curving an object ball....

[Corwyn_8]

The set up also requires a curve of a certain amount. the right side of the ball must clear the 1st. peg & the left side the 2nd peg & the right side the 3rd. peg & there is only an inch between the insides of the pegs.

It's too specific of a requirement. It's a challenge for a fool to take.

One could be there for an entire day & getting a curve on the ball every time & never get that exact one.

Lest anyone be confused by this, the wording of Bob's challenge allows ANY curve exceeding a minimum of that 1". The first and third pegs merely define the shot; the second, is the interfering ball. One can miss that second peg by 1mm, or a foot. Not missing the peg just means you didn't curve the object ball (enough). If one can't do this simple test, it is a useless technique in an actual game. If 1" is an impossible level of curve, what is possible?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I think that, generally speaking, 1pocket players talk about "twisting" a banked ball in with spin. Bending and curving, not so much.

Any idea what they MEAN by that?

Thank you kindly.

 

[lfigueroa]

Any idea what they MEAN by that?

Thank you kindly.

Well, once again generally speaking, it means imparting spin to the object ball so that it takes something other than its natural angle off a rail. It might be to create a different angle for the CB to get safe or land on another ball, but typically it's to avoid a kiss, or send the banked OB on a path that will keep it from running into another OB.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Corwyn_8]

Well, once again generally speaking, it means imparting spin to the object ball so that it takes something other than its natural angle off a rail. It might be to create a different angle for the CB to get safe or land on another ball, but typically it's to avoid a kiss, or send the banked OB on a path that will keep it from running into another OB.

So, just transferring side english to the object ball to affect cushion rebound angle? Ok.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I wonder how many items in the scientific realm, are simply accepted as fact, even though they haven't been proven yet.

Are there any cases of that? Hmmmm?
Something that has yet to be proven that is assumed to be true?

That's not the way science is supposed to work. Nothing can be proven. Hypotheses can only be disproven. You look at data and come up with a theory. The theory makes predictions that can be tested. You do experiments (tests) to see whether the predictions are correct.

If the experiments give a surprising result, you work out a new theory. Everybody thought Newton had it right until troubling observations showed that things didn't fit together so well when they moved really fast. Einstein figured out a new theory that explained the new data. People are still doing tests of Einstein's theories to try to disprove them about 100 years after his first proposals. So far no one has succeeded.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Playing the game & sucker proposition 'bets' are NOT anywhere near the same thing.

The $2000 is not a bet. The person trying the bank puts up nothing but his time. There is no penalty for failure except the lost time. The $2000 is free money.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Lest anyone be confused by this, the wording of Bob's challenge allows ANY curve exceeding a minimum of that 1". The first and third pegs merely define the shot; the second, is the interfering ball. One can miss that second peg by 1mm, or a foot. Not missing the peg just means you didn't curve the object ball (enough). If one can't do this simple test, it is a useless technique in an actual game. If 1" is an impossible level of curve, what is possible?

Thank you kindly.

With all due respect, I think you are misstating the matter. By placing the first beg near the rail, the angle that one can cut the ball up table is limited. That is the issue that produces the difficulty & requires a 'specific' type of curve from basically one very small set of points on the rail.

That makes the window to NOT hit that peg & then get around the 2nd peg & back inside the 3rd. peg very very small. You can look back & see where Mr. Brumback agreed with me & I think most of us can agree that he is one of, if not the, premiere bankers in the world.

I have given an example in tennis & have said that one could be there all day & get a curve on every shot hit & might never get one that is of THAT specific requirement has laid out by Mr. Jewett.

Why do you think that a $2,000 reward for a curved bank shot has such strict requirements on it? Why is the reward not for any curved bank shot?
The window is extremely small & that is why Mr. Jewett's money is rather safe & I think he knows that as does Dr. Dave.

Why not project a laser light or pop a chalk line for reference & position a camera properly & accept a visual representation of a ball curving coming off the rail & still pay the $2,000? Why narrow the window to very nearly ONE combination of spin, speed, & friction from the cloth?

Each individual can make their own determinations as to why that might be.
Those that are familiar with propositions bets have an understanding.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The $2000 is not a bet. The person trying the bank put up nothing but his time. There is no penalty for failure except the lost time. The $2000 is free money.

I understand that & that is why I put the word 'bet' in single quotes.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So, just transferring side english to the object ball to affect cushion rebound angle? Ok.

Thank you kindly.

Here are standard shots at one pocket "twisting" the object ball. The one on the left can be made without side spin on the cue ball while the one on the right requires side spin.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

That's not the way science is supposed to work. Nothing can be proven. Hypotheses can only be disproven. You look at data and come up with a theory. The theory makes predictions that can be tested. You do experiments (tests) to see whether the predictions are correct.

If the experiments give a surprising result, you work out a new theory. Everybody thought Newton had it right until troubling observations showed that things didn't fit together so well when they moved really fast. Einstein figured out a new theory that explained the new data. People are still doing tests of Einstein's theories to try to disprove them about 100 years after his first proposals. So far no one has succeeded.

Yet the science guys ask for concrete proof of something when they themselves can't duplicate it.

Point being, the original video shows an object ball traveling in not a straight line off the rail. For whatever reason.
And now people want to dismiss that fact, and argue that what they are seeing is an optical illusion and want it proven to them.
When the video clearly shows it.
Doesn't matter what the actual explanation is for it. Masse, airborne, rail compression. It's not traveling in a straight line off the rail.
What's the technical term for when something doesn't travel in a straight line? Curve? Bend? Not straight?

It is something that is manipulated by bankers. Been that way for years.

Who cares what the actual explanation is for it is.

Next thing you know, people will be arguing that a straight line isn't really a straight line.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Yet the science guys ask for concrete proof of something when they themselves can't duplicate it.

Point being, the original video shows an object ball traveling in not a straight line off the rail. For whatever reason.
And now people want to dismiss that fact, and argue that what they are seeing is an optical illusion and want it proven to them.
When the video clearly shows it.
Doesn't matter what the actual explanation is for it. Masse, airborne, rail compression. It's not traveling in a straight line off the rail.
What's the technical term for when something doesn't travel in a straight line? Curve? Bend? Not straight?

It is something that is manipulated by bankers. Been that way for years.

Who cares what the actual explanation is for it is.

Next thing you know, people will be arguing that a straight line isn't really a straight line.

:thumbup2:

That's how it usually is. The 'science guys' want laboratory proof whenever a technique is mentioned here.

Players take the technique & see for themselves the difference in the result for the effort given.

That's all that a real player cares about.

Does the technique get the balls to do what they want?

Mic Drop!

But here on AZB we can often times, almost all of the time, never even get to the point of hearing how the techniques are done or what is the mind set in performing them because that discussion is basically killed & re-routed or doubt is cast ALL OVER them before the discussion can be had.

IMO, it's an issue that hurts the effectiveness of the site to help others perhaps play better & perhaps enjoy the PLAYING of the GAME even more.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Point being, the original video shows an object ball traveling in not a straight line off the rail. ...

OK, maybe. But I'd like to know how large the effect is. You don't know. I don't know. It seems that maybe even John Brumback doesn't know the limit of how much the ball can be made to curve.

I'd say if it is only a quarter inch is it of limited use. If it is as much as half a ball, it starts to be very interesting.

I'd also like to understand why it happens. But until we have an actual, measured example -- which the videos posted so far do not provide -- it is really hard to figure out what's happening.

 

[BmoreMoney]

Here are standard shots at one pocket "twisting" the object ball. The one on the left can be made without side spin on the cue ball while the one on the right requires side spin.


View attachment 417067

If anything it seems to me your description would be the other way around? Me personally I'm shooting both of these with left english. The left shot because I'm trying to reverse the angle and the right because I'm trying to kill it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

OK, maybe. But I'd like to know how large the effect is. You don't know. I don't know. It seems that maybe even John Brumback doesn't know the limit of how much the ball can be made to curve.

I'd say if it is only a quarter inch is it of limited use. If it is as much as half a ball, it starts to be very interesting.

I'd also like to understand why it happens. But until we have an actual, measured example -- which the videos posted so far do not provide -- it is really hard to figure out what's happening.

Sir,

With all due respect...

What you want is fine for you... but what about what others that are not so science oriented want, which might be to hear HOW John does what he does & what makes him such a great banker of the ball.

Why must that be killed for the sake of 'science'?

Also, John & I have asked, what makes You or Dr. Dave or PJ or others the arbitrator of what is significant, insignificant, of practical use or not, etc.?

What is the difference between a ball going in or out off a side pocket point.

A 1/4 inch bend or curve, or even far less can be huge & of extreme significant & practical use.

The big picture should be seen & considered as to what very many members & many visitors might like from this site but seems to be denied for the sake of a few 'science guys' on a rather consistent & ongoing basis. Perhaps not so much PJ is not present, but still.

I hope you can take what I am saying in the spirit of which it is intended, which is food for thought & consideration.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

 

[Bob Jewett]

If anything it seems to me your description would be the other way around? Me personally I'm shooting both of these with left english. The left shot because I'm trying to reverse the angle and the right because I'm trying to kill it.

The one on the left does not require side spin because the contact-induced spin is enough (usually) since it is about a half-ball cut. The one on the right absolutely needs left side spin on the object ball to bring it back. For that you need to have right side spin on the cue ball. Or at least that's what actually works for me on the table. Have you tried them?

 

[SUPERSTAR]

OK, maybe. But I'd like to know how large the effect is. You don't know. I don't know. It seems that maybe even John Brumback doesn't know the limit of how much the ball can be made to curve.

I'd say if it is only a quarter inch is it of limited use. If it is as much as half a ball, it starts to be very interesting.

I'd also like to understand why it happens. But until we have an actual, measured example -- which the videos posted so far do not provide -- it is really hard to figure out what's happening.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the "largeness" of the effect is directly dependent on 2 things.

The angle of the initial bank.
How far after coming off the rail, the object ball "breaks", grabs, masses, touches down from being airborne, etc etc.

The closer to the rail after a bank a shift in trajectory occurs, the more significance that shift might have on the trajectory.
A quarter inch shift isn't that big of a deal if it happens 2 inches from the pocket, but would have a significantly greater impact on trajectory, if it happens 2 inches after hitting the rail, even if the trajectory after that shift is a straight line. Let alone if the ball is still hooking slightly.

I still don't understand why it is even an issue.
Why is a measured example necessary?

Other than to try and discredit a professional who has been more than generous with his knowledge, what purpose does that actually serve?

 

[Nostroke]

Im a big JB fan but I dont think you can curve an OB meaningfully especially at that speed. Also brand new simonis would aid curving? I would think the opposite but im a hack if there ever was one.

 

[JoeyA]

From my perspective, a challenge has been made.

The science people are asking for video proof of an object ball being banked with a curve of less than one-half of a ball's width, 1" to be exact.

Perhaps 1" is too great of a curve to expect. I suppose it doesn't make any difference how much of a "bend" can be made by the object ball. I think "science" has agreed that some marginal bend can be obtained. WINNERS IN BOTH CAMPS! Marginal curve can be the difference between making the ball or not making it.

If on a banked object ball, you can obtain any or all of the following, object ball slide on the cushion, hopping object ball, collision induced throw CIT, spin induced throw SIT, you can accomplish a bank that defies the visual picture of what can be done.

I would love to see the video that completely satisfies the science community. For the record, I believe that an object ball bank can be curved but only minutely.

What I am very curious about is proof that a "professional stroke" can't be duplicated by an ordinary player. I have never seen any shot that a professional has made that I can't duplicate with repeated effort and knowledge. I have seen some stroke shots that are INCREDIBLE but like the Corey Deuel shot where he is shooting the cue ball from the head rail to the object ball that sits past the opposite side pocket kind of close to the middle of the table but about a diamond past the center line of the table and he hits the cue ball so well that the cue ball slides off of the object ball to the side rail then grips the rail and comes flying back, a lot of that shot has to do with the new cloth he was using. New cloth can help make the cue ball do some amazing things.

JoeyA

JoeyA

John,

I have sensed a lot of hostility toward me in this thread ... not so much from you, but from others. I hope you haven't thought I have been disrespectful to you. That certainly was not my intent. I honestly believe that it is possible to get a clear and convincing amount of bend, even though I have yet to see it in person or in videos. And I genuinely want to know what type of shot, hit, and ball/table conditions are most likely to create the most bend. This is why I study stuff like this ... to help improve understanding that can potentially be useful to players (or to people simply trying to replicate the shots).

I hope you realize how much respect I have for you and what you have accomplished in your amazing bank-pool career. I also respect that you are willing to participate here on AZB, where people aren't always mature, friendly and/or respectful. That takes guts. I hope you stay, and I hope you remain willing to continue to share your knowledge and experience. Many people, including me, appreciate this.

If you decide to not post a new video, hopefully somebody else will be willing to give it a try. I will also try to get some footage with some top local bankers reported to be able to bend the ball.

Best regards, with respect,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

I still don't understand why it is even an issue.
Why is a measured example necessary?

Other than to try and discredit a professional who has been more than generous with his knowledge, what purpose does that actually serve?

lol, yeah, really. Bob better also knock off that blasphemous Earth circling the sun bull-shee-toe.

We all enjoy the game for different reasons. For some guys it's just an excuse to get out of the house, drink beer, and hang. Others enjoy the competition. Others the gambling (other than to try and discredit your opponent what purpose does THAT serve?!). Some just love the game and enjoy it in and of itself, perhaps as a personal challenge.

And some guys are fascinated by the geometry and physics of pool and billiards and all the interesting things they find those little colliding spheres do. On my book shelf I have several volumes that contain huge steaming piles of equations that I couldn't begin to decipher. But some guys really and truly love that stuff and understand it and can explain the practical, real life application of those equations to those of us that don't. And so, nowadays, we're lucky enough to have guys like Bob and Dr. Dave to explain why the balls do what they do (and don't) and they have been a help to many of us.

So to answer your question, from my perspective, there is a totally legit and innocent reason to be asking whether an OB can be curved off a bank. Or not.

There have been many champion players, to include Willie Mosconi, who have said and even published an erroneous concept about the game -- which they no doubt believed to be true -- but the "science guys" proved to be flat out wrong. And that kind of discovery, which removes the voodoo, is knowledge that is good for the game.

This discussion can benefit all if the occasional champion becomes a willing participant in discovering what's really happening on the table. Maybe they're right and we all learn something. Or maybe they're half right. Or maybe they're wrong. Who knows. But to assign nefarious motivation to what is actually pure scientific curiosity is absurd.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SUPERSTAR]

So to answer your question, from my perspective, there is a totally legit and innocent reason to be asking whether an OB can be curved off a bank. Or not.

Lou Figueroa

From your perspective.
In the videos and still shots presented with straight lines running through them, does the ball travel in a straight line off the rail, or not?
Simple yes or no will suffice.