Number based kicking system - conceptual question

W

WillyCornbread

Break and One
Silver Member
HI - I've been reading and studying as much as I can about different kicking systems to try and up my game. I really like Tor Lowry's system and the way he presents it.

One thing most seem to have in common is that the numbering is halved / different depending on if you are kicking off the short rail, to the long rail, past the pocket and seemingly a number of other factors.

I'm struggling to just memorize these things and I was wondering if anyone knows WHY the numbers change - this might help me stick it in my head. For example is there a consistent rule like ' if you are kicking more than 1/2 table, you either double or half the end numbers because blah blah blah'

Feel free to tell me to just suck it up and memorize it if there is not real reason.

Thanks for looking

b
 
I too like Tor Lowry, but I also like Manning Cues videos.

I might supposition that one rail is half of another, so the numbers change.

Being able to use the many systems is a big help.

You can also learn the Sid's System for the Long & Short kicks (works great) .

I have been trying the Sid's Long Rail System out in the middle of the table, really easy to do & works wonders. Just imagine the ball on the table like it was on a rail & use the Sid System Numbers to hit the ball.

Learn the 2+ System & the Corner Five System, two rails to the corner.

Jimmy Reid's Kicking System has some good stuff too..

Learn 3C Rail shots & modify them to fit your needs.

Good Luck...
 
ceebee said:
I might supposition that one rail is half of another, so the numbers change.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply - this is my basic understanding too. I was hoping someone smarter than me could expand upon that to give some rules. So because the table is twice as long, if your kick is traveling more than 1/2 the table, then the short rail numbers are halved..

What I just wrote is of course incorrect - am I searching for reason where none exists?
 
WillyCornbread said:
HI - I've been reading and studying as much as I can about different kicking systems to try and up my game. I really like Tor Lowry's system and the way he presents it.

One thing most seem to have in common is that the numbering is halved / different depending on if you are kicking off the short rail, to the long rail, past the pocket and seemingly a number of other factors.

I'm struggling to just memorize these things and I was wondering if anyone knows WHY the numbers change - this might help me stick it in my head. For example is there a consistent rule like ' if you are kicking more than 1/2 table, you either double or half the end numbers because blah blah blah'

Feel free to tell me to just suck it up and memorize it if there is not real reason.

Thanks for looking

b
Click to expand...

Hi Willy,

I once looked into all these kicking systems as well. I watched Tor's video a few times through pausing it and writing down each numbering system discussed. I basically came to the conclusion that it is too involved to try to commit it to memory and not worth the effort.

The main problem is that the kicking outcome is controlled by four factors: angle, spin, speed, and rail type. The numbering systems only account for the angle, nothing else.

If I were you I would forget the numbers and just look at the diamonds on the table to find the midpoint which he discusses a lot. That is a starting point for all one rail kicks regardless of which rail you're kicking off. From there you should just practice for a few hours with different speeds, angles, and spins all relative to the midpoint. Before you know it you'll have a good enough feel for kicks to hit most balls.

The only place one of the numbering systems might be useful is if you're kicking two or three rails b/c you really don't have a starting point to base anything off of. But the three and two rails systems are way more involved and aren't really practical to use in a match. Since you rarely are kicking two or three rails you probably won't remember the numbering system when you need to under pressure. Even if you have it 90% right you might screw up the numbering on one rail and everything is off.

Honestly, nothing is better than just spending an hour or two a week kicking at balls. All you need is a feel for the shot. If you were practicing all this time that you watched these videos and did all this research you wouldn't even be asking this question.

Good luck!
 
Kicking systems are fine, Willy, as are any other mental exercises, but what will work best is developing your minds ability to see a shot and then execute it. This is best done by shooting kick shots over, and over, and over. Just like banks.
You'll know you're on the right track when you become able to see what I call 'naturals'. Shots that require no adjustments. You just hit it and the OB goes in.

I also heard, the other day, that shooting a kick shot only let's your backer know that you hate his guts. There may be some truth there. :smile:
 
ceebee said:
I too like Tor Lowry, but I also like Manning Cues videos.

I might supposition that one rail is half of another, so the numbers change.

Being able to use the many systems is a big help.

You can also learn the Sid's System for the Long & Short kicks (works great) .

I have been trying the Sid's Long Rail System out in the middle of the table, really easy to do & works wonders. Just imagine the ball on the table like it was on a rail & use the Sid System Numbers to hit the ball.

Learn the 2+ System & the Corner Five System, two rails to the corner.

Jimmy Reid's Kicking System has some good stuff too..

Learn 3C Rail shots & modify them to fit your needs.

Good Luck...
Click to expand...

+ 2 is the only multiple rail system I use. For 1 rail kicks I find the mid point between the balls and adjust toward the ball closest to the rail I'm kicking at.

I don't worry about why - I just do what works.
 
Tramp Steamer said:
Kicking systems are fine, Willy, as are any other mental exercises, but what will work best is developing your minds ability to see a shot and then execute it. This is best done by shooting kick shots over, and over, and over. Just like banks.
You'll know you're on the right track when you become able to see what I call 'naturals'. Shots that require no adjustments. You just hit it and the OB goes in.

I also heard, the other day, that shooting a kick shot only let's your backer know that you hate his guts. There may be some truth there. :smile:
Click to expand...

+1

I can't stress this enough. Banking/Kicking systems work, but you need to be able to recognize when & how to use them. The diamonds are on the table for a reason, use them. Reading/Learning about a system and not knowing how to use it, or how to recognize when to use it, will kill your game.

A friend of mine says he uses a system that uses your cue, rail distance, and measurements to find the contact point on a ball. I asked him to explain it to me and he couldn't. So I set up a kick shot and told me to go through the system as if he were shooting and explain it to me as he goes... He still couldn't. I stepped away from the table, told him to do everything on his own and hit the ball. Well... He missed by a mile.

Knowing how to solve an equation is only good if you know the question.
 
Thanks for the replies folks - I'm definitely getting a decent feel for 1 rail kicks, and using a mid-point system my 2 rail kicks are coming along as well. I am just having a hard time zeroing on more accuracy - for instance hitting a part of the ball rather than just contact.

It sounds like the consensus is just to keep at it with repetition and it will come - continue using the lighter weight 'systems' like the mid-point for 2 rail kicks. I'll also take another look at the 2+ and sid stuff to see if that is a little simpler.

i agree with the other poster who said the Tor stuff is great, and it seemed like a revelation to me, but quickly got too complicated to use. At the table I find my self just feeling the shot because I can't remember all that number shit anyway...

Thanks again.

b
 
I found that Tor's videos were very helpful and easy to learn. The only trick is to learn a section at a time before moving on to the next section. Memorize each section and take it to the pool room to practice. Once you have that section down do the same with the next section. When I did it like that I thought it was really easy to learn instead of trying to learn everything at once.
 
WillyCornbread said:
Thanks for the replies folks - I'm definitely getting a decent feel for 1 rail kicks, and using a mid-point system my 2 rail kicks are coming along as well. I am just having a hard time zeroing on more accuracy - for instance hitting a part of the ball rather than just contact.

It sounds like the consensus is just to keep at it with repetition and it will come - continue using the lighter weight 'systems' like the mid-point for 2 rail kicks. I'll also take another look at the 2+ and sid stuff to see if that is a little simpler.

i agree with the other poster who said the Tor stuff is great, and it seemed like a revelation to me, but quickly got too complicated to use. At the table I find my self just feeling the shot because I can't remember all that number shit anyway...

Thanks again.

b
Click to expand...

That's why I use the + 2 because it is simple. Dr Dave and Bob Jewett have videos explaining it. You can also use it to calculate position going forward using inside English or force follow. You adjust for the angle the cue ball will take into the first rail and however much inside you use.

If you are starting out and trying to learn a system this is a good place to start. One system which works and you can remember is more valuable than multiple systems you almost understand.
 
I got Tor's stuff and liked it, but it does seem like he doesn't really explain why he does certain things. He just says "aim here" or "do this."

Here's the most important thing that I've learned about one-rail kicks: The basic 2-1 triangle geometry works well, except that a rolling cue ball will bend forward of that line on its way off the rail. That effect is larger the wider the angle. So if you're kicking from just 2 diamonds away, you can probably aim at the point on the rail right in front of the 1 diamond. But as you go up the table, to, say 6 diamonds from the corner pocket, a rolling cue ball will bend forward, and will probably not form a triangle. The basic correction for this is to just aim right at the 3 diamond - so you're actually aiming a little closer to your starting point than the geometry would indicate, to make up for the fact that a rolling cue ball goes long.

But it's important to remember that aiming at the diamond (rather than the point on the table across from the diamond) is an adjustment; it's not the "correct" geometry. Once you realize that, you understand that you may need to adjust a little differently depending on the conditions. I believe on Tor's videos he recommends aiming right at the diamond with some running english. But that's a correction too, and it's one that probably won't work on most tables, at least in my experience.

When I play on a table for the first time, I like to put a piece of chalk right on top of a diamond (to make it easier to aim) and then take some wide-angle one-rail kicks at the far corner pocket. That will tell you pretty quickly how you should correct your kicks and banks.
 
WillyCornbread said:
HI - I've been reading and studying as much as I can about different kicking systems to try and up my game. I really like Tor Lowry's system and the way he presents it.

One thing most seem to have in common is that the numbering is halved / different depending on if you are kicking off the short rail, to the long rail, past the pocket and seemingly a number of other factors.

I'm struggling to just memorize these things and I was wondering if anyone knows WHY the numbers change - this might help me stick it in my head. For example is there a consistent rule like ' if you are kicking more than 1/2 table, you either double or half the end numbers because blah blah blah'

Feel free to tell me to just suck it up and memorize it if there is not real reason.

Thanks for looking

b
Click to expand...
If you are working with one-rail kicking systems, I think it is very useful to put a ball in the exact mirror position of the ball you are trying to hit so you can see how far the system is from an ideal mirror. Are you familiar with how to place an (extra) object ball at that location?
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you are working with one-rail kicking systems, I think it is very useful to put a ball in the exact mirror position of the ball you are trying to hit so you can see how far the system is from an ideal mirror. Are you familiar with how to place an (extra) object ball at that location?
Click to expand...

I'm not Bob, can you expand a little on this or link me to something that explains? Many thanks...
 
WillyCornbread said:
I'm not Bob, can you expand a little on this or link me to something that explains? Many thanks...
Click to expand...

Here is a link to some articles. The mirror explanation is in August.
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996.pdf
The article index is available at:
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html

Somewhere in there is a way to construct the mirror image for kicking two rails out of a corner. That allows you to see that the usual mirror-based system for that works poorly for most situations unless modified somehow.
 
BRussell said:
I got Tor's stuff and liked it, but it does seem like he doesn't really explain why he does certain things. He just says "aim here" or "do this."

Here's the most important thing that I've learned about one-rail kicks: The basic 2-1 triangle geometry works well, except that a rolling cue ball will bend forward of that line on its way off the rail. That effect is larger the wider the angle. So if you're kicking from just 2 diamonds away, you can probably aim at the point on the rail right in front of the 1 diamond. But as you go up the table, to, say 6 diamonds from the corner pocket, a rolling cue ball will bend forward, and will probably not form a triangle. The basic correction for this is to just aim right at the 3 diamond - so you're actually aiming a little closer to your starting point than the geometry would indicate, to make up for the fact that a rolling cue ball goes long.

But it's important to remember that aiming at the diamond (rather than the point on the table across from the diamond) is an adjustment; it's not the "correct" geometry. Once you realize that, you understand that you may need to adjust a little differently depending on the conditions. I believe on Tor's videos he recommends aiming right at the diamond with some running english. But that's a correction too, and it's one that probably won't work on most tables, at least in my experience.

When I play on a table for the first time, I like to put a piece of chalk right on top of a diamond (to make it easier to aim) and then take some wide-angle one-rail kicks at the far corner pocket. That will tell you pretty quickly how you should correct your kicks and banks.
Click to expand...
Yes, the amount of correction varies with the angle, but aiming at the diamonds is self-correcting for this in most cases (more correction for wider kicks, less for steeper ones). Here's a diagram I've posted before about aiming at the diamonds for 1-rail kicks.

pj
chgo

View attachment 59006
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes, the amount of correction varies with the angle, but aiming at the diamonds is self-correcting for this in most cases (more correction for wider kicks, less for steeper ones). Here's a diagram I've posted before about aiming at the diamonds for 1-rail kicks.

pj
chgo

View attachment 59006
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wonder: the adjustment increases as the angle widens, but is it the right amount? I assume it just depends on table conditions, but I wonder if, in general, aiming through the diamonds works better or worse at certain angles. My guess is that it's generally not enough of an adjustment at the widest angles, but that could just be my table. Also: Are all diamonds the same distance from the cushion nose, or is there some variance on that?
 
BRussell said:
Thanks. I wonder: the adjustment increases as the angle widens, but is it the right amount? I assume it just depends on table conditions, but I wonder if, in general, aiming through the diamonds works better or worse at certain angles. My guess is that it's generally not enough of an adjustment at the widest angles, but that could just be my table. Also: Are all diamonds the same distance from the cushion nose, or is there some variance on that?
Click to expand...
Yes, my experience is also that the "aim at the diamond" adjustment needs to be increased a little at wider angles and decreased at steeper angles.

And of course things change somewhat depending on equipment and conditions - it's a (pretty good) rule of thumb but like all rules of thumb isn't exact in all cases.

pj
chgo
 
BRussell said:
Thanks. I wonder: the adjustment increases as the angle widens, but is it the right amount? I assume it just depends on table conditions, but I wonder if, in general, aiming through the diamonds works better or worse at certain angles. My guess is that it's generally not enough of an adjustment at the widest angles, but that could just be my table. Also: Are all diamonds the same distance from the cushion nose, or is there some variance on that?
Click to expand...

Diamonds are not all the same distance back. One (carom) table I saw had eight diamonds along the long rail. That would make some systems not work so well but I think the double-the-diamond (and shoot "through") would probably not be changed much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top