball is left spinning madly in place." He may be 'compensating' in his own way--although, he could actually be hitting the shot more accurately, which causes the cue ball to *sit*. We couldn't tell, without at least videotaping. . . .

Now, I apologize for being long-winded on this, and I am not trying to be argumentative, but I think you may simply be saying something that I'm not hearing correctly--a case of 'Hear what I mean'. Unfortunately, that is a major downfall of the bullentin-board medium.

WHEW!-- After typing all that, I re-read another of your posts, and I have a question: When you speak of moving the cue ball to the side, are you considering the angle (from shot centerline) that the cue ball travels?

Don't give up. Ask questions/get answers.

05-30-2002, 05:17 AM
I know there is stroke variance but what this was about is that when jay can consistantly move the cueball to the side with sidespin on a straight shot he can do the same without it.
His stroke is consistant anough ...
The margin of error you have to contact the object ball is the same.
Both ways to shoot this arent exactly the same but the difference is extremely small and there is no way anybody can have a stroke good anough for this difference to be notisable.

05-30-2002, 05:29 AM
Fred was saying what i am saying ...
That is you cant get the cueball to go to the side without the object ball going to the other side.
If the object ball goes straight the cueball wont move at all.
So the shot he is talking about is playing with left english cutting the object ball just anough to the left for the throw to make the object ball go exactly straight and stop the cueball where it is.

Can you ask that last question in a litle more detail, i dont realy know what youre asking.

Fred Agnir
05-30-2002, 06:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> Fred, on the other hand, says, "When I shoot this shot, the cueball is left spinning madly in place." He may be 'compensating' in his own way<hr></blockquote>
Yup, I'm compensating very consciously. My effort is to keep the cueball dead spinning. I figure that if I can execute such a shot, then that should debunk any theory that says that the cueball will drift to the right due to the (right-hand)spin alone.

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks the diagrams are a great tool

heater451
05-30-2002, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr>
Can you ask that last question in a litle more detail, i dont realy know what youre asking. <hr></blockquote>
My question was, "When you speak of moving the cue ball to the side, are you considering the angle (from shot centerline) that the cue ball travels?"

Given:

1) A "shot centerline", from the cue centerline, through the cue ball and object ball

2) A "registration line", perpendicular to the shot centerline, at the point of cue ball/object ball contact.

3) A line from the intersection of the shot centerline and the registration line, to the point at which the cue ball comes to rest after the shot--regardless of whether it jumped, rolled, or slid to get there.

Now, the angle from the registration line to the final, divergent line can be expressed in degrees, positive or negative in relation to the shooter. Or simply as, say, "30 degrees forward" (away from the shooter), or "30 degress backward (towards the shooter).

This angle is most affected by draw (backward) or follow (forward), however, a very slight, almost straight, cut shot will yield an angle more consistently positive/forward.

I only brought this up, because the end result of the slight cut shot would be similar to the sidespin/follow shot, and this is why I thought you were saying the shots were the same.

BTW, I believe that draw and follow are responsible for cue ball positioning off the object ball, and side is used for positioning off a cushion, but as I said in another post, I think the sidespin causes the cue ball movement sideways in this shot due to its interaction with the cloth (upon landing after the jump/rebound from shot contact).

heater451
05-30-2002, 08:44 AM
Often times, people can get into heated arguments, based upon written exchanges here on the board, when they are actually stating the same thing.

Sometimes, this is due to one person speaking from half of an equation, and assuming the other, while a second person will be taking the other side, and assuming the first half. This is much like arguing the cause of an event, while your "opponent" argues the effects, yet they are about the same. (Sorry, couldn't think of a better analogy--I'm in a hurry.) In the case here, I think that assumptions were made for variables that may or may not be necessary to quantify among peers, but some of us like details, and others, well. . .you know what I'm saying, right?

Also, I do not believe that we approached true argument status, but it does seem that we may have been getting there. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that simple miscommunications may cause frustration, which may lead to a lack of respect, and general hard feelings. This is never MY intent--someone will know if I'm pissed at them.

Regarding this 'throw' stuff, I know you were getting frustrated, and I wanted to defuse anything that my cause you to think that I disrespect you, or am trying to 'out-maneuver' you on the board, verbally. Consider it a diplomatic move, to define "where I'm coming from", or an apology, in the Socratic sense: A speech in defense of and not a giving of way.

(One more apology, for being melodramatic--I'm still crooked on sinus meds, and I've got a doctor's appointment to get to. . . .)

Jay M
05-30-2002, 09:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Also, I do not believe that we approached true argument status, but it does seem that we may have been getting there. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that simple miscommunications may cause frustration, which may lead to a lack of respect, and general hard feelings. This is never MY intent--someone will know if I'm pissed at them.
<hr></blockquote>

I agree, this is a part of the reason that I tried to back off from the discussion. I didn't want it to devolve into a flamefest. I also know that both sides had valid arguments and that we might have been talking about different things. I was speaking primarily from practical experience and others were speaking primarily from theoretical knowledge. I truly do NOT want to start arguments on the boards, but rather to attempt to explain what I observe during playing.

I learned the game the hard way, I taught myself. I've only read 1 book on pool and that was "Byrne's standard book of pool" way back in about 1986. Until recently I had never had any instruction at all in how to shoot (I've done a few hours of working with Ray Martin on some projects and had the benefit of using those as lessons), just what I observed in my own game and my opponent's game. This leads me naturally to have some flaws in doing things the "right way" It also added in a few skills that I developed because I thought they were "neat" that most other pro players don't do as a general rule, the jump-radical masse as an example. So I lost a bit in the strategy/leave area, but I picked up a bit in the shot making arena and rail use, I think it balances out and with some work on the strategies, I could be a very well rounded player.

So on occasion I may make statements that the theorists and purists don't agree with. When that happens, understand that I am relating my own observations rather than simply passing along the experiences of others. Take that for what it is worth, I may be completely wrong in my observation, but then again, I may have one of those weird shots that seem to defy the laws of physics (like Massey's Finger masse that does an "S" curve).

All I can say is that I will never knowingly give incorrect information nor will I give information about areas that I have not observed and tested for myself.

Jay M

05-30-2002, 10:01 AM
I know what you mean.
And yes i was getting a litle frustrated but not realy at anybody here it was more because its so difficult to put these things in to words.
These things can be explained and understood within a minute irl.

Alfie
05-30-2002, 12:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;Also, I do not believe that we approached true argument status, but it does seem that we may have been getting there. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that simple miscommunications may cause frustration, which may lead to a lack of respect, and general hard feelings. This is never MY intent--someone will know if I'm pissed at them.
&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I agree, this is a part of the reason that I tried to back off from the discussion. I didn't want it to devolve into a flamefest. I also know that both sides had valid arguments and that we might have been talking about different things. I was speaking primarily from practical experience and others were speaking primarily from theoretical knowledge. I truly do NOT want to start arguments on the boards, but rather to attempt to explain what I observe during playing.

I learned the game the hard way, I taught myself. I've only read 1 book on pool and that was "Byrne's standard book of pool" way back in about 1986. Until recently I had never had any instruction at all in how to shoot (I've done a few hours of working with Ray Martin on some projects and had the benefit of using those as lessons), just what I observed in my own game and my opponent's game. This leads me naturally to have some flaws in doing things the "right way" It also added in a few skills that I developed because I thought they were "neat" that most other pro players don't do as a general rule, the jump-radical masse as an example. So I lost a bit in the strategy/leave area, but I picked up a bit in the shot making arena and rail use, I think it balances out and with some work on the strategies, I could be a very well rounded player.

So on occasion I may make statements that the theorists and purists don't agree with. When that happens, understand that I am relating my own observations rather than simply passing along the experiences of others. Take that for what it is worth, I may be completely wrong in my observation, but then again, I may have one of those weird shots that seem to defy the laws of physics (like Massey's Finger masse that does an "S" curve).

All I can say is that I will never knowingly give incorrect information nor will I give information about areas that I have not observed and tested for myself.

Jay M <hr></blockquote>
Jay, I would like to apologize to you for my part in any misunderstanding we may have had in the recent past. I know it looked like I ambushed you in another thread; but, believe me, I didn't know all that stuff myself until I got out the books after you had already responded.

Anyway, I am sorry.

Anonymous Alfie

05-31-2002, 08:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> like Massey's Finger masse that does an "S" curve <hr></blockquote>

Seems to be possible if you can get the cueball to spin on two seperate axis.
But i seem to have trouble making this movement with my hand :-)
Can you explain how he does this?

Scott Lee
06-01-2002, 08:59 PM
I can explain it easily! He DOESN'T make the CB make an "S"
curve. That is a physical impossibility! Mizerak appeared to make the CB roll on an 'S' curve in the commercial for an old video...but that was with a special CB. Mike does do some fabulous tricks with his finger pool, but making the CB do an "S" curve is not one of them.

Scott Lee

06-02-2002, 04:57 PM
yeah seems to be impossible to do.
But dont be so fast to say it is impossible...
I think its more complicated then you think.
I dont know what would happen if resistance is put on a ball spinning around multiple axis.
I tought it might be possible to make that spin with the hand ( ofcource its impossible with the cue ) but its just way to hard to do i think.

06-02-2002, 08:16 PM
thats it you have officially become Patrick

Patrick
06-03-2002, 03:14 AM
You can put spin to the cueball with your fingers, and then you can choose the direction where you want to throw the cueball. When you shoot with a cue, you can only make the cueball go to the direction where you are hitting the cueball at.

Patrick

06-03-2002, 04:19 AM
this is something i dont know, but i also know you shouldnt say its impossible since it is more complicated then you think.
you probably dont even understand what spinning on multiple axis means?

Jay M
06-03-2002, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: alfie:</font><hr>
Jay, I would like to apologize to you for my part in any misunderstanding we may have had in the recent past. I know it looked like I ambushed you in another thread; but, believe me, I didn't know all that stuff myself until I got out the books after you had already responded.

Anyway, I am sorry.

Anonymous Alfie <hr></blockquote>

No big deal, if we never debated topics, we'd never have any progress. I don't take anything personally from the boards and I also feel that things come across harsher in print than they would be in person with the accompanying body language.

Scott: Yes, I know, that was a bad example, but it was a good way to make the point. I won't say something that I don't know for sure and I won't describe a shot that I haven't personally tested first.

Patrick: You missed on this one. Regardless of whether it is a cue or your hand which you use to propel the cue ball, the cue ball can only move in the direction it is moved (newton's third(?) law, a body in motion tends to stay in motion in the same direction unless acted on by another force... misquoted, but it's the general idea). You can only make the cue ball spin in one direction and you only have one initial direction, thus (on an infinite table with no rails) you can only make the cue ball travel in one direction and change that direction once via the spin (the "force" mentioned in the law).


Jay M

06-03-2002, 08:37 AM
Jay its impossible to make it spin in more then 1 direction with the cue...
But its not impossible for a ball to spin in multiple directions.
I dont think patrick said its possible with a cue and neither did i.
It should be possible with your hand but its just to hard to make this movement accurately.
I do think there is to much resistance on the cloth to see it making that S shape, i think it would only be possible if you change the direction very quickly, if you would try it slower the second axis spin would be gone before it ever changed direction.
I think on ice this would look good tough.

06-03-2002, 08:39 AM
This is a lot more complicated than that very basic newton law you where quoting...

Jay M
06-03-2002, 08:52 AM
That "very basic" newton law I was quoting is one of the founding principles of physics. Yes, you can have spin on more than one axis, as an example use bottom left english which causes the cue to spin on the y axis and z axis. I understand the concept you are trying to present, however on a real table it doesn't work quite like you are describing.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the draw imposed could take effect first, causing one change of direction, followed by the left taking effect and causing a second change of direction. The reality is that they both are simultaneous, causing the cue ball to curve. Even though there are two axes of spin, the change in direction is a single gradual one, rather than two distinct changes of direction. This is true even in the most radical masse, regardless of the instrument used to put the cue ball into motion.

Jay M

06-03-2002, 09:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> That "very basic" newton law I was quoting is one of the founding principles of physics. Yes, you can have spin on more than one axis, as an example use bottom left english which causes the cue to spin on the y axis and z axis. I understand the concept you are trying to present, however on a real table it doesn't work quite like you are describing.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the draw imposed could take effect first, causing one change of direction, followed by the left taking effect and causing a second change of direction. The reality is that they both are simultaneous, causing the cue ball to curve. Even though there are two axes of spin, the change in direction is a single gradual one, rather than two distinct changes of direction. This is true even in the most radical masse, regardless of the instrument used to put the cue ball into motion.

Jay M <hr></blockquote>

bottom left english is spin on 1 axis sideways.
Like i said with a cue you cant make a ball spin on more then 1 axis.
I dont mean xyz axis in relation with what is up on wherever you are on the planet, this realy doesnt mather.
I mean spin around multiple axis in relation to a point.
Ill try to explain this:
You can have a ball spinning forward when you just look at it like this it is spinning around one axis, when you walk around it it will be spinning on multiple axis in relation to you. In the same way it can be spinning on many axis when you arent moving ( since movement is realy only relative in this example )
I say in this example so some smartass isnt gonna come saying there is an absolute speed in the universe! this doesnt mather, we are talking pool ok.
Sorry for saying this but i have a feeling you just want to tell me im wrong the whole time, so this is to try to prevent that :-)

Jay M
06-03-2002, 09:12 AM
Actually I'm not interested in being wrong or right. I'm trying to look at your concept objectively and formulate an opinion. Just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. I think there is a logical flaw with the concept as you are presenting it, but I'm hard pressed to explain it. I'd say show me the concept as it relates to pool under normal playing conditions (as opposed to a gravity free/friction free environment) and I'll be happy to consider and debate the notion.

As you explained it, you are wandering into the area of relativity and I would point out that your example requires two separate entities in motion (discounting the effects of gravity and the earth's rotation). Under normal playing conditions, the ball would be the first entity, but what would be the second? Using your description it would appear that the second entity in motion would be the table itself.

Jay M&lt;~~~ not trying to be problematic, just trying to debate a bit

06-03-2002, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Actually I'm not interested in being wrong or right. I'm trying to look at your concept objectively and formulate an opinion. Just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. I think there is a logical flaw with the concept as you are presenting it, but I'm hard pressed to explain it. I'd say show me the concept as it relates to pool under normal playing conditions (as opposed to a gravity free/friction free environment) and I'll be happy to consider and debate the notion.

As you explained it, you are wandering into the area of relativity and I would point out that your example requires two separate entities in motion (discounting the effects of gravity and the earth's rotation). Under normal playing conditions, the ball would be the first entity, but what would be the second? Using your description it would appear that the second entity in motion would be the table itself.

Jay M&lt;~~~ not trying to be problematic, just trying to debate a bit <hr></blockquote>

yes its relative to the table ofcource.
But i cant say how it relates to pool since with a cue it doesnt work :-)
This was just theoreticaly, the mike massey S curve you(?) mentioned got me thinking about it, thats all...
Im not sure what would happen on a table actualy.
Think of a ball with follow spin that is changing direction constantly, so going from follow to sidedraw to draw to sidedraw to follow...
This is what i was thinking about for the S curve.
This is very different from follow and sidespin.

I dont realy know what the cloth resistance is gonna do to that second axis spin. I think the ball will just accelerate from the follow spin and the follow spin will slow down and the second axis spin might just slow down the same way it would on a stationary ball spinning around the vertical axis on the table.
So if you want the ball to go 1 second to the left and then 1 second to the right, it is probably impossible since the second axis spin must be very slow and the spin might be gone after a fraction of a second.
So my conclusion is that it can probably only zigzag very fast, probably less then an inch left right. And maybe only a few mm or less left right left right left right.
This would need a starting forward motion of the ball.
If the ball would just be stationary spinning on the cloth it would be making very litle circles.
But ofcource it will be very difficult to do this with your hand, i think youd need a machine for this trick :-)

I know im not to good in explaining these things for a couple of reasons: its very difficult to explain :-) ,i dont realy know a lot of standard ways to say things, im not to good at making good sentenses plus when i do think of a good sentense a lot of the time the words for it are missing in my vocabulary.

I think this is part of the reason i might be in argument with everybody here.
Also because communication with only words is difficult.
And ofcource i never give up arguing about something that isnt resolved ( this might be the biggest problem ) but is there something wrong with that?

TonyM
06-03-2002, 02:16 PM
Jay, once again I think that the problem here is not really one of poor communication. Rather it is a confusion of "Observation with Cause and Effect". Any of your observations are perfectly valid. They are, afterall, what you are actually observing at the table. Left as that, they are valid and valuable information.

The problem arises when one attempts to then try and explain the underlying causes behind the observations.

Whether or not your understanding of the theoretical explanations of the underlying causes is correct or not, does nothing to diminish the validity of your original observations.

Tony
-thinks observations are useful for teaching

Q-guy
06-03-2002, 05:04 PM
Haven't looked at the board I a long time. In response to your post, it is possible to make the cue ball create an S. Mike does it with his fingers. It can also be done with a cue. I am surprised you don't know the shot. It is a pretty common shot in artistic billiards.

Patrick
06-03-2002, 05:06 PM
Why do you always say I am wrong when I am right?
If you put top spin and left spin on the cueball, then you throw it to the left with your hand, this is not possible to do with a cue. When the cueball has stopped skidding to the left, then it will go to the direction of the spin.

Patrick

06-03-2002, 05:57 PM
With the fingers i can believe it, but not with the cue...
Can you explain this?

Scott Lee
06-04-2002, 12:13 AM
Q-Guy...Are you sure you're not talking about the shot where Mike throws the CB into the rail, and it hooks around balls frozen together off the rail. That shot is more like an 'M' than an 'S'. I am not familiar with any artistic shot where the CB can curve two different, independent directions, without hitting a rail. I have worked with Mike and Tom Rossman on several occasions, and never seen or heard of this shot. I will certainly ask them both, along with another finger pool expert Reeves Smith, next time I see them (next month in New Orleans).

Scott Lee

Q-guy
06-04-2002, 12:56 AM
You do need a rail to provide the energy for the beginning of the S. The effect of english brings it back the other way producing the S. It can be done with a cue starting with the cueball frozen to the rail. It is a trick, but the cue ball has in fact bent in two directions. The spectator who won't understand what happened, won't be believed when they tell what they saw.

06-04-2002, 05:23 AM
youre just talking about hitting the same rail more then once?
You can do this on a normal follow or drawshot too.

Q-guy
06-04-2002, 08:02 AM
You only hit the rail once from an angle, and then the zig zag effect takes place without any other use of the rail. It is just visual, no change of rotation has taken place.

06-04-2002, 08:58 AM
I dont know how that would be possible, normaly from hitting the rail you just change direction and amount of spin, but you cant get a second axis spin from it.