curving an object ball....

[Rubik's Cube]

Being a forum rookie there might be a whole bank of historical bad blood of which I'm unaware, but from a neutral standpoint the constant invective directed towards Dr Dave and Bob Jewett on this thread reads as personal animus rather than constructive debate. It is certainly unwarranted here as both gentlemen have been nothing but courteous and respectful.

As I see it the question is whether a pool ball curves, not who is the best at curving it, and as such their scientific credentials are every bit as valid as a player's instinct.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Look what has happened to this thread where John Brumback, perhaps the premiere bank player in the world, make a post to show what he does.

The 'science guys' come in & those that would like to have perhaps had a discussion with John about the technique & stroke, etc. are all pushed aside as that aspect is killed.

This happens 'ALL' of the time. PJ is not here, but he would do it 'every' time.

Playing pool & the science of it are NOT good together, IMO.

 

[ExilePreacher]

..........

 

[ENGLISH!]

Couldn't agree more. And that is why I mentioned how worthless Dave's book was for me. John B. said he thinks the science might hurt your game and I can attest to this for myself and a number of players I've taught. Sometimes our perception of things and the scientific data do not line up. But our perception is what enables us to put the ball in the hole.

Yes.

As I've said, I am VERY glad that I stared playing with english 2+ years before my first physics class.

One needs exactly ZERO science knowledge from a science standpoint to play the game very very well.

AND... as you say one knowing the science might certainly hurt one's playing ability... IF one allows it to do so.

Even after my college physics classes I've 'NEVER' had a single "science" thought while playing in all of my nearly 50 years of playing the game.

It's always about the HOW to & never the why.

I've also told a couple of individuals that I would never send anyone trying to learn how the play the the game to Dr. Dave's site.

I respect his efforts & the library he has built but non of it is needed to learn to play well & as we've said may be & probably would be an actual detriment.

At least in my opinion & seemingly in the opinion of others too.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Bob Jewett]

And now the real question is....what's the definition of a curve or hook? Half in.? 2 in.? a foot??

In bank...a little goes a long way John B.

I'll consider increasing the width of the alignment board. How much curve do you think is possible?

 

[Bob Jewett]

The brain trust swore that you couldn't transfer enough english to the object ball for it to matter a few years ago... (please don't make me link stuff... you haven't deleted them all and wayback works). ...

If you were referring to me above, you are wrong. Were you referring to me?

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Shame you could not give Stan Shuffett the same courtesy.

I think anyone of any real playing ability knows what John is saying.

Why would any high caliber player come to AZB to tell how they do what they do...

when they will first be required to change their language as to how they talk about matters & then have to give scientific explanations as to every parameter that is in play for every thing that they say.

What high caliber player wants to submit themselves to those requirements.

They will just do as someone said & say, 'to hell with y'all... learn it all on your own.'.

Best Wishes to You & Yours,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Being a forum rookie there might be a whole bank of historical bad blood of which I'm unaware, but from a neutral standpoint the constant invective directed towards Dr Dave and Bob Jewett on this thread reads as personal animus rather than constructive debate. It is certainly unwarranted here as both gentlemen have been nothing but courteous and respectful.

As I see it the question is whether a pool ball curves, not who is the best at curving it, and as such their scientific credentials are every bit as valid as a player's instinct.

As a rookie I think PJ might have found your name & avatar interesting...

or perhaps not.

The OP was John Brumback showing what he can do with a bank.

The 'science' has basically derailed any discussion of HOW he does what he does.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

 

[Banks]

If you were referring to me above, you are wrong. Were you referring to me?

Iirc, there were also quite a few "long time players" that swore it wasn't possible. I've come to consider many statements here to be opinions, not facts. From barboxes, to spin transfer, to cues and beyond.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Shame you could not give Stan Shuffett the same courtesy.

John is not describing anything conclusively inaccurately.

That is my only issue regarding Mr. Shuffett.

You've been granted the selective censorship for which you have slithered into the gutter to get.

Why bring it up here?

Are you still afraid of the truth?

Do you want to get this thread shut down or removed?

I'm posting on the even numbers between us.

You posted to me FIRST... now I have I responded.

The ball is in your court. Let it go by or trash talk it back. The choice is yours.

Show everyone your true nature.

 

[BRussell]

The OP was John Brumback showing what he can do with a bank.

The 'science' basically derails any discussion of HOW he does what he does.

It's an ever ongoing issue for those that might want to learn the HOW from the likes of pros or others of very good playing ability.

The two do NOT mix well & probably should have separate sections where each one is mutually forbidden to enter.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

Brumback wanted to show a banked ball curving. It looks like it, but even with lines drawn on the table and everything, it was still a bit ambiguous. Brumback agreed and said he'd record it again. There are not two separate systems like science vs. experience or how vs. why. Everyone seems to be on the exact same page - demonstrate a bank curve.

 

[dr_dave]

Brumback wanted to show a banked ball curving. Even with lines drawn on the table and everything, it was a bit ambiguous. Brumback agreed and said he'd record it again. There are not two separate systems like science vs. experience or how vs. why. Everyone seems to be on the exact same page - demonstrate a bank curve.

Excellent summary. Also, nobody has attacked John or shown him any disrespect, and everybody is well aware of his tremendous skill as a world-class banker.

Regardless, the challenge still stands, and not just for John but for anybody who claims a meaningful curve is possible. But if John can't do it, then probably nobody can. I will keep re-posting the quote below until the Naysayers either beat the challenge or give up with all of the immature smack talk, woofing, and immature schoolyard insults and innuendos.

That's why Bob's $1500 challenge is so excellent. It totally eliminates the potential for optical illusions or deception. If the ball is curving, it should be able to get around the middle peg. Place the board wherever you want and at any angle you want, place the middle peg wherever you want, use more than one middle peg if you want, hit the shot as many times as you want, move the board and middle peg(s) as many times as you want to make adjustments, use "little white donuts" and/or rail markers and/or lasers to help you with aiming and alignment adjustments, and even use a thicker board if you want. If this challenge cannot be beat after a large number of attempts and adjustments, then it is probably safe to say that bending a bank is probably not a reliable and important technique that can be used with confidence in an actual game situation.

Stop with all of the claims. Just do it, and post a video. It could potentially be worth $1500. Until that happens, I don't see any need for further smack talk, woofing, or immature schoolyard insults.

I honestly still think bending a bank a useful amount is possible with the right combination of cut angle, spin, speed, cue elevation, angle into the cushion, ball height at cushion contact, and ball/cushion/rail/cloth conditions (humidity included). I just haven't seen it yet.

Dave,

I think you may have misunderstood Bob's offer. Here is his original quote: "It's a lot of work to set up a test like this, so the banker needs to be rewarded. If anyone does this with me present and allows me to video tape a successful bank, I'll give that person $1000. If they can get me to do the shot, I'll give them another $500."

Bob must be there in person and he is the one taking the video ($1,000) and, if it's teachable where that person can show Bob how to do it, another $500. It does not appear that Bob was offering the money for a video of it being done without him being there. Just want to make sure that Bob's offer is clear so there is no disappointment if a video is published and no reward.

I may be wrong so it may be a good idea for you to or Bob to confirm this.

Actually, I think Bob would honor the $1000 offer if the video were totally convincing (and used the full-size 1" board). I think he would also honor the additional $500 offer if the video provided enough information to allow Bob to recreate the shot on his own. Bob certainly has enough pool skills to execute a shot if he knows how to hit it. And if Bob and I are both convinced that the video is legitimate (with no trickery), I would be happy to add an additional $500 to bring the total to $2000. Sadly, that's bigger than the top prize at many pool tournaments, and it won't take a full day or more of world-class play to win. You just need to be able to execute one shot!

 

[ENGLISH!]

Brumback wanted to show a banked ball curving. It looks like it, but even with lines drawn on the table and everything, it was still a bit ambiguous. Brumback agreed and said he'd record it again. There are not two separate systems like science vs. experience or how vs. why. Everyone seems to be on the exact same page - demonstrate a bank curve.

100 individuals can look at that video & 50 say, it curved & 50 say, no it hopped & changed it's line, or even something else.

I've sold state of the art surveillance equipment & know that many times video is not allowed as evidence in court.

I see a hop & I then I don't see a hop & back to seeing a hop again.

This thread was TURNED into a challenge that IMO is a fools challenge.

You believe whet ever you want & when you walk into a pool hall & John Brumback & a 'science guy' that has a pool for a hobby are both giving banking lessons, you go to the 'science guy' if that is what you want to do.

I'll go to John's table.

If you think this is all just about this one shot, I think you are bit naive.

Why do you think that virtually no Pros post on what is probably the most significant Billiards Forum on the net?

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

 

[gutshot]

I think more than anything our eyes are playing tricks on us from our vantage point as a shooter. When you overcut a bank, the object ball appears to be curving/bending because the ball is coming back toward us creating an illusion the ball is curving. This effect is not prevalent for normal banks where the object ball is always traveling away from our line of sight.

I think it could be possible to obtain a small amount of curvature/deflection from its normal path. It would be somewhat similar to doing a masse with the cue ball.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I've already stated what I think about 'the challenge'.

I'll not childishly continue to repeat it EVERY time the challenge is posted as a means of trying to bully others into silence...

with the put up or shut up immature mentality.

As far as rather many are concerned, the video showed it.

But seeing is not good enough for some.

They MUST have it THEIR way.

I'm reminded of the best advice I ever received that was given to me by my Dad.

He said, "There's always a shot... you just have to find it.".

I've since added to that, "If you don't look for them... you will never find one... & if you never find one, you'll never shoot one... & if you never shoot one, you'll never make one.".

I've made many & I am very thankful to my Dad for the advice. He knew no physics from a science understanding standpoint.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I have a slightly better setup for my challenge based on a suggestion I got by email. This should help a lot until you get the exact positions down.

Instead of a 1" board to set the pegs/cards, use white thread taped to the cloth. Position two threads 2.25 inches apart. The end pegs go up against their thread, but the middle peg is placed somewhat inside the thread on its side. By experiment determine the best place to get it as far inside the thread as possible. On a successful shot, measure how far the peg is from the outer (end-pegs) thread.

 

[ExilePreacher]

............

 

[Bob Jewett]

I expect this thread to go away soon, so people may want to copy down the parts they find interesting.

 

[duckie]

Excellent summary. Also, nobody has attacked John or shown him any disrespect, and everybody is well aware of his tremendous skill as a world-class banker.

Regardless, the challenge still stands, and not just for John but for anybody who claims a meaningful curve is possible. But if John can't do it, then probably nobody can. I will keep re-posting the quote below until the Naysayers either beat the challenge or give up with all of the immature smack talk, woofing, and immature schoolyard insults and innuendos.

Here's the problem......you thinking that your tests results are absolutely valid when your testing methodology does not consist of all the possible variables in the playing environment.

Also, until the human factor is gone, meaning a person is not doing the stroking, th results are only valid for you and your playing conditions.

Plus until there is a definitive measurement for cue ball speed, any test that use the terms slow, medium and fast for the speed of the CB are not defininitive test that can be reproduced by others.

All your testing shows is that you are not JB. And that's it.

Just because you can not reproduce what others do just shows how much the human factor plays in performance of playing pool. It also means that it can not be done just because you can't do it. I suck at long draw shots but this does not mean long draw shots can not be done.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Again, it is a shame you could not give Stan the same courtesy.

If you want the truth call me, and I will tell you to your face...or ear as it may be.

John is not describing anything conclusively inaccurately.

That is my only issue regarding Mr. Shuffett.

You've been granted the selective censorship for which you have slithered into the gutter to get.

Why bring it up here?

Are you still afraid of the truth?

Do you want to get this thread shut down or removed?

I'm posting on the even numbers between us.

You posted to me FIRST... now I have I responded.

The ball is in your court. Let it go by or trash talk it back. The choice is yours.

Show everyone your true nature.