Originally Posted by stevekur1
You have to break the plane of the headstring.
I've seen some players, shoot accross the table with a masse spin to cross the line and hook back over the line. but have never scene this tactic work succesfully.
I wonder why not? It's really a standard type of shot back from the olden days, which I use to two-rail (zig-zag) the cue ball and freeze it "against the Brunswick" as they used to call it, i.e. the centre of the head rail where the name plate is/used to be, which is a sensible strategy when there's a full rack of 15 balls and my opponent is on the first foul (the very least I achieve is that young guns aren't trying to shoot the apex ball into a middle pocket from there).
I sometimes see people two-rail the cue ball the length of the table and back to achieve the same result, but even the pros hardly ever manage to freeze the cue ball to the head rail that way, let alone in the exact center. Can't see how anyone would figure this could be easier to judge - that's about fifteen feet worth of cue ball travel!
Danny Barouty has invented an alternative (if indeed he was the first to come up with the idea), which is to just barely roll the cue ball across the head spot to shorten the two rail angle of the standard reply kick (among other making e.g. Irving Crane's legendary reply kick shot off the stack and back to the head rail riskier), but the disadvantage is that one lets one's opponent see the whole of the cue ball, the reason I like the "antiquated" version above…
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti