curving an object ball....

[Petros Andrikop]

Another great thread, thanks to all contributing.
There really shouldn't be any "contest" in this, this is a case where a scientifically "insignificant" result seems to be more than enough "meaningful" practically.
Petros

 

[pool101]

Hi Freddie,

Don't you know that Green Ink is used to represents sarcasm?

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS The man should get paid or it shows a lack of Character by others.

I do not question them at all, I believe if I did it to the specs I would get paid, no doubt in my mind. They are the science guys and I want to learn why and how it happens. I just wanted to prove it can be done and having enough cameras helps. I have no doubt that John can turn them way more than I can.
Mark

 

[The Renfro]

Another great thread, thanks to all contributing.
There really shouldn't be any "contest" in this, this is a case where a scientifically "insignificant" result seems to be more than enough "meaningful" practically.
Petros

Seems like the insignificant variables that are just dismissed in theory have a way of doing that in practice... Wonder if John will show em the swoop stroke next? If he does anyone wanna bet they will argue and John will win again???

 

[The Renfro]

I do not question them at all, I believe if I did it to the specs I would get paid, no doubt in my mind. They are the science guys and I want to learn why and how it happens. I just wanted to prove it can be done and having enough cameras helps. I have no doubt that John can turn them way more than I can.
Mark

Great Job and your efforts are appreciated.....

 

[dr_dave]

Mark,

Excellent video work, and nice shooting! That is definitely a convincing demonstration of post-rebound curve, which is what have been looking for. It is not even close to the amount of curve needed to satisfy the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge, but at least it clearly shows the bend in a convincing way. Again, excellent job!

FYI, soon, Bob and I plan to create a simplified and slightly-easier version of the challenge along with a video demonstrating how to document attempts. I hope you will participate. Bob and I will still be offering $2000 for the first person who can bend the bank the required amount. Originally, Bob's challenge required one to curve around an obstacle more than half the width of an obstacle ball (plus any clearance). The new version of the challenge will only require a bend around 1" of an obstacle (less than half a ball)! This might sound easy, but it is still a lot more curve than you have demonstrated; although, it might be possible with the right shot, favorable conditions, and a perfect hit. And if nobody is able to grab the $2000 prize by beating the challenge, we will have a consolation prize of $200 for the person who is able to bend the ball the most (i.e., more than anybody else). This will be paid even if nobody succeeds at the $2000 challenge. Bob and I will post detailed rules and provide a detailed video demonstration of how to document attempts. We hope to have this ready within a week or so. People working on the challenge should probably wait before creating and posting final videos so their attempts will qualify for the new challenge.

Again, great job. I hope you are able to fine tune the angle to the rail, cut angle, ball distances, and hit (speed, tip position, and cue elevation) to get even more curve. Good luck with the new and easier version of the challenge. We will release it as soon as it is ready. I look forward to seeing how much more you can bend the ball.

Are you going to change the wording on your site?

"Bank Shot Bend Challenge

Is it possible to bend a bank shot back (i.e., curve the OB's post-rebound path in the short direction)?

The short answer is: Not really."

Yes. It now reads:

"Not nearly as much as many people think."

And if somebody can beat the challenge, I'll happily change it again ... and happily pay the money as promised.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

Yes. It now reads:

"Not nearly as much as many people think."

And if somebody can beat the challenge, I'll happily change it again ... and happily pay the money as promised.

Regards,
Dave

Awful. It should read "yes, absolutely, albeit a small amount. But, it's an amount enough to make a shot given the game is measured in hairs. Thanks to John Brumback's for opening our eyes." You've written a debate fallacy for your answer for some weird reason.

That'd be easy, wouldn't it? No challenge shot necessary since nobody was claiming bigger bends. The claim was to curve. Your and Bob's further challenge has nothing to do with the simple question| "Is it possible to bend a bank shot back? "

 

[dr_dave]

--------------- :thumbup: :happydance: :thumbup: :dance: :thumbup: :clapping: :thumbup: ----------
​

 

[HawaiianEye]

Looks to me like the scientists lost.

Another case of "read the fine print" to keep from paying the guy.

If anybody ever watched Mark Roth bowling, you'd see almost the same effect when he lofts his bowling ball down the lane and it finally catches gear.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Looks to me like the scientists lost.

Another case of "read the fine print" to keep from paying the guy.

They may not have lost the challenge, as the specific conditions were not met, however I do believe they suffered a moral defeat by refusing to admit their mistake. Balls can be curved around an obstacle to make an otherwise unmakeable bank and this can be observed by the naked eye. The effect is real, can be demonstrated and is repeatable. What more do they want? The answer to Dr. Daves question should be "Yes".

The magnitude they deem to be signicant is an arbitrary one. In a game of millimeters a curve of even 1/2 inch is significant, not to mention the combined effects of sideways offset and changed angle of attack (sorry if the wording is not scientific enough).

 

[HawaiianEye]

They may not have lost the challenge, as the specific conditions were not met, however I do believe they suffered a moral defeat by refusing to admit their mistake. Balls can be curved around an obstacle to make an otherwise unmakeable bank and this can be observed by the naked eye. The effect is real, can be demonstrated and is repeatable. What more do they want? The answer to Dr. Daves question should be "Yes".

The magnitude they deem to be signicant is an arbitrary one. In a game of millimeters a curve of even 1/2 inch is significant, not to mention the combined effects of sideways offset and changed angle of attack (sorry if the wording is not scientific enough).

It is like I said before, Dr. Dave doesn't have enough "stroke" to do a lot of shots that high caliber pool players do. He thinks because he knows all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, he ranks up there with them. Some people have a stroke and others don't.

 

[Bob Jewett]

They may not have lost the challenge, as the specific conditions were not met, however I do believe they suffered a moral defeat by refusing to admit their mistake. ...

Were you referring to me? Which mistake did I make?

 

[john coloccia]

Yes. It now reads:

"Not nearly as much as many people think."

And if somebody can beat the challenge, I'll happily change it again ... and happily pay the money as promised.

Regards,
Dave

In context with the rest of the section and the video you've produced and linked to, it's a little fishy.

 

[ibuycues]

I have really enjoyed this thread, and want to thank both John Brumback and also the "science guys". Having a formal engineering background (advanced degrees) followed by 35 years in engineering until retirement, has provided me with a seat at the "table of interest" like several others in this thread.

Some random thoughts:

1. It is hard to beat what happens in the lab (on the table). When a multiple time world bank champion says he has
curved a bank, for openers I believe him.

2. Kudos to the poster (pool101) with the cameras. Job well done....QED....

3. I clearly understand why the interest of the science guys rose.....some Superb input by some of our industry's
most knowledgeable technical minds.

4. Add the following into the mix:
A. Rails can give (bend)
B. Balls can hop
C. Coriolis (for lack of a better term) can occur
D. Better placement of cameras
E. Proper "stroking methods" applied...And a lot can happen.?

My quick summary: When a banking wizard of John's caliber, with tens of thousands of hours on the
table (in the lab) says a banked ball can bend, I start out believing him in my hypothesis. The questions become why, and how much.

Special thanks to John Brumback for initially taking the time to set up and demonstrate this phenomena. It caused a bit of a watershed of new knowledge and technical understanding. Not easily done. Thanks!

It would be interesting to modify the challenge to "who can bend the ball the most" or......? And how?

Again, my thanks to all who are offering perspectives, they all count.

Will Prout

 

[Cornerman]

Were you referring to me? Which mistake did I make?

Your failure was to waffle with an "ok. maybe." instead of saying, "yes it curved." And then you followed it up with an inexplicable challenge on something more stringent, as if you'd lost a hide-and-seek recess game.

The whole reason for Brumback's video was to show curve, period. There are a number of posters who wait with bated breath on your scientific confirmation. Like it or not, they hold you in such regard. Instead, your "challenge" completed side-tracked the whole reason for the thread, didn't give the World Bank Champion his due, and potentially gave another pro a reason to not contribute.

And in the end, he was right: he can make a banked ball curve, and he could demonstrate it as asked. Period. Anything further, more stringent challenges doesnt negate that. But your AZ science followers still await YOUR confirmation.

 

[Cornerman]

I have really enjoyed this thread, and want to thank both John Brumback and also the "science guys". Having a formal engineering background (advanced degrees) followed by 35 years in engineering until retirement, has provided me with a seat at the "table of interest" like several others in this thread.

Some random thoughts:

1. It is hard to beat what happens in the lab (on the table). When a multiple time world bank champion says he has
curved a bank, for openers I believe him.

2. Kudos to the poster with the cameras. Job well done....QED....

3. I clearly understand why the interest of the science guys rose.....some. Superb input by some of our industry's
most knowledgeable technical minds.

4. Add the following into the mix:
A. Rails can give (bend)
B. Balls can hop
C. Coriolis (for lack of a better term) can occur
D. Better placement of cameras
E. Proper "stroking methods" applied...And a lot can happen.

My quick summary: When a banking wizard of John's caliber, with tens of thousands of hours on the
table (in the lab) says a banked ball can bend, I start out believing him in my hypothesis. The questions become why, and how much.

It would be interesting to modify the challenge to "who can bend the ball the most" or......?

Again, my thanks to all who are offering perspectives, they all count.

Will Prout

Great post, Will. Maybe this is what "they" really were after, but it simply doesn't read like that.

 

[RiverCity]

Your failure was to waffle with an "ok. maybe." instead of saying, "yes it curved." And then you followed it up with an inexplicable challenge on something more stringent, as if you'd lost a hide-and-seek recess game.

The whole reason for Brumback's video was to show curve, period. There are a number of posters who wait with bated breath on your scientific confirmation. Like it or not, they hold you in such regard. Instead, your "challenge" completed side-tracked the whole reason for the thread, didn't give the World Bank Champion his due, and potentially gave another pro a reason to not contribute.

And in the end, he was right: he can make a banked ball curve, and he could demonstrate it as asked. Period. Anything further, more stringent challenges doesnt negate that. But your AZ science followers still await YOUR confirmation.

 

[HawaiianEye]

To me, a "meaningful amount" is whatever you get around that is blocking your way.

To one of these pool scientists, there is no telling what it means.

I've seen banks that get around little obstacles in the way and I don't care if it jumps over them, hops over them, spins around them, hops over them and then spins like a bowling ball, or whatever....as long as it gets the job done.

He sounds like the guy I play with every Sunday. He will explain why you can't do what your are doing while you are kicking his ass every game. I love those guys.

I was wondering how long it would take the scientist to figure this out.

 

[ExilePreacher]

.............

 

[duckie]

One thing this thread also shows is how important it is to remove the human factor as much possible in any scientific testing.

Another is how much the human factor plays in the performance of pool shots.

When you step outside the box and start what I call "what if" practice, it amazing what can be done. "What if" practice is saying to your self, what if I do this or this......

Like what if I use a more upright head position and grip just behind the balance point, which is counter to what is normally seen.

Like what if I vary my follow through.....which some believe does not matter, but does.

I was a QA tester for many years....so I kinda know something about what makes up valid test scenerios. Delt with hardware, firmware, and software engineers. This is where the "what if" idea came from.

I don't see a lot of people trying new stuff at the pool room. Mostly it's just roll 10 balls on the table and hit in order.

It easy to get caught up in drills, but over time, one needs to get away from them in order to see the creativity that can be had in pool.

Whether anyone can do what you can at the table is of little importance. What is important is how well you do what you do.

 

[lfigueroa]

Many moons ago, here in St. Louis, the usual suspects were hanging out at an old time pool hall here. The joint had one of those old-style 10' Brunswick billiard tables with the three inch slates and huge elephant thick legs on it and ivory diamonds in the rails. These tables are generally known around the country as "Big Berthas."

Anywhos, Harry Sims, one time US National 3-Cushion Champion, was telling all the rail birds how tough it was to hit an 11-railer and how he was one of the "few players" that could do it. IOWs, that you needed to have a pro player stroke to execute the shot...

Well, being the great, unwashed, young nonbelievers we all were we started messing around with the shot.

"Banking Billy" started trying to set up the shot on the old Arcade and, long story short, in about 20 minutes he found "the spot" for the CB and made the 11-railer on the old Brunswick. Then a bunch of us started shooting it. About six or seven of us all made it. By the end of the night we could have pulled McGoorty's "drunken Girl Scout" off the street and had her make it.

Ever since then I've been a little dubious about special, magic, only pros got it strokes.

Lou Figueroa