Comment from Danny Dilaberto

Paul Schofield said:
I am very familiar with Danny D *Speak*. He talks in abstracts and metaphors. I, for one, like what he says and does. There is meaning behind all of it and is worth while examining.

I am in no way sure what he means here but I am going to take a shot at this one.

My guess: The object ball appears to act heavier because the harder the cue ball is hit, the sharper the angle of deflection. The object ball appears to be more and more immoveable (and seems to be heavier) the harder the cue ball is hit evidenced by the cue ball reaction after contact.

I do not take Danny D in a literal sense.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is true at all. It may appear that way but I believe that when the CB is hit hard, what one would normally think should be a deflection with the CB rolling is in fact a 90 degree deflection due to the CB actually skidding at that point.

As far as gaining mass, speed of light and all of that, it simply isn't applicable in pool.
 
In a strict sense, Danny is right. The energy involved in the CB's motion is also a form of mass (E=mC2), so an object in motion is "theoretically" heavier than an object at rest.

When the moving CB hits an OB it transfers some of its energy/mass to the OB.

I emphasize the word "theoretically" since the additional mass from a 15-mph CB is so small that it could never be measured. The CB would have to travel at about 50% of the speed of light (speed of light = 186,000 miles per second...not minute...per second) before it gained any measurable mass.
 
Last edited:
bdorman said:
In a strict sense, Danny is right. The energy involved in the CB's motion is also a form of mass (E=mC2), so an object in motion is "theoretically" heavier than an object at rest.

When the moving CB hits an OB it transfers some of its energy/mass to the OB.

I emphasize the word "theoretically" since the additional mass from a 15-mph CB is so small that it could never be measured. The CB would have to travel at about 50% of the speed of light (speed of light = 186,000 miles per second...not minute...per second) before it gained any measurable mass.
Click to expand...


Yeah ... what he said.

Anyway I'm pretty sure that Danny's analogy had to do with the tendency of the CB to follow the tangent line longer before taking on draw or follow when hit harder because the effect of deflecting momentum "out weighed" the effect of the follow or draw that the cloth took on the harder the CB was hit.

You guys that think Danny should pack it in will (or should) someday realize that you are being graced with the perspective offered of the great players of the past. Once that's gone, it's gone forever, so savor it now, the good and the bad.

Sometimes Danny's passion for the game has him spewing a few insulting words or innuendos but I don't believe he is even aware he is hurting someones feelings on live air.

What is Danny, late 70's now? Almost 80? WTF is Earl's excuse? Now there is someone who needs retirement in a rubber room.

Cyclop balls. I agree these things are ridiculous in terms of color. But, remember, these things are not designed by players any more than the cue sticks with the stickers of Harley Davidson motorcycles are.

If I had to change the colors of the balls to help identify them for TV, I think the "2" ball could be a shade or two lighter, but not quite Robin's Egg (baby) blue. The "4" could be a touch more purple, maybe just like the Cyclop balls. Leave the "6" / "14" alone, and maybe one shade lighter magenta for the "7" / "15". Nothing has to be drastic.

These balls did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do. The 6 and 1 were very confusing on TV.
 
3andstop said:
You guys that think Danny should pack it in will (or should) someday realize that you are being graced with the perspective offered of the great players of the past. <--That may well be, but his knowledge of one pocket was NEVER that good, even in his prime !...At times, Billy has to bite his lip to keep from laughing at him, given some of his shot selections !

Sometimes Danny's passion for the game has him spewing a few insulting words or innuendos but I don't believe he is even aware he is hurting someones feelings on live air.<--I'll buy that, he is quite often..NOT AWARE !
Click to expand...

I like Danny, but bottom line is, almost anyone is better at doing one pocket color than he is. (even Fast Lenny :p) JK/FL.
 
Personally, I do not care for Danny's 1pocket commentary. I'm sure he would do much better with 14.1.

Just as a general comment, I think there are some commentators who should be made to blow in a breathalyzer before they are allowed in the booth. They think they can pull it off after a few but they cannot.

Lou Figueroa
 
The physics of the harder shot are pretty straightforward, I think he just phrases things in a way that
(he thinks) makes it easier for an amateur to visualize. Maybe he actually thinks the ball gets heavier.
Kinda flies in the face of common sense. I dunno.

CJ also has said that people using a touch of inside have that "heavy cue ball" and it's not meant literally,
just that the way it reacts off the rails is slower, as if the ball were heavier.

Danny's number one trait that bugs me, he actually has toned down a little...
which is being really negative about the players and their decisions,
like "no, you can't do that, that shot has no merit, it's a complete sellout, he shoulda played my shot."

There are so many subtle things that look different from the booth, that would change
how you play the shot... the steepness of the cut, the distance to the object ball,
whether the shot passes easily or not, whether the angle is straight enough to allow a certain
position route, etc. You can't speak in absolutes on some shots,
without literally getting down over the shot.
 
Fast Lenny said:
The commentary was very rough this year, I think it is time to replace Danny with someone else in the booth. I do not want to sound mean but he was confused by which balls were which and that can be given a pass but a ball set should have been in the booth for them to refer to so they know what number is what. The biggest things I heard Danny do continuously was in one pocket calling selections for the wrong pocket and at times he would confuse peoples names, I am not talking once or twice as a mistake either.

There were many and I mean many shots he called or selected that had no chance of going at all or he would say that someone was hooked when they were not. His co-commentators did a great job though of being nice and trying to help Danny out. I do appreciate Danny and all his commentary over the years but sadly it is time for him to hang it up I believe. Get Jeremy Jones in the booth when he is not playing and maybe Scott Frost or some new blood.
Click to expand...

I really like scott frost, I personally want to hear him more. Also Billy does a great job too.
 
prad said:
I really like scott frost, I personally want to hear him more. Also Billy does a great job too.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For my money, Billy with either Scott or JJ is top shelf 1p commentary.

For the other games, I think the best is to pair a seasoned veteran (like Billy or Mark) with a younger guy - Schmidt, Deuel, and Hohmann are the first 3 that come to mind.

Aaron
 
I was just about to comment saying pretty much the same thing.

Shannon.spronk said:
Well I will see if I can do a little explaining here. The case that Danny mentions refers to something called special relativity and how it relates mass to kinetic energy. Special Relativity is mostly concerned with the energy of an object as it approaches the speed of light. So at the very low speeds that a pool ball is travelling there is no change in it's actual mass. An object travelling near the speed of light have a change in relativistic mass, but it will be very minute. I hope this makes sense. I tried to explain it some without going into too much detail that is very boring.

I laughed when Danny made this reference during the stream. I also laughed when Mark asked if the ball gains weight since weight and mass are actually two different things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just about to post pretty much the same thing. That the closer to the speed of light you get the more massive the object becomes, but at low speeds it is so minute a difference as to be much more than negligible.

It is this addition of Mass that prevents acceleration past the speed of light, although many attempt to deny the ability of faster than light travel because of it, which isn't true, it only denies the acceleration to or past the speed of light due to gaining infinite mass which you couldn't have enough energy to ever accelerate that much mass past the speed of light.

But yeah until we're getting the cue ball going unbelievably fast, it ain't making an impact.

Jaden
 
I think Danny is hilarious with all his bullshit and silly sayings.

Horrible play by play / technical stat kind of guy but one of the best color men in the biz..

I'd like to get Cotton and Danny in the booth together for a 12 hour marathon one pocket match.
 
Run the Century said:
Danny made a comment tonight in the finals of the Derby City 9 ball that the cue balls "glances" more the harder the cue ball is hit into it because it "gains weight" (the object ball). Mark Wilson asked him to elaborate and Danny said he has studied physics for years and it absolutely gains weight.

I have always thought as long as the cue ball is sliding at the moment of impact that the cue ball with deflect at a line of 90 degrees from the tangent line. If the cue ball has natural roll it deflects less (about 30 degrees) from the tangent line.

I'll defer to Danny's knowledge over mine but I am curious to know if anybody can elaborate on Danny's comment. I study physics a little and I know that at very high velocities (close to the speed of light) an object will gain mass but at speeds people hit balls around this is negligible. Regardless Danny was talking about the object ball not the cue ball.

How would an object ball know how fast a cue ball is approaching? How does it "gain weight".

If Dr. Dave reads this I would love an explanation.
Click to expand...

everyone raves about him but I think he is awful, maybe just too old or drunk or both but he states the most obvious shots always says I wouldnt shoot that whats he doing then the guy runs out. Think he lives in the past and cant appreicate the new modern player and skill level.
 
Lets see where do we start on this....

For those of you speaking out of your asses about Danny being drunk while commentating you can stick them right back where they came from... Danny enjoys his wine and cold beer like many of the rest of us but at no time have I seen him come into the booth drunk... The man takes what he does seriously and would never think about disrespecting the game he loves by doing as suggested.....

Colors.... Check the colors.... Cyclop had us use their TV balls this year and it was the first time we have ever used them..... If you watched at all you know the first 2 days of the 10ball the colors were pretty bad on the stream for most people... They were however great on the studio monitors but what we see is not what actually ends up as the final product since not all monitors are the same... When we finally made adjustments for the viewers of the stream the balls looked horrible on the program monitors... Danny and Mark did a pretty good job on dealing with an issue that we had never faced before... Even Jeanette couldn't call the balls right when she was in the booth... Being 25ft above and away from the table makes the monitors your best friend... They were not of much use this year....

Balls getting heavier... You nits realllllly gonna split hairs when his observations are correct even if his wording/definition is wrong? At higher speed the effective weight of the ball causes the ball to glance more.... Does adding the word "effective" really do any more to help you understand???

As far as SJD criticizing Danny on anything one-pocket, I find that truly humorous. Danny is in the 1-pocket HOF and the BCA HOF.. One is for Greatest players in the history of the game and one is a social club that invites people each year just so they can have a dinner for all of their "elks" club members to get together at DCC... That humor is right up there with Justin saying he wont buy a stream with Danny on it... I won't buy another TAR with Cotton on it... Different strokes for different folks... My favorite is Buddy and I hated Grady because of the whistle in his tone.....

Last things last.... You do realize every match is recorded and put out on DVD. These matches will live forever and some will even become huge classics. No way to know that going into the first rack... Danny pointing out the 4 railer each time indicates home important that shot can be... Yes I know you heard it last match but you are on a live stream.. People buy the dvds... China shows the matches in different time slots... The only people who had to hear it 3 times in a day are the ones on the live stream...

Danny may be getting older but he's not getting senile or confused... This year he was the same old Danny and he did a ton of matches... We did the 10ball first this year so by the end of it everyone was totally exhausted... 12-14hours a day does that to you..I couldn't have kept calling the balls right when I was running on fumes and I am 25 year his younger..

All and all as far as I am concerned Danny can be in the booth until the day he decides HE doesn't want to be there.. The rest of you who think otherwise... You can go pound sand......

Chris
 
Last edited:
Run the Century said:
Danny made a comment tonight in the finals of the Derby City 9 ball that the cue balls "glances" more the harder the cue ball is hit into it because it "gains weight" (the object ball). Mark Wilson asked him to elaborate and Danny said he has studied physics for years and it absolutely gains weight.

I have always thought as long as the cue ball is sliding at the moment of impact that the cue ball with deflect at a line of 90 degrees from the tangent line. If the cue ball has natural roll it deflects less (about 30 degrees) from the tangent line.

I'll defer to Danny's knowledge over mine but I am curious to know if anybody can elaborate on Danny's comment. I study physics a little and I know that at very high velocities (close to the speed of light) an object will gain mass but at speeds people hit balls around this is negligible. Regardless Danny was talking about the object ball not the cue ball.

How would an object ball know how fast a cue ball is approaching? How does it "gain weight".

If Dr. Dave reads this I would love an explanation.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't see this until now. It looks like several people have provided good answers. Here's mine:

The CB persists along the tangent line longer with more speed. This can make it seem like the CB (or OB) is heavier, but this is obviously not the case for the "non-relativistic" speeds of pool balls on a real table. For more info, illustrations, and video demonstrations, see the CB path speed effects resource page.

BTW, a rolling CB does not deflect 30 degrees from the tangent line ... it deflects 30 degrees from its initial direction. For more info and demonstrations, see the 30-degree rule resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 

Attachments

  • get-attachment.aspx16.jpg
    get-attachment.aspx16.jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 170
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top