You can get in on part of Bob's action if you like, Mark. Or maybe you'd like to play some yourself, I'm available for the right price!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Last edited:
Amazing Shot!! Explain this!!!
- Thread starter mullyman
- Start date
You can get in on part of Bob's action if you like, Mark. Or maybe you'd like to play some yourself, I'm available for the right price!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Well, that is interesting. If Sander has the time and inclination and equipment... To properly do the test without weighing the balls, simply play the shot once with each cue ball and the red ball as ball 3. This is also the best way to do it on video so that the viewer knows that everything is OK.
In the video, ball 2 looks to be not quite one ball in front of ball 3. I suppose the question is how far past the first edge of ball 3 can ball 2 sit and still get the cue ball around ball 3. I'd be willing to bet that it can't be done if ball 2 and ball 3 are even, but not as large a bet as when ball 2 is a whole ball past. I also note that ball 1 starts off the side cushion about the average of the other two balls but I think that doesn't make much difference.
(A trick for YouTube videos: You can pause with "k" and step forward/back by one frame with "j" and "l" (that's "ell"). But doesn't the white look a little small to you as it passes the yellow?)
I'm with Bob and Dr. Fatboy on this one...reducing the friction still doesn't make the cueball go backwards if they are the same mass IMO.
I wouldn't bet I could beat Bill S at 3-C, but I might have a better chance at that than winning money off Jewett on physics questions.
I wouldn't bet I could beat Bill S at 3-C, but I might have a better chance at that than winning money off Jewett on physics questions.
Bud; Maybe certain members should stick to teaching, science/physics and leave the pool/billiards to be taught by REAL pool and billiard players.
Now that, sounds like logical advice to me!
Respectfully;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Amazed square
Amazed at how some people resort to juvenile threads of "i'm better than you" instead of discussing the point at hand.
When i saw the shot in youtube i was amazed at the shot.
Hector
Amazed at how some people resort to juvenile threads of "i'm better than you" instead of discussing the point at hand.
When i saw the shot in youtube i was amazed at the shot.
Hector
To make certain member's comments more inclusive, shouldn't we add this at the end ?
"Maybe certain members should stick to teaching, science/physics and leave the pool/billiards to be taught by REAL pool, billiard players, magicians, and the paranormalists."
"Maybe certain members should stick to teaching, science/physics and leave the pool/billiards to be taught by REAL pool, billiard players, magicians, and the paranormalists."
Last edited:
I did posted this thread on facebook,
got a reply from Marco zanetti, (With a lot of Silicon on the ball is quite possible, without Silicon no way!)
https://www.facebook.com/gilbert.najm?ref=tn_tnmn
got a reply from Marco zanetti, (With a lot of Silicon on the ball is quite possible, without Silicon no way!)
https://www.facebook.com/gilbert.najm?ref=tn_tnmn
Billiard players can't defy the laws of physics, even 'REAL' ones. Science can teach us a lot about billiards.
I put strong faith in scientific explanations. I will bet anyone that demonstrates the shot, that they cannot duplicate it with the cue ball and object ball switched around.
The weight tolerances for billiard ball manufacturing happen to be all over the map. Also, cue balls wear down greatly over time - making them lighter after years of use. I agree (with Zanetti) that these balls must have been shined up pretty well - but the only explanation for this action is that the cue ball in the video was slightly lighter than the red.
-Ira
Ira; don't take this the wrong way. So, the most WINNING player in the World, for the last 4-6 months is incorrect about being able to make this shot because, he forgot to mention the balls CAN NOT be the same size in to make the shot?
One more question, do you think your late mentor, Sang Lee was a scientific style player or a feel and knowledgeable experienced billiard player?
BTW, I also believe in the science of billiards, but not to the degree that it overrides common sense!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Do you suggest that there is knowledge in billiards that operates outside of known science?
Zanetti is a friend and a great, great player whose game I deeply respect. Sang Lee played by pure feel, and it did seem magical, but it was not magic. (Incidentally, he had a very mathematical mind.)
However, the greatest player in the world, who has the best feel and experience, does not have to be infallible when it comes to understanding how scientific facts relate to the game.
Above all, facts matter a lot to me. If a player can honestly demonstrate this shot, I would love to capture it with a scale and a high speed camera in search for a scientific explanation. Every shot made by any player CAN be explained and understood by physics. It isn't common sense to blindly trust everything that the highest average player in the room says.
Ira
Ira; Someone ALREADY did capture the shot on video, why is that not good enough for you? When you decided to take lessons from a player, you went to the best player, (also highest avg.) around, WHY? I would think he had the most knowledge to improve your game, the 95% FEEL player!
I don't understand when people don't understand an can't duplicate something, they fear it, then try to dissect and debunk it. Players should appreciate that the player took the time to demonstrate such a difficult and impressive shot on video for ALL the World to view!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Last edited:
If I strip this debate of all sorts of stuff that does not belong in it, arguments ad hominem and ad auctoritatem mainly, this is what is left:
Can this shot be made with balls, equal in size and weight?
The video does not provide evidence about the weight, and neither do opinions.
Can this shot be made with balls, equal in size and weight?
The video does not provide evidence about the weight, and neither do opinions.
Bert; Somehow, you are always the voice of reason, it's refreshing!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
I would like to give credit for the player who made it, ( this shot is seen by most of us for the first time ) . personally I try not to go to the physics about the shot , many movements ,rotation, squirt ,stun ,jumping a bit ,forward spin..and reverse ...ufff ..
However made this shot is genius, I don't think that the player weighted the balls and trick us, He just made the shot.
Haven't said that , I am always open minded to understand the physics behind it , The problem their is only one Physician and trick shot maker who can answer in details,,,
However made this shot is genius, I don't think that the player weighted the balls and trick us, He just made the shot.
Haven't said that , I am always open minded to understand the physics behind it , The problem their is only one Physician and trick shot maker who can answer in details,,,
Hi all!
In my opinion, the shot is impossible if the cue ball has the same or more mass than the object ball. There is no way you can bring back a ball without draw (or double kiss :smile
, if the balls have the same mass. Friction is not involved in any way. You can try to make the shot with my simulator (WIP) in www.shooterspool.net . I made a video demonstrating the effects of different ball masses in this shot, as you can see, the shot is easier when the mass difference is high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV4KIsI_0QM
Also, this video will help you to undestand it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoOHOL_fdk0
Dr. Dave opinion would be great here
In my opinion, the shot is impossible if the cue ball has the same or more mass than the object ball. There is no way you can bring back a ball without draw (or double kiss :smile
, if the balls have the same mass. Friction is not involved in any way. You can try to make the shot with my simulator (WIP) in www.shooterspool.net . I made a video demonstrating the effects of different ball masses in this shot, as you can see, the shot is easier when the mass difference is high. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV4KIsI_0QM
Also, this video will help you to undestand it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoOHOL_fdk0
Dr. Dave opinion would be great here
Bill, with all due respect, you have been mistaken.
Yes, Sang Lee influenced me a lot, and had helped me to think about the reaction of the balls on my own. Because of what I know, I can confidently state that what is demonstrated in the video is not genuine 3-cushion skill, but a pretty cute gimmick. I can 'debunk' it because I actually understand it. To prove it, I can also duplicate the shot.
At first, as players, we were all surprised by the reaction of the cue ball in the video. We know that movies can be deceiving, but with scientific explanations, we can avoid falling for the trick. The position in the video is both theoretically and physically impossible in 3-cushion. Low friction cannot explain how a cue ball with follow can bounce straight backwards off of a ball of equal mass. The laws of physics simply do not allow for such a reaction. Advanced physics computer simulations run by a collaborator (thank you, frigopie!) corroborate everything being claimed here.
I, too, appreciate the player that produced the clever video, but in a rather different way. I was glad he shared it so that we could all have fun puzzling over it (and eventually solving it) - I believe it was his original purpose. Through blind faith, you were sufficiently impressed by its authenticity based on the 'video evidence' - that you denied and discredited any scientific reasoning being discussed by Bob and others. The only thing to fear is that others here will be misled about the truth of what is essentially a novelty trick shot.
Knowing the gimmick, I (or anyone with a sufficiently decent follow stroke) can shoot the shot as I demonstrate here on this video. (Note: sens silicone spray)
I'll post 'the reveal' shortly afterwards.
-Ira