PDA

View Full Version : HALF-BALL HIT - parts 1&2 - youtube



mikepage
12-08-2007, 08:02 PM
Here are some videos I put together on the half-ball hit

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysbWeI2_ZE


part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRi3Jih1Lg

mike page
fargo
__________________

Jal
12-08-2007, 11:57 PM
Great videos. Thank the sibling of your uncle's niece for us.

It's nice to see these rules demonstrated in such a convincing way. I didn't think they would actually work on a real live table. I believe someone's already brought up the maximum draw stuff regarding Gem #2 in some other discussion.

Jim

Qtec
12-09-2007, 12:29 AM
Its like a video representation of one of the CCB threads!

To me, the importance of seeing the 1/2 ball shot is that you know where the OB is going. You aim at A and the OB goes to B.
If you track the path of the OB and see you are missing the pocket too thick , then you adjust. The adjustment is so small that it all comes down to the subconcious mind. Basically you will something and if you have learned and practiced properly, your mind should take over and complete the job.
Only your brain can get in the way.! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q ...............what about swerve?

Billy_Bob
12-09-2007, 09:35 AM
Thanks! I love knowing things like this which can be game winning stuff in certain situations.

I use the half ball hit many times for a safety (#3). A master pool player taught me this. This guy does not share stuff often, but when he does, it is a gem as are your videos!

Jal
12-09-2007, 01:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Its like a video representation of one of the CCB threads!<hr /></blockquote>That's why we should cherish and exalt them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>To me, the importance of seeing the 1/2 ball shot is that you know where the OB is going. You aim at A and the OB goes to B.
If you track the path of the OB and see you are missing the pocket too thick , then you adjust...<hr /></blockquote>Excellent addition, imo.

Another useful property comes to mind. When the object ball is frozen or very close to a cushion, and both the object ball and cueball are about a diamond away from the end rail, a half-ball hit or thereabouts banks the OB into the corner pocket.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Q ...............what about swerve? <hr /></blockquote>This sounds like it might be a scientific question which, if answered, could destroy a person's game (by your reckoning). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Fortunately, it's not clear what you mean by swerve in this context?

Jim

Ralph_Kramden
12-09-2007, 09:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>
Here are some videos I put together on the half-ball hit

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysbWeI2_ZE


part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRi3Jih1Lg

mike page
fargo
__________________ <hr /></blockquote>

Excellent videos.

I believe it is 'possible' for the cue ball to draw back on a wider angle than the lines you project in part one if it is close to the OB. Your explanation is very well done.

In part two I think you also did an excellent job. My only question is.. Where did you get all those beautiful cues?

Thanks for sharing the information.

av84fun
12-10-2007, 02:58 AM
Excellent stuff Mike. Thanks!

Only one comment. At one point you suggest that the half ball hit is the only one were percise aim is obvious because you shoot the center of the CB to the obvious edge of the OB...or words to that effect. If that is NOT what you said...then please stop reading now!! (-:

On another forum, I got into a discussion (250 posts and counting) on an aiming system that relies on aiming the cue tip to certain places on the OB.

I DON'T want to get into the dynamics of the system here...except the following.

There is nothing more intuitive than pointing one's finger or shooting a rifle...the barrel of which we can look directly down.

Using the cue stick...actually the end of it which is the tip..is exactly how we point with our finger...the tip is our reference point and ditto with a rifle.

Now...what about the target? You point out, obviously correctly, that there simply is no question where the edge of the OB is. COOL!

But I suggest that the human eye/brain can, with extreme accuracy, point a cue tip in 1/2 tip increments. Point your finger at a wall,say, 6 ft. away and you will have no trouble moving your point in 1/2 figer tip increments and will have no difficulty doing so with a cue tip.

Ok, now let me suggest that it would be irrefutably no more difficult to point the cue tip to the dead center of the cb AND to a position where, say, the left edge of the cue tip is flush to the left edge of the cb (because in the latter case, you are using the same visual reference...i.e. the edge of the cb as a sighting aid.

So now...forgetting about 1/2 tip increments, there are AT LEAST two places on a cb where the tip can be pointed with equal accuracy as pointing the center of the cb to the edge of the OB.

Now, move the tip so that the RIGHT edge of the tip is flush with the LEFT edge of the OB ( a cut to the right obviously). Same thing...identical aiming precision.

Finally, the half ball hit can be sighted by visualizing the cue tip being half on and half off the OB and that method would be just as precise...if not more so than imagining the center of the cb...because using the tip, you imagine nothing. The tip is actually there and the OB's edge is actually there and it is extremely obvious when the tip is half on and half off that edge.

SO, now it is established quite clearly IMHO, that there are AT LEAST 4 cue tip "sighting positions" that would each be at least as accurate as the center of cb to edge of ob method.

The four are:
1. Center of the ob.
2. Outside edge of tip to outside edge of ob.
3. Tip half on and half off the edge of the ob.
4. Inside edge of tip flush with outside edge of the ob.

And those 4 don't involve 1/2 tip increments but rather are based on clearly observable portions of the ob.

Now I SUGGEST that 1/2 tip increments are EXTREMELY easy to visually estimate so the following aiming positions can be added.

5. 1/2 tip off center
6. 1 tip off center.

FINALLY, since each of those positions exist on BOTH sides of the OB...except, of course the center...then there are a total of ELEVEN highly visual and extremely reliable aiming positions across the face of the ob and that such a number will pocket all but an insignificant number of cut shots presented on a pool table.

Granted, on very long shots, then the 1/2 tip increments become less viable and cueing errors may bell move the cb off the path of aim anyway...but cueing errors and distance impact all aiming methods so, if in the best case the aiming methods would be identically accurate then any distance/cueing variables would be consistent with those different methods.

I'm not arguing with you in the least. I'm just asking you if you see the merit in the above...because it is working like BLUE BLAZES for me!

THANKS!

Jim

mikepage
12-10-2007, 07:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Excellent stuff Mike. Thanks!

Only one comment. At one point you suggest that the half ball hit is the only one were percise aim is obvious because you shoot the center of the CB to the obvious edge of the OB...or words to that effect. If that is NOT what you said...then please stop reading now!! (-:

On another forum, I got into a discussion (250 posts and counting) on an aiming system that relies on aiming the cue tip to certain places on the OB.[...] <hr /></blockquote>

I discuss in the latter part of my "Aiming part 2" video using the right and left edges of the stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2_b2NpvnM

[ QUOTE ]


The four are:
1. Center of the ob.
2. Outside edge of tip to outside edge of ob.
3. Tip half on and half off the edge of the ob.
4. Inside edge of tip flush with outside edge of the ob.

And those 4 don't involve 1/2 tip increments but rather are based on clearly observable portions of the ob.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes. In my video these are called

1. 0
2. 1.5
3. 2
4. 2.5

and they're achieved as you say.
[ QUOTE ]


Now I SUGGEST that 1/2 tip increments are EXTREMELY easy to visually estimate so the following aiming positions can be added.

5. 1/2 tip off center<hr /></blockquote>

You don't need to estimate this. A half-tip off center cutting to the right is the right edge of the tip to the center of the object ball. This is a 0.5 in my video.
[...]
[ QUOTE ]


FINALLY, since each of those positions exist on BOTH sides of the OB...except, of course the center...then there are a total of ELEVEN highly visual and extremely reliable aiming positions across the face of the ob and that such a number will pocket all but an insignificant number of cut shots presented on a pool table.<hr /></blockquote>

I don't agree with this. Can't we just say something like "some people might find this useful"?

There's no holy grail here. Each of us must find his own path to salvation, and sometimes these kinds of suggestions might help fatten persons arsenal of tools
[..]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing with you in the least. I'm just asking you if you see the merit in the above...because it is working like BLUE BLAZES for me! <hr /></blockquote>

Yes I see some merit. I probably should have added in the half-ball-hit video "sighting over the center of the stick" to my only clear aim point comment. In any case I see what you're saying. thanks for the comments.

av84fun
12-10-2007, 11:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Can't we just say something like "some people might find this useful"?

There's no holy grail here. Each of us must find his own path to salvation, and sometimes these kinds of suggestions might help fatten persons arsenal of tools<hr /></blockquote>

Right. No "holy grail" expressed or implied.

SORRY I didn't see the portion of vid #2 dealing with cue tip aiming positions. I must have gotten side tracked.

Regards,
Jim

dr_dave
12-10-2007, 11:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>Here are some videos I put together on the half-ball hit

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysbWeI2_ZE

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRi3Jih1Lg<hr /></blockquote>Mike,

As always, excellent videos! I think these are the most important principles in pool and billiards. It has always surprised me how little (if any) coverage is dedicated to these subjects in pool and billiards books on the market. These effects have been understood at least as early as 1835 (see Coriolis' book). Maybe if you, Bob, others, and I keep writing articles and posting videos on these topics, maybe they will become more "mainstream."

Your Gem #4 is the basis of the 30-degree rule, which states that for a rolling CB, the deflected angle is very close to 30 degrees for all cut angles between 1/4-ball and 3/4-ball hits (not just a 1/2-ball hit). I think this gem is the single most important and useful principle in pool, especially when used in conjunction with the peace-sign technique. FYI to you and others, here are some additional resources with lots of illustrations, examples, and video links related to this principle:
- January-July '04 and February-June'05 instructional articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html)
- Video demonstrations NV 3.8 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV3-8.htm), NV 3.9 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV3-9.htm), NV 3.10 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV3-10.htm), NV 4.24 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV4-24.htm), NV 7.4 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV7-4.htm), and NV A.1 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVA-1.htm).
- past thread highlight under "30 degree rule" here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html).
- 30-degree rule and peace-sign technique one-page summary (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30_degree_rule_summary.pdf) and the angle template (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/30-degree-rule_angle_templates.pdf).

I really like your Gem #4 proposition demonstration with the carom shot from the foot rail. NV A.1 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVA-1.htm) shows a similar "sure-thing" proposition. My June '04 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2004/june04.pdf) also illustrates and discusses the shot in detail, and TP A.1 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-1.pdf) and TP A.2 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-2.pdf) present an error analysis and look at the effects of table size.

Your Gem #2 is explained and illustrated in detail in my January '06 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/jan06.pdf). The concept is also extended into the "trisect draw-shot aiming system" in my March '06 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/march06.pdf). This is also a very useful "gem."

Math and physics backing up Gems 2, 3, and 4 can be found in TP 3.3 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-3.pdf), TP A.4 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-4.pdf), and TP A.16 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-16.pdf).

I look forward to seeing more stuff from you in the future. Keep up the great work!

Regards,
Dave

PS: As with all of your past videos, I've added links to these in the NV section of my website (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/index.html) (see NV B.1 - B.6) so people can easily find and refer to them in the future.

mikepage
12-10-2007, 11:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]

I really like your Gem #4 proposition demonstration with the carom shot from the foot rail. NV A.1 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVA-1.htm) shows a similar "sure-thing" proposition. My June '04 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2004/june04.pdf) also illustrates and discusses the shot in detail[...] <hr /></blockquote>

Nice video. You use the Bob Jewett shot (OB on foot spot, CB a few inches to the right of headspot). I thought about using that too. But instead I tried to come up with something that looks a little harder.

I agree this has overall gotten less attention than it deserves. I suspect some authors haven't fully understood it. Byrne has paid significant attention to it (He has a chapter called "The Importance of the Half-Ball Hit.").

And of course Bob Jewett's been harping on this stuff for decades. Though it's really hard for people like you and me to come up with technical stuff that Bob (and Ron Shepard, for instance) haven't done before (and we rarely do, imo), I do think adding the videos brings in a new audience -- people who shy away from seemingly technical stuff in writing.

Thanks for all you do Dave.

dr_dave
12-10-2007, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]I really like your Gem #4 proposition demonstration with the carom shot from the foot rail. NV A.1 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVA-1.htm) shows a similar "sure-thing" proposition. My June '04 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2004/june04.pdf) also illustrates and discusses the shot in detail[...]<hr /></blockquote>... You use the Bob Jewett shot (OB on foot spot, CB a few inches to the right of headspot).<hr /></blockquote>I didn't realize this was the "Bob Jewett shot." My apologies to Bob if I did not give him appropriate credit. Did he compare the foot-spot carom to the opposite-corner cut in one of his articles?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>I agree this has overall gotten less attention than it deserves. I suspect some authors haven't fully understood it. Byrne has paid significant attention to it (He has a chapter called "The Importance of the Half-Ball Hit.").<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Byrne's advanced book is the one book I know of (besides mine) that has given it the attention it deserves; although, even he dedicates very few pages (less than 4) to the topic.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>And of course Bob Jewett's been harping on this stuff for decades.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Bob's articles are a great resource, especially now that they are available online (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>Though it's really hard for people like you and me to come up with technical stuff that Bob (and Ron Shepard, for instance) haven't done before (and we rarely do, imo), I do think adding the videos brings in a new audience<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Coriolis did pretty much everything in 1835, and Marlow's 1995 book is also quite extensive (see these and other technical resources here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/physics/index.html)). But, as you point out, it's all in the presentation. Internet videos and better illustration techniques have created a powerful presentation outlet. You demonstrate that quite well.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>Thanks for all you do Dave.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks to you also. I look forward to seeing a lot more from you. I'm one of your YouTube subscribers.

Regards,
Dave

mikepage
12-10-2007, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]I didn't realize this was the "Bob Jewett shot." My apologies to Bob if I did not give him appropriate credit. Did he compare the foot-spot carom to the opposite-corner cut in one of his articles? <hr /></blockquote>

He shows it here http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett3.htm#May04

as well as in his Nov. 2000 BD article.

For students he will show them they can make the in-off 15 times in 60 seconds, respotting a ball after each shot himself. That's pretty convincing to people. And as you both point out, you can compare that success to success actually making a spot shot.

Fran Crimi
12-10-2007, 02:42 PM
Nice job, Mike. One of the most important things I learned while attending one of our BCA Continuing Education Seminars was the concept that people absorb information 3 basic ways. Everyone favors one way more than the other two.

The three ways are:

Auditory: Some need to hear things explained to them.

Visual: Some respond better to watching demonstrations.

In Print: Some need to read it in order to absorb it.

Although your videos are visual, I think they would satisfy very much the student who learns best through auditory means, with a little thrown in for the visual learner--- at the times when you demonstrate shooting the shots.

Fran

dr_dave
12-10-2007, 04:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]I didn't realize this was the "Bob Jewett shot." My apologies to Bob if I did not give him appropriate credit. Did he compare the foot-spot carom to the opposite-corner cut in one of his articles? <hr /></blockquote>He shows it here http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett3.htm#May04

as well as in his Nov. 2000 BD article.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the link. Here's his November '00 article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2000-11.pdf).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>For students he will show them they can make the in-off 15 times in 60 seconds, respotting a ball after each shot himself. That's pretty convincing to people.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr>And as you both point out, you can compare that success to success actually making a spot shot.<hr /></blockquote>To me, that's the most interesting part. In my June '04 article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2004/june04.pdf) (and supporting TP analyses), I show that the carom shot is 900% easier than the cut shot! I also show how the CB position is sensitive to the size of the table.

Regards,
Dave