$2000 Bank Bend Challenge

[TATE]

I tell ya, bending these banks is just too easy.


http://youtu.be/fVC_Pyoeyxs

That is amazing! I have no clue how Cleary does it but he needs to get a patent on it.

So, I re-iterate - some real entertainment. Sit back and enjoy the show. Everybody knows magicians don't tell their secrets.

 

[mowermarty]

what about vernon elliots shot

I was asking someone about his cross to the side shot. They said they had seen him do it but he had an even better shot where he curved a ball off the rail.. Some examples of the cross side are on DR Dave:s site. Anyone on here see him do the curve and if so how much did it curve. I never saw Mr. Elliot play but seen his name in some HOF.

 

[pvc lou]

Hate to pop your bubble, but it does go on a Brunswick. It's nothing more than a reverse bank. All you need to do is use force follow on the cb which then becomes force reverse when the ob hits the rail. (ob did have a nice little bend at the end there though)



To those that are now looking at where he hit the cb, it doesn't matter. It's all about using the "force" properly. (it's an old trick that the Jedi's picked up from the old pool hustlers)

I didn't know you could be funny, Neil.

 

[dr_dave]

I tell ya, bending these banks is just too easy.


http://youtu.be/fVC_Pyoeyxs

Cleary. That is freakin' awesome! After your original video, I first thought you were using a weighted ball, and then I thought (because of the use of the tall paper-towel roll to obscure the OB when it hit the rail) you were using the split-screen cheat Bob's video demonstrated. I honestly don't have a clue what you are doing in this latest video, but I am very impressed. My best guess is that you are using a "green-screen" effect to isolate and overlay an alternative OB path, or somehow twisting the path of an isolated ball motion. Whatever you are doing, the result is amazing. I hope you will explain how you pulled it off so everybody in this thread can actually learn something. If not, I will get in touch with some video and CGI professional contacts I have. I'm sure they can suggests different ways to accomplish what you are doing in the fake videos. When I hear back, I will be happy to report what I learn.

I wish I had your "special effects" skills when I was working on the VEPS project with Tom Ross. There were quite a few shots that took us many, many "takes" to get right, and your "tricks" could have saved us an incredible amount of time (although, I'm still glad we did everything the "old fashioned" and legitimate way). One shot I remember specifically was the OB jump shot over an entire obstacle ball (here's an example in slow motion: HSV B.4 - Object ball jump shot). Is that something you could easily cheat also?

Again, very well done. And thank you for making me aware that I can no longer trust any impressive or suspicious pool video I see ever again, especially any project you work on. I am honestly grateful to you for teaching me this. I certainly will be extremely reluctant to offer any video-based challenges in the future with money prizes.

You forever have my video-editing respect,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Neil, I know you and some others do not like the way we wrote the rules for the contest; but again, we thought they were necessary to achieve the goals of the challenge. But even if you or other don't like the rules, that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Cleary's video clearly violated SEVERAL of the challenge rules, AND he clearly did not meet the requirement necessary to win the $2000 prize (even if his video were legitimate, which it was not). I strongly encourage you and others to watch the videos and read all of the rules and requirements on the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge page. If you or others don't want to follow the rules, you and and others should not participate in the challenge.

Dave, I really don't think I worded what is in my mind very well. Let me try again.

I looked at the test as an opportunity for you two, and all of us, to learn something. The money was a way to get others to participate to get as much input as possible. I understand why you made the rules the way you did, and agree that is was pretty much a necessity.

Neil,

Do you remember some of the earlier versions of proposed challenge rules that required pegs, boards, and/or strings? They were far too complicated to set up and execute. That's why Bob and I settled on the single-ruler-measurement idea ... to keep things as simple as possible while requiring as few supplies and materials as possible. The single ruler reading provides a simple and accurate measure of the shot that can easily and reliably be compared from one video to the next without any judgement required.

Given that, I took it as the primary goal was to see some good bends. Given the bend in Cleary's video, my take was that this is what we all are looking for. Yes, he didn't follow the rules to the letter, but it was clear that even if he had, the bend would have been quite large. Which is what "we" were after. Therefore, if it was my money, I would have stated something along the lines of "well, that is extremely impressive. However, a few things look fishy to me, so after checking out the video, we will determine if you are in the lead for the money or not. Right now, it appears that you may well be in the lead. "

Instead, you two took the opposite track, and went with the rules weren't followed, so no payout.

Again, it is our challenge and our money. If people just want to post videos showing bending banks (legitimate or not), nobody is stopping them, and several people have (see the embedded videos on the bending a bank resource page). But if they want to participate in our challenge and be eligible for our cash, they need to follow our rules ... period!

To me, and I know to others also, that appears big time like you never had any intention of paying out. Now, I know you and Bob are very honest guys. And, in my heart I believe you would or will pay out on a winner video. But, the way you two went about this video just plain smelled real bad. And definitely gave an impression that I'm sure you two never intended.

Do you and others really think that Bob and I don't want to pay out the $200 to the best legitimate entry posted? And do you really think we would not pay out the $2000 for a legitimate entry that satisfies all of the clearly-stated rules and requirements? I hope not, but people have a right to think whatever they want (especially on the Internet).

Regards,
Dave

 

[jalapus logan]

I don't think these videos have been edited. It's clearly black magic. My goat told me so.

 

[Neil]

Neil,

Do you remember some of the earlier versions of proposed challenge rules that required pegs, boards, and/or strings? They were far too complicated to set up and execute. That's why Bob and I settled on the single-ruler-measurement idea ... to keep things as simple as possible while requiring as few supplies and materials as possible. The single ruler reading provides a simple and accurate measure of the shot that can easily and reliably be compared from one video to the next without any judgement required.

Again, it is our challenge and our money. If people just want to post videos showing bending banks (legitimate or not), nobody is stopping them, and several people have (see the embedded videos on the bending a bank resource page). But if they want to participate in our challenge and be eligible for our cash, they need to follow our rules ... period!


Do you and others really think that Bob and I don't want to pay out the $200 to the best legitimate entry posted? And do you really think we would not pay out the $2000 for a legitimate entry that satisfies all of the clearly-stated rules and requirements? I hope not, but people have a right to think whatever they want (especially on the Internet).

Regards,
Dave

Dave, as I stated, I believed you did intend to pay it out. But it sure looked like you were just trying to find a way not to pay out. That was my problem with how it all went down.

Second, of course it is your money, and you are totally free to pay out as you see fit. And, I understand the reasoning behind the rules. If something is close, it needs to be verified. But, if it were my money, I wouldn't have worried about the rules with a shot that obviously had so much bend that there was no doubt about it bending at all.

Third, you know I totally respect you and Bob. I have stood up for both of you many times on here. While probably poorly done, that is what I was doing here also. If in my eyes, one who does respect you two so much, I had a problem with how things were worded, you can rest assured that many others did also. I was hoping you two would re-word things so as not to lose the respect many have for you. Guess I failed in my attempt. I still respect you two, but by the posts in this thread, I fear you may have lost some from others. It is what it is.

 

[john coloccia]

Dave, as I stated, I believed you did intend to pay it out. But it sure looked like you were just trying to find a way not to pay out. That was my problem with how it all went down.

Second, of course it is your money, and you are totally free to pay out as you see fit. And, I understand the reasoning behind the rules. If something is close, it needs to be verified. But, if it were my money, I wouldn't have worried about the rules with a shot that obviously had so much bend that there was no doubt about it bending at all.

Third, you know I totally respect you and Bob. I have stood up for both of you many times on here. While probably poorly done, that is what I was doing here also. If in my eyes, one who does respect you two so much, I had a problem with how things were worded, you can rest assured that many others did also. I was hoping you two would re-word things so as not to lose the respect many have for you. Guess I failed in my attempt. I still respect you two, but by the posts in this thread, I fear you may have lost some from others. It is what it is.

The main problem with the shot is that it was an obvious fake. OBVIOUS fake. Even a casual player has seen thousands of balls hit by amatuers and pros. Active players have probably seen hundreds of thousands, if not a million, balls hit rails hit by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. Ever see anything even remotely similar to that video? Ever? It's ridiculous to waste any time on it. Since it didn't even conform to the rules, there was no reason to consider it any further than that.

You guys are something else. Someone posts a fake, doctored video, tries to cheat Dave and Bob out of $2000, hurls all sorts of insults and accusations their way, and somehow Dave and Bob are the bad guys?

Why on Earth would anyone waste time trying to prove the cheating when they could dismiss it by simply noting that it doesn't even follow the stupid rules? Yeah, of course they're not going to pay for a scammed shot. Their only mistake was being gracious about it and not calling it out from the first second for the swindle it was. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

And this is coming from someone that doesn't even really follow much of what Dave and Bob are doing, not because I don't think it's important, but because to me it's a game I play to get away from engineering and science, not deeper into it, and I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[Neil]

The main problem with the shot is that it was an obvious fake. OBVIOUS fake. Even a casual player has seen thousands of balls hit by amatuers and pros. Active players have probably seen hundreds of thousands, if not a million, balls hit rails hit by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. Ever see anything even remotely similar to that video? Ever? It's ridiculous to waste any time on it. Since it didn't even conform to the rules, there was no reason to consider it any further than that.

You guys are something else. Someone posts a fake, doctored video, tries to cheat Dave and Bob out of $2000, hurls all sorts of insults and accusations their way, and somehow Dave and Bob are the bad guys?

Why on Earth would anyone waste time trying to prove the cheating when they could dismiss it by simply noting that it doesn't even follow the stupid rules? Yeah, of course they're not going to pay for a scammed shot. Their only mistake was being gracious about it and not calling it out from the first second for the swindle it was. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

And this is coming from someone that doesn't even really follow much of what Dave and Bob are doing, not because I don't think it's important, but because to me it's a game I play to get away from engineering and science, not deeper into it, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Too you, it was an obvious fake. To me, it wasn't. It wasn't, because I have seen several shots similar to it in my 40 years of playing. Not that much bend, but about half that amount. So, yes, I looked at it as maybe another one of those flukes that you might just see once in a lifetime, and therefore wasn't to be immediately dismissed, but did require a closer look at it.

 

[cleary]

The main problem with the shot is that it was an obvious fake. OBVIOUS fake. Even a casual player has seen thousands of balls hit by amatuers and pros. Active players have probably seen hundreds of thousands, if not a million, balls hit rails hit by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. Ever see anything even remotely similar to that video? Ever? It's ridiculous to waste any time on it. Since it didn't even conform to the rules, there was no reason to consider it any further than that.

You guys are something else. Someone posts a fake, doctored video, tries to cheat Dave and Bob out of $2000, hurls all sorts of insults and accusations their way, and somehow Dave and Bob are the bad guys?

Why on Earth would anyone waste time trying to prove the cheating when they could dismiss it by simply noting that it doesn't even follow the stupid rules? Yeah, of course they're not going to pay for a scammed shot. Their only mistake was being gracious about it and not calling it out from the first second for the swindle it was. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

And this is coming from someone that doesn't even really follow much of what Dave and Bob are doing, not because I don't think it's important, but because to me it's a game I play to get away from engineering and science, not deeper into it, and I'd like to keep it that way.

You're not going to understand. The challenge wasn't about how far you can bend a ball. I've made many attempts to help you understand that but you're simply not able. That's ok. Just continue thinking I'm a con artist. That's a good thing now, means I could be president!

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, as I stated, I believed you did intend to pay it out. But it sure looked like you were just trying to find a way not to pay out.

... because I was totally convinced the original video was fake, as is the 2nd video. I just wanted to give him a chance to come clean before I publicly accused him.

Second, of course it is your money, and you are totally free to pay out as you see fit. And, I understand the reasoning behind the rules. If something is close, it needs to be verified. But, if it were my money, I wouldn't have worried about the rules with a shot that obviously had so much bend that there was no doubt about it bending at all.

Neil, you make a good point here, and I know many other people think this way too; but the challenge has very specific rules. One must be both accurate with the hit and be able to legitimately bend the ball.

Third, you know I totally respect you and Bob. I have stood up for both of you many times on here. While probably poorly done, that is what I was doing here also. If in my eyes, one who does respect you two so much, I had a problem with how things were worded, you can rest assured that many others did also. I was hoping you two would re-word things so as not to lose the respect many have for you. Guess I failed in my attempt. I still respect you two, but by the posts in this thread, I fear you may have lost some from others. It is what it is.

Thank you Neil. I do appreciate all of the support you have offered over the years.

I don't think I need to defend or apologize for anything Bob or I have done or written in this thread. Again, if people disagree, they have that right.

Best regards (and thank you again for your honest opinions),
Dave

 

[cleary]

Cleary. That is freakin' awesome! After your original video, I first thought you were using a weighted ball, and then I thought (because of the use of the tall paper-towel roll to obscure the OB when it hit the rail) you were using the split-screen cheat Bob's video demonstrated. I honestly don't have a clue what you are doing in this latest video, but I am very impressed. My best guess is that you are using a "green-screen" effect to isolate and overlay an alternative OB path, or somehow twisting the path of an isolated ball motion. Whatever you are doing, the result is amazing. I hope you will explain how you pulled it off so everybody in this thread can actually learn something. If not, I will get in touch with some video and CGI professional contacts I have. I'm sure they can suggests different ways to accomplish what you are doing in the fake videos. When I hear back, I will be happy to report what I learn.

I wish I had your "special effects" skills when I was working on the VEPS project with Tom Ross. There were quite a few shots that took us many, many "takes" to get right, and your "tricks" could have saved us an incredible amount of time (although, I'm still glad we did everything the "old fashioned" and legitimate way). One shot I remember specifically was the OB jump shot over an entire obstacle ball (here's an example in slow motion: HSV B.4 - Object ball jump shot). Is that something you could easily cheat also?

Again, very well done. And thank you for making me aware that I can no longer trust any impressive or suspicious pool video I see ever again, especially any project you work on. I am honestly grateful to you for teaching me this. I certainly will be extremely reluctant to offer any video-based challenges in the future with money prizes.

You forever have my video-editing respect,
Dave

I'll show you how I did this last video. I've been making things like this for like 15 years. I'll detail it when I'm home later.

 

[dr_dave]

I'll show you how I did this last video. I've been making things like this for like 15 years. I'll detail it when I'm home later.

Thank you. I will appreciate that, and it will save me the time of having to research it on my own.

And if nobody beats my current 1st-place legitimate entry by tomorrow, Bob and I will send you the $200 prize as a thank you.

Again, awesome work (even if it is conniving),
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Dave,

Yes Cleary was disrespectful and yes he did accomplish a magical bend in the banked object ball shot that John Brumback couldn't do (without Cleary's secret weapon).

I won't attempt to explain why Cleary was so hell bent on painting you in such a poor light. It's hard to explain such madness.

He is being nicer now, so I will do my best to forget and forgive his previous "approach."

However, you should consider sending Cleary a basket of fruit for Christmas or some other token of your appreciation.

I think he would appreciate the $200 more, so we'll just stick with that.

He has singly probably brought more attention to you and your website than any one person to date, imo.

You have lots of great pool DVDs that you can sell to people trying to learn more about pool due to the increased buzz of this thread.

IMO, you are grossly exaggerating the marketing effectiveness of AZB forum activity, but I appreciate your "great pool DVDs" statement anyway.

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, did you believe that cleary's first video was real when he first posted it? It seems like you might have, based on your earlier post in the thread, but maybe I read it wrong.

 

[dr_dave]

I'll show you how I did this last video. I've been making things like this for like 15 years. I'll detail it when I'm home later.

Thank you. I will appreciate that, and it will save me the time of having to research it on my own.

And if nobody beats my current 1st-place legitimate entry by tomorrow, Bob and I will send you the $200 prize as a thank you.

Again, awesome work (even if it is conniving),
Dave

It would also be interesting to know what techniques you used for the first video, or was it the same?

Thanks again,
Dave

 

[Poolhall60561]

This thread keeps getting better and better

Almost as good as the Funny pic/gif thread

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Thank you. I will appreciate that, and it will save me the time of having to research it on my own.

And if nobody beats my current 1st-place legitimate entry by tomorrow, Bob and I will send you the $200 prize as a thank you.

Again, awesome work (even if it is conniving),
Dave

The only time I've seen a ball do what that 7ball did was with no cloth on the rail. I doubt that's what Cleary did.

 

[Nostroke]

The only time I've seen a ball do what that 7ball did was with no cloth on the rail. I doubt that's what Cleary did.

Id have to say the big bend ball and the 7 were directly struck by the cue somehow at some point. Other than that-no clue.

 

[dr_dave]

The only time I've seen a ball do what that 7ball did was with no cloth on the rail. I doubt that's what Cleary did.

If you step through cleary's latest video frame by frame, you can clearly see something funny happening to the OBs (not just the 7, but all of them) when they hit the cushion. It seems like he is splicing in a different shot (e.g., a masse shot on the OB) for the motion off the rail, similar to what Bob did (but much more cleanly, and without using split-screen editing). Regardless, I look forward to cleary's detailed explanation.

Regards,
Dave

 

[TATE]

I'll show you how I did this last video. I've been making things like this for like 15 years. I'll detail it when I'm home later.

I can't wait for this! That is awesome, much appreciated. I can't wait to pull that backward bank off against my buddy.



Ps. these homemade looking videos with special effects are a lot more convincing and realistic than DreamWorks stuff, which you go into it knowing it's fake. Cleary is providing us with professional entertainment, pool hall style. Sorry that Dave was slightly victimized, but somebody has to be the straight man.