PDA

View Full Version : Throwing a thin cut



Vapros
06-19-2002, 07:46 PM
Is it, or is it not, possible to throw a very thin cut with CB english? I'm thinking there is no throw.

Patrick
06-19-2002, 10:22 PM
You can throw an object ball with outside spin that is normally impossible to make. I have been doing it for years.
I estimate it is a 95 degree cut.

Patrick

Nostroke
06-19-2002, 11:09 PM
I believe Byrne in one of his books says no but most better players believe thay can throw a thin cut.

When you think about it, except when u just wiggle a ball, its still the same amount of "ball touching ball" even on a very thin cut. The only other factor would be the amount of time the contact is maintained I suppose. Is it significantly more on fuller shots?

Im just thinking out loud cause i dont really know.
Bob Jewett probably would have the answer but im not sure he posts here. You might try asking over at RSB too.

06-20-2002, 01:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> The only other factor would be the amount of time the contact is maintained I suppose. Is it significantly more on fuller shots?

<hr></blockquote>

i feel it is simply because on a thin cut the ball is glancing off the OB. i would think the angle makes a huge difference.

06-20-2002, 01:35 AM
Vapros, you're right. You caannot throw a ball past a certain thinness. There is what one might call "line of sight" meaning you must be able to see the contact point from behind the cue-ball. If the contact point is hidden, there is no way you can make the ball without some other factor involved (ie., rail-first or carom). No shot more acute then 90 degrees is possible.

THROW really only happens when you're hitting a significant amount of the object ball. How much is debatable but most people here would agree that english induced throw is most evident on a full hit and contact induced throw is most evident on a half-ball hit. Contact-induced throw on a very thin cut should be extremely minimal and not easily influenced with english. The way I see it, on a thin hit, english will really only complicate things and the difference that any spin might induce is no greater then human error.

A masse (or curve shot) could be used to widen the possibilities of improbable cut shots but I wouldn't recommend it.

Jude M. Rosenstock

06-20-2002, 06:30 AM
I'm agreeing with you Patrick. There's a standard spin shot I hit which if it were not for the english from the EXTREME outside edge CB stroke, that shot would come short and catch a horn. If it were to be hit exactly on the same contact point using any less english, even with tons of force, you wouldn't get the distance to even make the shot. I too have been hittin'em for years, even before I really studied the game that much....sid

Karatemom
06-20-2002, 08:17 AM
Yes it is possible. I've seen Chris throw shots that I thought were impossible. I haven't been able to figure out how to use the WEI table yet, but I'll try to explain it.

Put the ob on the middle diamond on the end rail. Set the cb on the spot on the other end of the table. If you've got that pictured in your mind, picture this: Chris can cut that ball in the corner using throw.

There are also plenty of other throw shots, very thin, that he can do, but don't have time to name them all.

But the answer to your question is yes, you can throw a very thin cut with cb english. I've seen it done.

Heide ~ wishes she could do that

heater451
06-20-2002, 08:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Sid Vicious:</font><hr> I'm agreeing with you Patrick. There's a standard spin shot I hit which if it were not for the english from the EXTREME outside edge CB stroke, that shot would come short and catch a horn. If it were to be hit exactly on the same contact point using any less english, even with tons of force, you wouldn't get the distance to even make the shot. I too have been hittin'em for years, even before I really studied the game that much....sid <hr></blockquote>
Sid,

What speed are you hitting with the extreme outer english?

Could it be possible that you're getting additional angle on the object ball, by the cue ball swerving (in an arc, towards the ob)?

(I'm not questioning whether throw is less of a cause than the proposed, 'added' angle, because I definitely overcut long, thin cut-shots, and I blame throw, but I think I could be wrong.)

Ken
06-20-2002, 08:42 AM
Heide, That shot is commonly done with inside english and a rail first hit. That's the reason the ball is placed against the rail. Does Chris actually use outside english and hit the ball first? Tell him to try the shot with the ball a couple inches away from the rail. Earl made a 9 ball shot like that in the Open. He got a little out of shape and had to do a wicked cut. The ball seemed to hang in the pocket and then fell to give him the game.
KenCT

06-20-2002, 09:26 AM
you caN atually make that shot with the ball a couple inches off the rail with inside hit at a medium pace.. the CB masses on its way to the CB which changes the path of the CB actually creating a shorter angle.. Mike Masse was practicing a shot similar to this in vegas and hit about 8 out of 10 from what i saw.

06-20-2002, 09:28 AM
soft hit out side english seems to grab especially well on those shots

06-20-2002, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Sid Vicious:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; I'm agreeing with you Patrick. There's a standard spin shot I hit which if it were not for the english from the EXTREME outside edge CB stroke, that shot would come short and catch a horn. If it were to be hit exactly on the same contact point using any less english, even with tons of force, you wouldn't get the distance to even make the shot. I too have been hittin'em for years, even before I really studied the game that much....sid &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Sid,

What speed are you hitting with the extreme outer english?

Could it be possible that you're getting additional angle on the object ball, by the cue ball swerving (in an arc, towards the ob)?

(I'm not questioning whether throw is less of a cause than the proposed, 'added' angle, because I definitely overcut long, thin cut-shots, and I blame throw, but I think I could be wrong.) <hr></blockquote>


if you are playing outside english then you would be masse-ing it in the wrong direction thus losing some angle so the throw must be whats making the ball in the pocket

Karatemom
06-20-2002, 11:10 AM
Ken, I have seen Chris do that shot as well. In fact, I don't think there are any shots out there that he hasn't done or made. He makes some beautiful thin throw shots when he plays one pocket.

Heide ~ still wishes she could make the commonly done shot with inside english

heater451
06-20-2002, 11:27 AM
d0wnt0wn,

I'm not talking about hitting downward, for the masse effect that you've described (although, I have hit shots like that).

What I'm referring to, I think I actually misrepresented as swerve, which is more like what you mean, with the masse-like action. I'm saying that, if you hit with, say, dead-right english, at low speed/power, the sidespin interacting with the felt may cause a slight arc, back towards the shot centerline.

It's something that I've guessed at in the past, but have never tested
it.

(Fred, are you out there. . . .)

06-20-2002, 12:02 PM
It's a firm, straight follow through, above soft but below medium stroke. Zat make sense? It confuses me when I read it back. Anyway I doubt that I'm getting added angle with hitting it to the outside edge, not the inside. Maybe I'm reading your statement wrong. sid

06-20-2002, 12:41 PM
If I may jump in here...

You're absolutely right. With extreme side spin, you'll get cue ball squirt at the onset, and the CB will start to swerve back as soon as it stops sliding and starts rolling. Depending on speed and distance, with some shots you don't have to compensate for CB squirt at all, and with other shots you may even have to compensate in the opposite direction---as the CB may swerve back farther than the original squirt.

Fran

heater451
06-20-2002, 01:45 PM
Thanks for the input Fran.

So. . .the long, cut shot would have to be hit with inside english, and outside would not net a 'greater than 90 deg' cut (with throw). Of course, I'm assuming that the balls are in-line, parallel to the long rails.

That is: START(%AC7O7%Pg5O5%WD3Z6%XC8P9%eC7a4%_D5N6%`U3O5%a f1O3)END
. . .wouldn't work (Throw would not help--red arrow).

But: START(%AC7O7%Pg5O5%eA1a4%_D7O0%`U1N5%af1O3)END . . .will. (Not hitting the cushion first).

(note: 'swerve' is exaggerated by the arrows)

**After diagramming this**, It looks like having the balls in-line (parallel to the long rails) actually makes the shot a lot more than 90 degrees, as opposed to having the cue ball, say, a full ball's width to the side. . . .which actually makes the cut angle a perfect 90--and, impossible, without the change of "attack" angle afforded by english. . . .which might allow the outside english to work. . . .

Is this making sense, the rotation relationship of a cut angle, in relation to actual ball position, is giving me a headache. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Fred Agnir
06-20-2002, 01:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr>
What I'm referring to, I think I actually misrepresented as swerve, which is more like what you mean, with the masse-like action. I'm saying that, if you hit with, say, dead-right english, at low speed/power, the sidespin interacting with the felt may cause a slight arc, back towards the shot centerline.<hr></blockquote>
With a dead-level cue, I don't think the cueball's interaction with the cloth makes it curve. If it did, I would think that a spinning cue ball (as spun with your fingers) would always move on the cloth. However, it will stop and spin and place with no other motion, won't it?

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-20-2002, 01:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Karatemom:</font><hr>
Put the ob on the middle diamond on the end rail. Set the cb on the spot on the other end of the table. If you've got that pictured in your mind, picture this: Chris can cut that ball in the corner using throw<hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't call this a throw shot.

Fred

TonyM
06-20-2002, 02:03 PM
I think that beyond a certain point, english will not "throw" the object ball. Rather, the use of english is likely to remove the normal contact throw. Thin cuts are often said to be "thrown" in by many fine players. I think that they are mistaken. Often what is really happenning is that the inside or outside english creates a curved path to the ball. I've seen players that swear by the inside english method (where the ball goes from outside in) and oythers that swear by yhe outside enlgish method (where the ball goes from inside out). Both claim to be "throwing" the ball in. Neither are correct in my opinion.

But some people "see" the shot better with the english (maybe they just got used to it?) and can't shoot it any other way.

Tony

06-20-2002, 02:26 PM
oh no not this thread again fred :O)

06-20-2002, 02:32 PM
I think "throwing" is the wrong terminology. Look at it as twisting the object ball with English. Throw tends to be used on shots with more force while twisting a ball in a direction is much more delicate. IMO.

06-20-2002, 02:55 PM
I think you are looking at this backwards but it may just be that I am reading you wrong.... outside english starts moving in towards the center of the ob then swerves back out which makes it impossible to hit the ob at the exact 90 degree point... inside english would start the swere out and bring it in creating more than a 90 degree angle.

heater451
06-20-2002, 02:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> With a dead-level cue, I don't think the cueball's interaction with the cloth makes it curve. If it did, I would think that a spinning cue ball (as spun with your fingers) would always move on the cloth. However, it will stop and spin and place with no other motion, won't it?

Fred <hr></blockquote>
I suppose that the complex spin/roll might be to blame, but I would hold that suspect, due to the low-speed of the ball (less sliding). (A thrown bowling ball, or a flat-track motorcycle tire exibit a grip/slide action, but they are using much stronger/faster movements.)

I think, if the correct forward force is applied to the ball to keep it in motion (Newton's in there), the sideways spin will cause it to arc. Your example of spinning a cueball by hand doesn't work, since you are applying counter forces on opposite sides of the ball (thumb vs. finger). Another line of thought here: If you spin a top, it will stay in place until it's speed drops enough to cause it to 'wander'--then again, this is probably brought on by it being, pardon the pun, top-heavy. . . .

However, now that you have me thinking, you could be right about the ball not 'gripping'. . . .It might be something more like the ball 'pushing' against the felt as it rolls--the only analogies that comes to mind would be how a surfboard interacts with a wave, or a snowboard against snow. Of course, I'm totally guessing. I suppose, this still counts as "interaction with the cloth", eh?

Addressing your point about "dead-level cue". This takes us back to the "theoretical vs. 'real-world'", and I'm quite happy to go along with your statement. I'm sure that I rarely hit with a dead-level cue, but I'll make an attempt at practicing it, and let you know.

Is this sensible--the continued thinking/long posts are making me trip over my thoughts. That, and the current, wavy display of my dying monitor is causing me fatigue. . . .

heater451
06-20-2002, 03:05 PM
You may be reading it right and wrong!

I started out thinking incorrectly--but Fran's post made me realize it.

I thought my following post (the one with the diagram codes) showed that I "got it".

Sorry it's such a mess.

Chris Cass
06-20-2002, 05:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Karatemom:</font><hr> Ken, I have seen Chris do that shot as well. In fact, I don't think there are any shots out there that he hasn't done or made. He makes some beautiful thin throw shots when he plays one pocket.<hr></blockquote>

Hi Babe,

Although, some players think of the shots they've made or seen are throw shots, some aren't. The shots that's being described are not. In order to transfer spin to and ob. You must have enough ball to do it, and even then it's slight. Back cut's and extremely thin cuts, I actually spin the cb to hit, the only point to make the ball. The spin on the cb allows me to hit that small point and get either the cb out of there, or get the cb to go where I need it to be. A lot of what you've seen are kill shots. Where the cue is hit hard and starts to die when, it hits the ob. That's when the english or spin contacts the ob and it looks as if I've thrown it in, as the speed of the ob picks up.

I'm sorry if I confused you with the throw shot. I'll show you, when we practice some. Now, if 2 ob's are frozen? You'll be able to see a slight throw, when hit at a different angle other than straight in. If Fred Agnir, I'm sure you can't forget from Vegas explains it. It'll make more sence.

Thanks Babe, for all the compliments but there's many players that can out play me. The one thing about pool is that. There are titles that are given Pro, Master, ect. but in reality, we're all students for life.

Love,

Chris

Tom_In_Cincy
06-20-2002, 05:57 PM
Chris,
You reminded me of a shot I have on my website. Its an 8 ball shot, that involves two balls froze (the 8 ball and another ball) in front of the corner pocket. The angle would indicate that the 8 ball cannot be made by any normal hit.

www.geocities.com/cincytom314 (http://www.geocities.com/cincytom314) (Drills and template selection) "8 ball shot"

This isn't what I would call 'throw' but being able to chang the natural direction by using reverse english.

Check it out..

06-20-2002, 06:00 PM
Confusion is the word!

BCA Master Instructor F. Crimi has got it all wrong according to Master Instructor Bob Jewett. Who shall I pay for lessons?

As Mr. d0wnt0wn comments, this topic has been kicked around many times.

You might look here

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;q=Jewett+throw+thin+cut&amp;meta=grou p%3Drec.sport.billiard

Have Fun!

06-20-2002, 06:32 PM
Uh, excuse me but that's about 8 hours of reading there. Maybe you can point out specifically where the contradiction to my post is?

I know Bob's not going to contradict that when you strike a cue ball with side spin, it will squirt. So, you must be referring to the only other thing I stated, which was that once it develops 'roll' (forward roll) it will swerve back in the opposite direction of the squirt.

Please show me. I'd love to see where he contradicts that.


Fran

Rod
06-20-2002, 06:54 PM
Quote Chris, A lot of what you've seen are kill shots. Where the cue is hit hard and starts to die when, it hits the ob. That's when the english or spin contacts the ob and it looks as if I've thrown it in, as the speed of the ob picks up.

Chris, I'd have to call that throw, induced by english, even if it isn't a kill shot. We can shoot those shots without the draw and get the same effect. From the same angle, very thin, I'd have to shoot the shot with more speed without the english, just to get the ball to the pocket. Of course the english is used for position but it also slows down the cue ball to a degree, depending on the angle. The english is probably just an offset because of swerve and where you need to aim, but throw none the less.
I'm talking about outside english. What cha think?
Here is an example of the cut. The red line is where you need to hit to make the ball. The yellow line is the aim line with swerve in the mixture. Just an example.

START(
%AD8K6%Pg5H4%WF6J6%Xh2I2%eC5a8%_F5J7%`W5J4%ai2H8

)END

06-20-2002, 07:35 PM
Fred, Heater451's point was regarding when the 'sidespin' interacts with the cloth, not just the cb. That's a ways down the line after the cue ball is initially struck and the slide has worn off (for lack of a better phrase). We know that as long as the cb is sliding or standing still, the side spin is not interacting with the cloth and there is no swerve. It's not until the cb develops normal roll when the sidespin interacts with the cloth. Isn't that the definition of a swerve?

Fran

06-20-2002, 07:48 PM

06-20-2002, 07:52 PM
Freeze that OB to the short rail and the shot gets easier, but yea you are right in line with the way I'd stroke that shot. Would I make it? Thirty percent on a medium day. Frozen I'd put money down(and aim a little different)...sid

Alfie
06-20-2002, 08:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> [about swerve] <hr></blockquote>
Swerve is a small masse, masse is a big swerve. Both are the same effect.

A ball hit with a downward cue angle (nearly always the case) and side spin will swerve until it quits sliding on the cloth and attains normal roll, at which point it rolls in a straight line with side spin.

Side spin on a ball with normal roll does not act on the cloth to cause swerve.

Rod
06-20-2002, 08:17 PM
Sid I think people can learn a lot about aim when shooting either shot or similar shots. Not to mention speed of stroke. A frozen ball at that angle is a fairly easy shot.
Here's one we set up that's a little tough. Cut the one in the right pocket. The 9 is there to give you the spacing, it comes off the table. Similar to the other angle in my other post, it just looks harder. Frozen of course.
START(
%AC9X0%IC8Y5%Pg7Z6%eC6a9

)END

06-20-2002, 09:47 PM
Fair enough--

Here is a specific reference

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;frame=right&amp;th=53c838c59c550d35&amp;seekm=jewettDrnw Az.67v%40netcom.com#link11


Message 11 expresses a view that looks essentially like what you posted. Message 12 is Jewett's response.

There is obviously confusion somewhere.

Alfie
06-20-2002, 10:41 PM
Quote Anonymous-- "[about a contradiction]"

Fran states that the ball squirts out and then swerves back in to varying degrees. Jewett says that, too.

If Fran doesn't know the exact physics of the masse, so what? We are all learning here- me, Fran, Bob, you, all of us.

BTW, I saw no contradiction between posts 11 and 12 in the link you supplied.

06-20-2002, 10:55 PM
You're right. There's one premise I hadn't stated verbally, the premise that the armswing is pendulum, (no upper arm or shoulder drop, or back hand manipulation). There's a natural downward motion through the cb, even stroking through the center. I was referring to a center ball 'strike' as opposed to a level stroke.

Thanks for the clarification.

Fran

06-20-2002, 11:13 PM
Well, could you have been making the assumption that I was referring to a level stroke? No, never said that. If you had to choose between a level stroke and a downward stroke as the most popular used by players, which would you choose?

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you'd just ask for a clarificaton rather than all that other stuff about Master Instructor and how WRONG I am, and who should you give your money to...just ask... I'll answer.

Fran

06-21-2002, 01:46 AM
I think the problem here is that none of us (except fred maybe) are rocket scientists and many times the way we percieve the spins and after contact doodaas of the balls in our own way... and no matter what the actual scientific way is this is the way we see it and not hell nor high water is going to make us change our minds about what we think we see. I get very confused by some fo the posts here and im sure some of mine dont make much sense either. By the way Fran I saw you in vegas watching the womens master finals.. I was sitting watching the mens master finals just down from you.... didnt know if i should say hi

Alfie
06-21-2002, 05:29 AM
Quote Downtown Kenny Brown-- "I think the problem here is that none of us (except fred maybe) are rocket scientists and many times the way we percieve the spins and after contact doodaas of the balls in our own way... "

A-- And been wrong about what was really going on? Yeah, that's happened to me a few times.

Quote DKB-- "and no matter what the actual scientific way is this is the way we see it and not hell nor high water is going to make us change our minds about what we think we see."

A-- Ken, it doesn't have to be that way.

Quote DKB-- "I get very confused by some fo the posts here and im sure some of mine dont make much sense either."

A-- This is the pool discussion room. Which room were you looking for? [punchline drums]

06-21-2002, 06:25 AM
I re-looked at the shot I boasted about cutting if frozen to the rail...that's no gimme at all. I should have noticed the length of the run to the corner...sid~~~plays perfect in his head, but that ain't what wins money is it

06-21-2002, 06:29 AM
Can you label the intended right corner pocket? If it's what think I see you meaning, I'm admitting being totally lost for that cut...sid

Fred Agnir
06-21-2002, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> I think, if the correct forward force is applied to the ball to keep it in motion (Newton's in there), the sideways spin will cause it to arc. Your example of spinning a cueball by hand doesn't work, since you are applying counter forces on opposite sides of the ball (thumb vs. finger). Another line of thought here: If you spin a top, it will stay in place until it's speed drops enough to cause it to 'wander'--then again, this is probably brought on by it being, pardon the pun, top-heavy. . . .<hr></blockquote>
The handwaving argument is: no, the cueball doesn't wander like a top. Warning: science answer to follow.

This is a subject near and dear to my engineering heart. Though I'm no expert on the subject, I have done a (in depth enough) study on various gyroscopes. What you describe is called "gyroscopic precession." That is, a spinning body that undergoes an external force will react in a perpendicular motion that is *not* opposite the reaction force. In this case, if the top is rotating, and it begins to fall, the "external force" is gravity causing a moment.

A top precesses as it does (revolves while falling) because it has a fixed axis at the bottom. Rotation is about that fixed point. Any spinning object, including a spinning cueball, will precess when outside forces are applied perpendicularly. But the precession motion is dependent on what axis is fixed. There is no real fixed axis on a cueball, so it doesn't "wander about" on the cloth. The "fixed axis" for a cueball is it's center.

This usually brings up questions in general about using a combo of english and , say, draw making the cueball curve. Well, as long as the cue is level and the shot is on a pool table, then the cueball will not curve. A heavy clothed snooker table may yield something different. The science answer is that the axis of spin has no component in the direction of the velocity. In order to have a component in the direction of the velocity, you need to angle the cue. If you angle the cue downwards, the curve is apparent and understood (right english goes right). If you angle the cue upwards, the curve is in the opposite direction (right english goes left).

FWIW, the word "precession" in some circles only pertains to tops. I've seen enough literature that suggests that the reaction motion to any spinning body undergoing an external force is called "precession" regardless if it looks like top precession or not. You can substitute "the motion due to the coriolis effect" for every place that I used the word "precession." In this case, the precession that the cueball undergoes is a slight tilt in its axis of spin. If it started out spinning about an axis of 12:00 and it knocked into a another ball, the axis might change to 12:10. But that axis still doesn't have a component in the direction of its velocity, so no curve will result.

Fred &lt;~~~ the short answer is "no"

Fred Agnir
06-21-2002, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> It's not until the cb develops normal roll when the sidespin interacts with the cloth. Isn't that the definition of a swerve? <hr></blockquote>
It's almost what defines swerve. The other part is that the spin axis must have a component in the direction of the velocity. You can only have that if you angle the cue, or by chance the cueball jumps and lands on something like a ball or cushion. The proof to this is to hit upwards on a cueball that's resting on a chalk cube. The swerve is in the opposite direction. So, if the cueball swerves in one direction with an elevated cue, but swerves in the opposite direction hitting upwards with a cue, then somewhere in between, there will be no swerve. That would be "dead level." The spin doesn't cause the swerve by itself. It needs another component.

Even if you hit with, say, low left english, if there's no angle of cue, there is no swerve. That being said, it's nearly impossible to hit such a shot without an angled-cue, so it'll swerve.

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-21-2002, 07:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> I think the problem here is that none of us (except fred maybe) are rocket scientist..<hr></blockquote>
The only rocket scientist I know of in pool is cuemaker Jim Buss, who never engages in such nonsense as discussing science in pool. He leaves that to the amateurs!! LOL.

Most of my science knowledge of pool has come from explanations from Bob Jewett and Ron Shepad on rec.sport.billiard over the last (egad) 7+ years.

I hope nobody takes the science talk for anything other than information to be used or not. If it helps, use it as a learning or teaching tool. If it doesn't help, don't use it. Just like chili peppers or lemon juice, I suppose.

Fred &lt;~~~ sick internet pool junkie

06-21-2002, 07:57 AM
Yes. It is possible. I've done it myself. I was playing a game and was on the 8 ball. it was past the side pocket and, after finding the contact point on the 8 ball to aim the shot, I realized, on a 90 degree cut, the 8 ball would hit the bank. I got gutsy and went for it anyway. I put VERY extreme outside english on the cue ball and hit the 8 ball for a 90 degree cut. I shot hard so the cue ball wouldn't have a chance to curve. The spin on the cue ball "threw" the 8 ball into the pocket. In a nutshell, I cut the 8 ball more than 90 degrees. I have witnesses. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

06-21-2002, 08:26 AM
I watched one Masters team match early-on, but it wasn't the finals. Are you sure it was me that you saw? Don't know when the finals was, but I left the hotel for the airport about 9PM Thurs. night.

Of course you should say hello if you see me.

Fran

Karatemom
06-21-2002, 08:58 AM
Okay, next time I'll keep my big mouth shut when I think I know what I'm talking about, but don't. I don't know a whole lot about the game yet, but am still learning. Don't know but a few of the common terms yet either.

For me, there's only one way to learn, that's the hard way.

Heide ~ thanks for setting me straight Ken and Fred. Not put off, just mad that I found out I don't have all the answers, LOL

06-21-2002, 09:14 AM
oh that must not have been when I saw you then.... Ive seen you a couple of times so im sure I would not mistake you but I must be wrong on the occasion .. I definately saw you in the hall near the pro room but you were walking bye in qyuite a hurry

06-21-2002, 09:19 AM
The point being that it doesnt matter if we know exactly whats going on with all of these factors.... if we think we know and it works the way we expect then I suppose that would be better than knowing the proper answer but it not doing what we expect.

06-21-2002, 09:26 AM
my opinion and this is just opinion not based on any actually knowledge but just what seems to be commmon sense to me is that if you did that on a sheet of ice where there is no friction between ball and surface then absolutely that wall would only go in the direction of its motion after contact...i would think that the rougher the surface the more the spin would be able to grab the surface and thus cause the arc... fred you kind of contradicted yourself when you said a snooker coth which is heavier might yield different results..... this would lead me to assume that you, at the same time as disagreeing are agreeing

Rod
06-21-2002, 09:51 AM
It is the end pocket to your right Sid. It can be cut either direction. It's not an easy shot but like any shot if you shoot it a few times it does get easier. The problem is in a game situation you only get to shoot once. I had to shoot that shot not long ago in a tournament. I cut the ball back to the left. It was a toss up to either cut it in or kick one rail. The problem with cutting it to the right is you have to know the table. On some tables the ball will not hug the rail. The shot has lose written all over it on a 1 time chance.

Rod
06-21-2002, 10:02 AM
Those shots are a pain. The way I see the shot in a game situation is, I either cut it in or bank it one rail. I don't like the idea of a safety, and sense I don't like the frozen bank, well you get the idea

Fred Agnir
06-21-2002, 10:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: d0wnt0wn:</font><hr> fred you kind of contradicted yourself when you said a snooker coth which is heavier might yield different results..... this would lead me to assume that you, at the same time as disagreeing are agreeing <hr></blockquote>
Caught that, did you? Something on thicker nap might happen that I don't think happens in pool cloth. On pool tables, there's hardly any nap on cloths that *do* have nap. On worsted wool, there is no nap.

But snooker cloth does have a nap, so I think there's more possibilities of curve due to spin on something thicker. I'm not sure. Taken to the extreme, if the cloth were sand, then there would be more resistance in front of the ball then there is behind the ball (because the sand would pile up in front of the ball) and a wayward path would happen due to the spin. But, that's not a good analogy if we're talking about pool cloth. I'm not sure it's a good analogy for snooker either. I just don't know enough about how thick snooker cloth is.

Fred

Fred

06-21-2002, 11:57 AM
true fred going against the nap is kind of like going uphill so if you attack the nap at an angle it would have nearly the same characteristics as rolling a ball up a hill on angle against the nap you would aim for the high horn on a side pocket if you were slow rolling a ball.

06-21-2002, 12:00 PM
heh if i ever have to start thinking about this stuff while im down on a shot im going to have to kil myself. point...aim...shoot :O) thats all i do

Scott Lee
06-21-2002, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> If it doesn't help, don't use it. Just like chili peppers or lemon juice, I suppose.

Fred &lt;~~~ sick internet pool junkie <hr></blockquote>

Fred...LOL That is the absolute BEST analogy I have heard yet! Good job, and keep up the scientific discussions. Even though as an instructor, I am more prone to KISS when teaching, I do enjoy (and learning from) your science-based posts.

Scott Lee

Alfie
06-21-2002, 05:24 PM
quote d0wnt0wn-- "The point being that it doesnt matter if we know exactly whats going on with all of these factors...."

A-- IMO, everyone would be better off with an understanding of the game's physics, however it is not necessary to have in order to play at a high level. This does not mean knowing the equations and pulling out a pocket calculator before every shot. Certainly table time is much more important, i.e., practice, drills, and competition.

quote d0wnt0wn-- "if we think we know and it works the way we expect then I suppose that would be better than knowing the proper answer but it not doing what we expect."

A-- Well, yes, except if you know the "proper" answers then it will "always" do what you expect. And it could shorten the learning curve.