Double Kiss Banks

For Real?????????????????

I tried reading all the post's but in the end I got tired and frustrated, enough to skip to the end and give you my OPINION. The shot shown was very simple high right into the corner pocket. The issue at hand is that you are off the rail and trying to use reverse spin on the ball. It is VERY much a spin shot with a very slight reverse angle. Feal isnt something your going to have to wait to happen. Its realy the simple way to describe trial and error.

Eventually after enough experience your going to know your inside and outside point on the cue ball and realize that perfection is something inbetween. As this point gets smaller you will be getting better.

Hope this helps.
Alex:wink:
 
Thanks to all for the responses, E-mails, and PM's. There is however one quote that I don't really understand.Could someone expound on this?

"If the cue ball travels the same distance the object ball travels then a natural kiss could occur."

Is this refering to crossover banks or the bank illustrated on the WEI table?
 
Tennesseejoe said:
Thanks to all for the responses, E-mails, and PM's. There is however one quote that I don't really understand.Could someone expound on this?

"If the cue ball travels the same distance the object ball travels then a natural kiss could occur."

Is this refering to crossover banks or the bank illustrated on the WEI table?
Click to expand...

This refers only to crossover banks, and mostly to those where the CB might rebound into the OB's path off another rail.

There's more to it than just whether the CB and OB will travel the same distance to the rail and back - for instance, the angle of the cut on the OB makes a big difference because it determines the relative speeds of the CB and OB.

pj
chgo
 
Freddie needs to respond here,or perhaps you need to buy his book.This particular shot looks like a routine shot if the object ball is not frozen or even if it is too close

Freddie look at it and share a little,your CD had so much useful info that I don't remember if you covered this kind of stuff,recognizing the banks that don't go.

To those of you who have not bought Freddies book or CD ,let me encourage you to get it.His is not a CD to show off or do tricks,his is a book to actually help you understand.I can think of no other tape or book that I know of that I would recomend

dean
 
About 90%

likelihood of making the bank as illustrated. An older gentleman I know calls it an 'electric chair' bank -bet your life on it.(credit to the Beard?Grady?)

The discussion on cross-over banks is good stuff. Thanks to Grady Matthews and the Beard for sharing. C/over bank can be a good choice when you need the cb back up table for shape or 2-way shape. A fun shot.


3railkick

I bank too much
 
The shot goes, no question about it.

Here are a few rules I use to help avoid double kissing..

If the double kiss will be very slight, use top to get the cue ball out of the way more quickly. Using draw seems to slow the cue ball a hair and raises the chances of a double kiss.

If the double kiss will be a little more, cut just a little more, but hit it harder to kill some of the angle.

If the bank more or less will not go without some extreme effort, find another bank or a defensive shot. (And then practice that shot with the extreme application/transfer of english.)

I'm no scientist, but this is what appears to work for me. :confused:
 
Banks:
If the double kiss will be very slight, use top to get the cue ball out of the way more
quickly. Using draw seems to slow the cue ball a hair and raises the chances of a double kiss.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this. Both kinds of spin should take effect in the same amount of time and follow is usually the wrong direction for the CB if you want to get it out of the way of the OB (unless the CB is combing back off another rail).

If the double kiss will be a little more, cut just a little more, but hit it harder to kill some of the angle.
Click to expand...

This only works if the OB is at least several inches from the rail - then hitting harder might prevent the OB from picking up forward roll and masseing wide. On the other hand, hitting harder might reduce the amount of "holdup" throw/spin transferred to the OB and make it rebound wider anyway.

pj
chgo
 
The deeper the OB is crushed into the rail (by hitting it harder) the shorter it will bank & the longer the cue ball has to get out of the way. To the extent that this is what was being said, I believe it has merit.
As for the high english - don't agree either. Using low on a fuller hit will keep it in the way longer - same with high to a lesser extent. If you want to get the cue ball out of the way, might be best to use center ball & maximize usage of the tangent line for escape. When the OB is real close or frozen to the rail, you won't have much luck using english to influence the departure angle, either. There just isn't enough time for the OB to begin spinning before it hits the rail.
 
mdavis228 said:
The deeper the OB is crushed into the rail (by hitting it harder) the shorter it will bank & the longer the cue ball has to get out of the way.
Click to expand...

If the OB starts close to the rail (so it doesn't have time to pick up forward roll either way), then hitting it harder actually makes it bank slightly longer because it rolls farther along the rail before rebounding away - Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave posted a video showing this effect.

I agree that it gives the CB longer to get away, but banking slightly longer might negate this advantage on some crossing banks.

As for the high english - don't agree either. Using low on a fuller hit will keep it in the way longer - same with high to a lesser extent. If you want to get the cue ball out of the way, might be best to use center ball & maximize usage of the tangent line for escape.
Click to expand...

I agree with this on crossing banks where there's a danger of a kiss while the CB is still crossing (I forgot that in my post).

When the OB is real close or frozen to the rail, you won't have much luck using english to influence the departure angle, either. There just isn't enough time for the OB to begin spinning before it hits the rail.
Click to expand...

The OB has all the spin it will get the instant it leaves the CB - it doesn't need any additional time to begin spinning. Even when it's frozen to the rail and can't actually spin before hitting it, the lateral force applied by the CB has the same effect as if the OB was spinning before hitting the rail. In fact, because the OB is momentarily sandwiched between the CB and the rail while the CB is rubbing against it, I believe the effect might be greater.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Your first point makes good sense based on a more indirect (longer) angle into the rail. Lines of force within the rail were illustrated real well in Koehlers books, and the effect you're speaking of is a very good example. My response was aimed more at the "nearly a stiff" type of banks that had been discussed originally.
The third point depends a lot on definition of distance to the rail, I think. As far as more lateral spin applied by the CB when the OB is against the rail, I wouldn't buy that - I'd believe there is greater friction between the restraining rail & the OB than between the spinning CB & the OB. Not like the massive spin induction on the cue ball in a masse when the CB is trapped between the tip & the table surface.
Interesting discussion, though. What makes the world go 'round! Speaking in terms of some pretty elusive effects here, but they do come up more than many may realize.
Good stuff, pj!
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
If the OB starts close to the rail (so it doesn't have time to pick up forward roll either way), then hitting it harder actually makes it bank slightly longer because it rolls farther along the rail before rebounding away - Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave posted a video showing this effect.
Click to expand...
Here it is:


FYI to those interested, I have a summary of all important kick and bank effects, along with video demos, here:


Regards,
Dave
 
mdavis228:
As far as more lateral spin applied by the CB when the OB is against the rail, I wouldn't buy that - I'd believe there is greater friction between the restraining rail & the OB than between the spinning CB & the OB.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that the OB actually spins more while in contact with the rail - it only completes a fraction of a revolution, just like when it hits the rail "normally" (without being sandwiched between the rail and the CB). But that partial revolution is enough in both cases to shorten the rebound angle, and I believe it might have greater effect in the "sandwiched" situation. It seems to me (intuitively) that the CB would transfer more spin and the spin would "grab" more against the rail when the OB is being forced against the rail by the CB as the spin is being transferred. This is just my belief; I don't know if it's correct.

pj
chgo
 
Fortunately we don't really boggle our brains with all this stuff when we perform (paralysis by analysis). But it's fascinating stuff to pour thru in the process of learning, isn't it? I get that we share an interest in the nuts & bolts of it all, Patrick.
Appreciate your input & insights.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
... It seems to me (intuitively) that the CB would transfer more spin and the spin would "grab" more against the rail when the OB is being forced against the rail by the CB as the spin is being transferred. This is just my belief; I don't know if it's correct.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
That's not a totally crazy feeling, but the actual action is simpler, I think. Because the cushion is much softer than the balls, the ball-ball contact is finished before the object ball has really started into the cushion. The object ball moves forward about 1/50 inch while in contact with the cue ball for a hard shot, and then goes into the cushion more than 1/4 inch. Because of the relatively large differences in the forces and times of the two phases, I think they can be considered separately, like the hand-stick and the stick-ball interactions.

While the ball-ball coefficient of friction may be lower than the rail-ball friction, the ball-ball force is much higher so the torque on the object ball due to the cue ball is much higher than the torque from the very slightly compressed cushion which generates little force. As far as the actual coefficients of friction, the "average" coefficient for ball-ball collisions is about 0.06 and for ball-cloth it is about 0.2. Dr. Dave has an article about this.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't buy this. Both kinds of spin should take effect in the same amount of time and follow is usually the wrong direction for the CB if you want to get it out of the way of the OB (unless the CB is combing back off another rail).



This only works if the OB is at least several inches from the rail - then hitting harder might prevent the OB from picking up forward roll and masseing wide. On the other hand, hitting harder might reduce the amount of "holdup" throw/spin transferred to the OB and make it rebound wider anyway.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The problem isn't with the spin taking, it's the fact that with draw the cue ball will spend time changing direction or being stunned, which gives the OB a chance to hit it on the rebound. The top keeps the CB moving to get it out of the way a moment sooner.

How does killing an angle only work if the OB is further away from a rail? First, hitting the OB from the right side will put a small amount of right on the OB and hitting it harder will close the angle, so it should be an on shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top