how would you shoot this shot?

[Patrick Johnson]

And many people don't realize that it is usually not possible to play with a perfectly level cue when applying side spin.

To have the cue level, the center of the bumper has to be the same height above the surface of the table as the center of the tip is above the surface of the table. To find the angle of elevation, just take the difference in inches of those two heights above the surface of the table and that is the elevation in degrees.

That is shown here:

View attachment 581593

Cool diagram - it shows some interesting things about a level cue:

1. The cue ball can't be hit on the equator with a level cue - there's not enough room to make a bridge under the shaft or get grip fingers under the butt.

2. The cue ball can probably be hit with maximum follow with a level cue, with a low bridge and grip fingers rubbing on the cloth.

pj
chgo

 

[iusedtoberich]

You may be right - but they may be wrong.

pj <- apologies to Billy Joel
chgo

The thing is though, the science guys, try to match the equations and theories to what the pros do. The pros, I doubt have learned a single shot from the science guys. This is a recurring theme. Some of the science guys and/or instructors advocate doing the complete opposite of what the pros do. If you want to run a rack of 9 ball, watch the way Efren plays the whole rack, or Earl, or Buddy, or Alex, or Busty, or Siming, etc etc. They will never play like you are advocating here, or on some other threads where you have advocated this common theme of hitting a rolling ball on cut shots in order to avoid a miss due to misjudging the effects of english. Its the wrong way to play. That's "playing scared". There are only a few good ways to run any given rack. I mean "really good ways". The pros have them all figured out, through losing time and time again on the wrong shot choice. If a beginning player doesn't have the skills to perform a certain shot, then "maybe" I can see giving them the advice to hit it with rolling top. But if the player wants to learn how to run out, they should be playing the shot the same way as the pro players. IMO from a non-pro, non-instructor, banger

 

[FranCrimi]

I think that something may be being over looked here.
Thru the whole rack your telling your mind to make the OB and put the Q ball there.
You did this 8 times and now your down to the last ball and you give your mind one instruction.........make the last ball. The thing of this is your mind is waiting for the last part of the instruction..........where do you want the Q ball?
I would play the last ball with low left and pretend that I'm getting shape on another ball on the rail below the pocketed ball.

John

Yeah, but realistically, nobody really pretends to play position on another ball when they're shooting game ball. Pretending to play position on another ball is a distraction because it really isn't in the flow of the 8 balls you pocketed before, because you really do know that it's the last shot. Can't get around that. Just make the shot and do something intentional with the cue ball. That's all.

 

[gerryf]

The thing is though, the science guys, try to match the equations and theories to what the pros do. The pros, I doubt have learned a single shot from the science guys. This is a recurring theme. Some of the science guys and/or instructors advocate doing the complete opposite of what the pros do.

I don't think that's correct. The science guys are figuring out the science. Some pros have figured some things out naturally, but many more are steered by the science.

Pool is now dominated by Europe and Asia, and it's routine for middle and upper level players to have coaches. And those coaches are teaching them the science, and using science to improve their game.

I heard on an interview that Johann Chua, Albin Oushan, and other younger pros in Asia and Europe, use more center-ball than older-style players, and they have a more disciplined approach, based on the science.

On another interview, there was a discussion on how modern players would stack up against the older historic pros. I think it was NIck Varner who said modern players are better - besides having better equipment, they know more about the game. Another commentator said he thought some of the top-tier old-style players were probably as good as modern players, but there are a lot more good players today than there was in the heyday of US pool.

They attributed the strength of modern players to the science, and the knowledge that's been built-up by pool-playing engineers and scientists.

And now with the internet and modern instruction, anyone who devotes himself can be a strong player in a lot less time than it used to take. The old days of fumbling your way through figuring out CIT or SIT or deflection, has been replaced with better data and professional instruction.. A couple of hours with a modern instructor will teach you more about throw than years of fumbling and bumbling, and knocking balls around.

At the last US Open, by the time the 256 entrants were winnowed down to the last 16, two of those last 16 were still in high school.

I think the science has changed the game in profound ways. There are still maybe some really gifted players that pick it up naturally, but the scientific knowledge has added to the level of play.

A little while ago i heard a semi-pro extolling the virtues of his carbon fiber cue. "Zero deflection, no compensation needed" he said. A kid barely out of high school said "I don't think that's true. All cues have deflection according to Dr. Dave". I roared with laughter!!

.

 

[bbb]

I showed the post to a top level player
He said he would shoot it with center ball

 

[evergruven]

I showed the post to a top level player
He said he would shoot it with center ball

hey larry, thanks for sharing the shot
to be clear, is that dead center or center axis?

 

[The_JV]

He said he would shoot it with center ball

...based on what I've read on this forum, that's impossible. ...I'm being facetious, but we know how this forum works...lol

I'm assuming he meant stun with enough force to allow it to slide all the way to the OB.

 

[The_JV]

The thing is though, the science guys, try to match the equations and theories to what the pros do. The pros, I doubt have learned a single shot from the science guys. This is a recurring theme. Some of the science guys and/or instructors advocate doing the complete opposite of what the pros do.

Regardless of what some would like to believe.

Generally the science guys fail to execute the theories, and the "non-science" guys will listen to theory but will opt for what works for them.

Dr Dave could be kind enough to impart all his wisdom on Mr SVB. However SVB will still do and convince himself of whatever it takes to win.

Eventually to get anywhere the tires have to hit the road. ...and 99.9% of the time there's more than one way to hit a shot. What it boils down to is comfort.

I personally have not learned a single shot from the science guys. I have on the other hand learned how the shots I play work by the science guys...lol.

 

[Dan White]

Regardless of what some would like to believe.

Generally the science guys fail to execute the theories, and the "non-science" guys will listen to theory but will opt for what works for them.

Dr Dave could be kind enough to impart all his wisdom on Mr SVB. However SVB will still do and convince himself of whatever it takes to win.

Eventually to get anywhere the tires have to hit the road. ...and 99.9% of the time there's more than one way to hit a shot. What it boils down to is comfort.

I personally have not learned a single shot from the science guys. I have on the other hand learned how the shots I play work by the science guys...lol.

Maybe that's because you learned the game before the science guys got involved and you don't need to know the science. For new players, their whole approach to the game is shaped by the science that has come out in more recent years (decades, really).

 

[bbb]

...based on what I've read on this forum, that's impossible. ...I'm being facetious, but we know how this forum works...lol

I'm assuming he meant stun with enough force to allow it to slide all the way to the OB.

Yes

 

[iusedtoberich]

Maybe that's because you learned the game before the science guys got involved and you don't need to know the science. For new players, their whole approach to the game is shaped by the science that has come out in more recent years (decades, really).

Let me rephrase. The science explains why and how the balls react the way they do. And it’s fun seeing that. And I actually consider myself a science guy. I’m a mechanical engineer in my dayjob. But, the science does not find a better way to play any given shot, or to pattern any given rack. None of that has changed in 50 years.
A pro might look at a slow motion video of his shot and say “oh that’s cool”, but he or she will not be changing how they shoot the shot as a result. Science has not “discovered” new shots tgat are in the game today. It has only revealed how existing shots that every pro and high level player already know work in a super detailed way.

 

[bbb]

hey larry, thanks for sharing the shot
to be clear, is that dead center or center axis?

Dead center sean
see my reply to jv

 

[FranCrimi]

Maybe that's because you learned the game before the science guys got involved and you don't need to know the science. For new players, their whole approach to the game is shaped by the science that has come out in more recent years (decades, really).

I hope that's not true, Dan. There's room in our game for both types of people. I especially don't like it when the scientific community snubs their noses at something they don't want to understand. I'm not referring to things they can scientifically disprove. There are ways to play this game that they won't explore because those ways don't fit in with what they can already prove. It's fine for them to stick with what they know, but they shouldn't pressure others with science just because they don't agree with something that they can't disprove or haven't explored. That's not acceptable behavior for any sport. There is much wisdom of the ages in our sport, just as with any sport, and we should make the effort to understand it and treasure it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Generally the science guys fail to execute the theories

lol

In your infinite experience, which "theories" do "the science guys fail to execute"?

And what makes a science guy a science guy? Knowing something? I can see how that would annoy you...

pj
chgo

 

[evergruven]

Dead center sean
see my reply to jv

thanks pal

sean <<<--a fan of science in theory, and in practice (this is what I feel, anyway)

 

[Dan White]

I hope that's not true, Dan. There's room in our game for both types of people. I especially don't like it when the scientific community snubs their noses at something they don't want to understand. I'm not referring to things they can scientifically disprove. There are ways to play this game that they won't explore because those ways don't fit in with what they can already prove. It's fine for them to stick with what they know, but they shouldn't pressure others with science just because they don't agree with something that they can't disprove or haven't explored. That's not acceptable behavior for any sport. There is much wisdom of the ages in our sport, just as with any sport, and we should make the effort to understand it and treasure it.

I don't think we are in disagreement. If you take a look from 30,000 feet away as they say it is good that more understanding has been brought to the game. If some claim to have the only way to do something then that's their opinion. As you know better than most of us, ultimately the player has to make personal choices based on what works best for them. Some never figure that out and remain mediocre, others rise to the top.

 

[The_JV]

lol

In your infinite experience, which "theories" do "the science guys fail to execute"?

And what makes a science guy a science guy? Knowing something? I can see how that would annoy you...

pj
chgo

So inflammatory.... cool your jets.

Based on your continuous search for theory I would consider you a science guy. Dr Dave is most certainly a science guy. Why aren't either of you too at the top of the game, if you have such a fundamental knowledge of the theory...? Forgive me if the only thing holding you back from a 800 fargo is the life choice to do something else. You don't need to rely on my infinite experience..lol. Just be honest with yourself.

Chase the theory... nothing wrong from that. If I had to choose between spending a couple of hours chasing theory about how kill shot does what it does or hit a few dozen shots and learn it from practical experience. I'd play the game.

 

[The_JV]

Maybe that's because you learned the game before the science guys got involved and you don't need to know the science. For new players, their whole approach to the game is shaped by the science that has come out in more recent years (decades, really).

I don't think we are in disagreement. If you take a look from 30,000 feet away as they say it is good that more understanding has been brought to the game. If some claim to have the only way to do something then that's their opinion. As you know better than most of us, ultimately the player has to make personal choices based on what works best for them. Some never figure that out and remain mediocre, others rise to the top.

Nah... I learned the bulk of what I know prior to the open highways of the information age. No endless forums and/or YT videos telling me how to play. I'm jealous of the new era of player. I don't know if would have made me any better. I've hit firmly against my glass ceiling. It certainly would have streamlined my progression.

 

[Dan White]

Let me rephrase. The science explains why and how the balls react the way they do. And it’s fun seeing that. And I actually consider myself a science guy. I’m a mechanical engineer in my dayjob. But, the science does not find a better way to play any given shot, or to pattern any given rack. None of that has changed in 50 years.
A pro might look at a slow motion video of his shot and say “oh that’s cool”, but he or she will not be changing how they shoot the shot as a result. Science has not “discovered” new shots tgat are in the game today. It has only revealed how existing shots that every pro and high level player already know work in a super detailed way.

Regarding the bold, this is simply not true. You make it sound like every pro player knows everything there is to know and having an understanding of the physics cannot possibly help them more. I can give you one quick example that disproves your statement. Dr. Dave did a study on close combinations where the two balls are within about 1 tip diameter from each other. Long story short, did you know that when the two balls are about 3/4 of a tip diameter apart you cannot throw the second ball off of the line of centers unless you hit an extreme cut shot? This means when the balls are closer than that the second ball (the pocketed ball) will throw in the direction of the cut and when they are farther apart than 3/4 tip the second ball will cut in the opposite direction. I've used this knowledge to enormous benefit. For instance, when you know the second ball will not throw because it is just under a tip away, you can now hit the combination from whatever angle (within reason) that you want to for position purposes. I recall having two balls on the rail like this and because of that knowledge I was able to hit the shot at a half ball hit angle and move the cb off the rail.

You can't tell me every good player already has a feel for this and won't benefit from it. Regarding the mere mortal short stops and below, information like that, gained from science, will improve your game instantly.

 

[Dan White]

Nah... I learned the bulk of what I know prior to the open highways of the information age. No endless forums and/or YT videos telling me how to play. I'm jealous of the new era of player. I don't know if would have made me any better. I've hit firmly against my glass ceiling. It certainly would have streamlined my progression.

Most of us are not pool room rats (no offense intended) and play only when we have time. If I knew 30 years what I know now about the game I'd be a much better player. ie I haven't plateaued yet and I'm starting to get old.