Is there an English version of this post?Speaking of subjective, place the edge of the nickel in your diagram at "A" touching "B" so that it's top sits atop the ball's equator . . .
pj
chgo
Is there an English version of this post?Speaking of subjective, place the edge of the nickel in your diagram at "A" touching "B" so that it's top sits atop the ball's equator . . .
Location of the arcs relative to one another doesn't change their properties...2) Speaking of subjective, place the edge of the nickel in your diagram at "A" touching "B" so that it's top sits atop the ball's equator . . .
. . . and we'll see you are stretching the truth, and . . .
How is this possible...? At least I certainly don't avoid the use of the edge of the tip when attempting to impart spin on the CB (approaching miscue limit). How do you impart spin on a ball without using the edge of the tip...?3) We all avoid using the edges of the tip anyway, near the miscue limit.
We all avoid using the edges of the tip anyway, near the miscue limit.
JV, meet Matt.How is this possible...?
1) Stick your two circles (nickel and ball edge) to be congruent at one point. You are emphasizing the difference in the degree of roundness falsely, when you overlay one over the other, you can see good control except for aiming near the miscue limit, aka edging the tip dangerously for any given shot.JV, meet Matt.
Of course it's not possible. We have no control over when the edge of the tip comes into play - that's determined entirely by the tip's arc and where we're hitting the cue ball with it.
pj
chgo
Location of the arcs relative to one another does not change their physical properties, yes. It does change our visual perception of their disparity, and PJ got cute putting a flat surface (I don't advocate flat tips) near the ball in his diagram, if he made the arcs congruent (at one point only where they can meet) it visually reveals it's pretty good for practical purposes, until one tips the cue ball out near the miscue limit, aka, most pro tips and most factory tips, etc. are shaped to U.S. nickel coins.Location of the arcs relative to one another doesn't change their properties...
How is this possible...? At least I certainly don't avoid the use of the edge of the tip when attempting to impart spin on the CB (approaching miscue limit). How do you impart spin on a ball without using the edge of the tip...?
...and just in case you ask. I have zero idea what arc my tip is shaped to. My cue guy just does it and I play with it.
The two curvatures are shown "sharing" the same tip - so we can compare them as they'd actually be. You really don't get that?1) Stick your two circles (nickel and ball edge) to be congruent at one point. You are emphasizing the difference in the degree of roundness falsely, when you overlay one over the author, you can see good control except for aiming near the miscue limit, aka edging.
lolyou duck over 90% of my questions--because you know I'm correct.
No! Give PJ a chance.People can do what they want and most likely my words will have no impact, but.... Awhile back everyone almost completely stopped interacting with this guy. Lo and behold his post count dropped off to almost nothing. Lately the nonsense is gaining traction and will quickly get out of control. Idgaf, maybe the lunacy is enjoyable to some (I'll admit I enjoyed it for awhile) but now it just seems tiresome.
That "flat surface" is the ball - both curvatures are placed on the same tip for realistic comparison.PJ got cute putting a flat surface (I don't advocate flat tips) near the ball in his diagram
Thanks for posting the nickel tip illustration, it's a veritable template for a pro shaped tip. That's the point.The two curvatures are shown "sharing" the same tip - so we can compare them as they'd actually be. You really don't get that?
lol
Start making sense and I'll stop "ducking".
pj <- believe it when I see it
chgo
Why? What does comparing nickel curvature to tip width tell you?
Realistic comparison? Of what, subjective words like "very" (me) and "not very" (you)?That "flat surface" is the ball - both curvatures are placed on the same tip for realistic comparison.
You really don't get it, huh? Maybe you should leave this conversation to those who do.
pj
chgo
It is very close in my opinion. Unless the subjective word very means an objective measure, like degree difference in arc.Why? What does comparing nickel curvature to tip width tell you?
Your claim was that a nickel's curvature is "very close" to a ball's.
I can understand why you'd want to "forget" that...
pj
chgo
Your claim was that a nickel's curvature is "very close" to a ball's.
lolIt is very close in my opinion.
I ignored this because it has nothing to do with the single point I've made. Yes, nickel and dime shapes are common - that doesn't make either one of them "very close" to ball shaped.Speaking of forgetting, PJ, before I forget, you ignored:
4) I wonder how many books Bob owns that advocate shaping to a nickel coin? But what do pros know? And countless strong amateurs shape to a nickel. You [PJ] consistently tell everyone you know more than the pros.
5) If I looked at your cue tip now [PJ], it will almost surely sit somewhere between a nickel and a dime shape, depending on preference. So give us a "break" (pun intended).
That's actually the importance of tip curvature - and why it's usually nickel/dime."Not at all" in your post above = how many degrees of arc difference?
Backing up a bit.....this is clearly incorrect. A nickel is about 22 mm diameter, a ball is about 57 mm. The shapes are clearly not even close, unless i'm missing something.Shaping a 13mm tip to the roundness of a U.S. nickel coin gets the tip very close to the shape of the cue ball equator itself, maximizing control and feel for most.