pool starting too look like pro 3c
cant anyone from this country play anymore???
cant anyone from this country play anymore???
Yapp winning, with a foul! Just like Maradona making a goal with his hands :D
- Thread starter smoochie
- Start date
I get a lot of written 'what happened' things and when there's that much explanation, it is usually a somewhat unreliable account. many
I might have to check out this pool thing again.
Nah....only being discussed on AZB.
10,000 times more care about that girl in her jeans and if she's a 6 or a 9.
Or as sometimes happens, this was just one of those cases where the the answer is involved enough that it just can't be summed up much more concisely, not without leaving out pertinent things that would have cut off the various arguments you are going to end up getting back and where you end up having to respond to them with all the things you had initially left out and on net you end up typing as much or more than if you had just put it all there to begin with. That said, using the absolute fewest words possible isn't always my strong suit.
This doesn't cover it well enough, but for the tl;dr crowd this is the best short version I could have come up with instead...
Pause this video just after the half way point but before the cue ever starts moving and use the comma and period keys to go frame by frame from there until the end of the video and you will see that many times throughout the whole video when the shaft isn't even near, even well before and after the shot, where the ball seems to be moving/rocking back and forth due to optical illusions caused by camera/video issues where the frames appears to be being shifted or stretched.
In the frame immediately before the tip hits the cue ball it is clear the tip is incoming but is not yet close enough for the shaft to have been able to foul the nine ball, but the nine ball still appears to be moving due to the above noted video issues causing the ball movement illusions.
In the frame where the tip hits the cue ball, the video issues are still there but much, much less than it was before. If the shaft had hit the nine ball, it would have had to have happened right here around this frame as this is the only time the shaft was ever close to the nine ball at all. This also means that if the foul did occur right in here, we will be seeing the nine ball moving in the next frame (although we still won't know for sure if the nine ball movement in the next frame is due to a foul or if it is just more of these video issues, but we do know that if it isn't moving in the next frame that neither one of those things happened).
In the frame right after the tip hits the cue ball, two things are clear. One is that the nine ball has not moved since the last frame, not even a tiny bit, not even maybe. The second is that the shaft is already well away from and moving away from the nine ball, so if a foul occurred, it had to have occurred prior to this frame because the shaft is already out of the area now. Since the nine is not moving here like it would have to be if a foul happened before this, we know that the shaft never hit the nine and the foul never happened. We also now know that if we see any further nine ball movements after this point that they are just more of those video issue illusions since we were already able to rule out the foul.
There are plenty of letters for all of us.Or as sometimes happens, this was just one of those cases where the the answer is involved enough that it just can't be summed up much more concisely, not without leaving out pertinent things that would have cut off the various arguments you are going to end up getting back and where you end up having to respond to them with all the things you had initially left out and on net you end up typing as much or more than if you had just put it all there to begin with. That said, using the absolute fewest words possible isn't always my strong suit.
This doesn't cover it well enough, but for the tl;dr crowd this is the best short version I could have come up with instead...
Pause this video just after the half way point but before the cue ever starts moving and use the comma and period keys to go frame by frame from there until the end of the video and you will see that many times throughout the whole video when the shaft isn't even near, even well before and after the shot, where the ball seems to be moving/rocking back and forth due to optical illusions caused by camera/video issues where the frames appears to be being shifted or stretched.
In the frame immediately before the tip hits the cue ball it is clear the tip is incoming but is not yet close enough for the shaft to have been able to foul the nine ball, but the nine ball still appears to be moving due to the above noted video issues causing the ball movement illusions.
In the frame where the tip hits the cue ball, the video issues are still there but much, much less than it was before. If the shaft had hit the nine ball, it would have had to have happened right here around this frame as this is the only time the shaft was ever close to the nine ball at all. This also means that if the foul did occur right in here, we will be seeing the nine ball moving in the next frame (although we still won't know for sure if the nine ball movement in the next frame is due to a foul or if it is just more of these video issues, but we do know that if it isn't moving in the next frame that neither one of those things happened).
In the frame right after the tip hits the cue ball, two things are clear. One is that the nine ball has not moved since the last frame, not even a tiny bit, not even maybe. The second is that the shaft is already well away from and moving away from the nine ball, so if a foul occurred, it had to have occurred prior to this frame because the shaft is already out of the area now. Since the nine is not moving here like it would have to be if a foul happened before this, we know that the shaft never hit the nine and the foul never happened. We also now know that if we see any further nine ball movements after this point that they are just more of those video issue illusions since we were already able to rule out the foul.
You use em however you want!
Nope....we sold our American version of pool, including the US Open , to the British of all people and expected it to work out....
We have one world class player period....that's Shane Van Boening.
After him I guess Skyler who, no offense, will never win a major. If he could he would have. He's 32 now. He can beat one of the top players anytime, but not the 5 or so in a row needed to get to be a champion.
Billy and Tyler are well below Skyler.
Bergman...wasted talent.
Mike Dechaine for all his raw talent and being the 2nd best American in the past 10 years, his biggest wins were
2018 Super Billiards Expo Players Championship
2012 Turning Stone Classic
2011 Ultimate 10-Ball Championship.
Those were with much weaker fields than these global events.
I don't see any Americans coming who will be able to compete on the world stage....and with the type of talent it takes to win big events I cant see where it would be worth the effort....cuz there's a world of things that take less effort and yield greater results than pool ever could.
Last edited:
What the British are doing is light years better than anything we (USA) have done for pro pool...EVER.
This will be the case so long as there are no funded programs for youth development beyond the APA. Other countries cater to pool as a serious sport. For the most part, in the USA it's thought of as something you do when you go to the bar.
I really said yesterday that I would stop posting here, and my last post was yesterday but I keep reading this comment which is a BIG RED FLAG to me where need some knowledge about MOVIES/motion pictures.Or as sometimes happens, this was just one of those cases where the the answer is involved enough that it just can't be summed up much more concisely, not without leaving out pertinent things that would have cut off the various arguments you are going to end up getting back and where you end up having to respond to them with all the things you had initially left out and on net you end up typing as much or more than if you had just put it all there to begin with. That said, using the absolute fewest words possible isn't always my strong suit.
This doesn't cover it well enough, but for the tl;dr crowd this is the best short version I could have come up with instead...
Pause this video just after the half way point but before the cue ever starts moving and use the comma and period keys to go frame by frame from there until the end of the video and you will see that many times throughout the whole video when the shaft isn't even near, even well before and after the shot, where the ball seems to be moving/rocking back and forth due to optical illusions caused by camera/video issues where the frames appears to be being shifted or stretched.
In the frame immediately before the tip hits the cue ball it is clear the tip is incoming but is not yet close enough for the shaft to have been able to foul the nine ball, but the nine ball still appears to be moving due to the above noted video issues causing the ball movement illusions.
In the frame where the tip hits the cue ball, the video issues are still there but much, much less than it was before. If the shaft had hit the nine ball, it would have had to have happened right here around this frame as this is the only time the shaft was ever close to the nine ball at all. This also means that if the foul did occur right in here, we will be seeing the nine ball moving in the next frame (although we still won't know for sure if the nine ball movement in the next frame is due to a foul or if it is just more of these video issues, but we do know that if it isn't moving in the next frame that neither one of those things happened).
In the frame right after the tip hits the cue ball, two things are clear. One is that the nine ball has not moved since the last frame, not even a tiny bit, not even maybe. The second is that the shaft is already well away from and moving away from the nine ball, so if a foul occurred, it had to have occurred prior to this frame because the shaft is already out of the area now. Since the nine is not moving here like it would have to be if a foul happened before this, we know that the shaft never hit the nine and the foul never happened. We also now know that if we see any further nine ball movements after this point that they are just more of those video issue illusions since we were already able to rule out the foul.
You simply don't understand how camera/video works, it is motion picture combined together, it is picture after picture after picture and so on and so fourth, very quickly to make it moving pictures then you perceive it as a video.
If he fouled the 9ball, then you may think as a simple guy who don't understand video that the same FRAME (picture) should have the cue attack the cueball and that same specific/particular frame should also have the 9ball moving right? I know from your post thats what you're getting it and that is JUST NOT HOW MOTION PICTURES WORK, and it is impossible to have ONE FRAME(picture) to have the shaft hit the cueball AAAAAAND in that same frame have the 9ball moving, its impossible, videos aren't like that.
The motion pictures would have the following happen.
1) the shaft moving in one picture (multiple pictures but you get the point).
2) the shaft hitting the cueball in one picture (again multiple quickly)
3) THEEEEEEEEEEN in another frame (picture) have the 9ball moving. (that is probably like 20 or 30 pictures after when the shaft started moving), depending on the quality.
That above called motion pictures and how you see movies!, and IT IS EXPECTED behavior...you saying that the frame is far later from when the shaft strikes the cueball does not prove that it isn't a foul.
I keep reading lots of comments about this (Look slow down the video and use comma and period to see frame by frame, like you guys discovered some type of a science or something lol, when all IT ALL only proves to me at least that you guys don't understand how pictures work in relation to videos.
There you go, stop with the comma , period stuff from here-after.
TLDR;
If you expect to have ONE PICTURE where the SHAFT hit the cueball & have the 9ball move in one frame, then please for the love of god read a book about motion pictures, thats all I am gona say here.
Personally I don't care about who won.
To me this is a base issue: any pool player worth his salt knows when he's fouled.
End of story.
Lou Figueroa
lol. Seriously, I'd like to see the doc wrap his head around the problems with video and shots like these. Frame rates, angles. I know he's done trickery. lol...
I do understand it, which you should know because I already gave an explanation of it better than yours. It is you who clearly does not understand how cameras work, certainly not in the sense of being aware of the optical illusion type tricks they can play on you, which I showed indisputable proof of in post #138 but apparently you weren't willing to spend the minute to look and actually learn something. The camera/video is making it look like the nine ball is moving many times all throughout the video, even before the shot, when it very clearly cannot have really moved. You also don't seem to understand basic physics and seem to think that after being sideswiped by a pool cue that an object ball will sit there for a while and postpone its reaction before it finally decides to move at some later time at its leisure when it feels like it.
Seriously, learn to read. It's just pure laziness in cases like this where you repeatedly fail to comprehend the same very simple words over and over. Contrary to your statements above I have said several times already, very explicitly, that the frame in which this type of foul occurs does not have to also show the movement on the nine ball (although also contrary to your claim that it was actually impossible for that to be able to happen, it actually is quite possible that it can happen in the same frame, it just doesn't always have to and I have never once claimed that it needs to here and in fact have repeatedly said otherwise).
What I have actually said, over and over, and this is the part you just can't seem to understand and comprehend, is that the next frame AFTER the foul has occurred, and read that closely again and really let it sink in because I am not now and never have said it has to be in the same frame with the foul, but on this type of foul, the next frame AFTER the foul has occurred will show that the object ball has moved as a result of the foul that already occurred immediately BEFORE that frame. On this type of foul, if the ball isn't moving in that next frame AFTER the foul occurred, then you have to deduce that a foul most likely did not occur. Read that 50 times if you have to in order to understand it because you haven't comprehended it correctly the last 13 times you read it when I said it. "Same frame" and "frame after" are two very different things, yet for some reason you keep "hearing" "SAME frame" every time I actually say the "frame AFTER".
In post #138 I point out where the foul HAD to have occurred if it occurred. And then I point out the next frame AFTER that, where you would expect to see the nine moving if indeed a foul had actually occurred just prior to that. I point out that we do not see the nine ball moving in that frame AFTER, not even a little bit, not even maybe, thus making it very unlikely that a foul occurred at all because nine balls that get sideswiped by cue sticks tend to move and they tend to move right away, not at some later date, and we would have seen it moving in the frame right AFTER the foul if there had been a foul.
Last edited:
So you’re saying that the nine ball does not have to move in the same frame rather it must move the frame right after… and if the nine ball did not move the frame right after (your chosen one) then you deduced that it is not a fault…
Ok, just no. Again you’re wrong. I will not write a wall of text but that just not how frames and pictures work. It does not have to be the frame after. And it can still be a foul
Cheers.
Maybe you forgot vision is keyed to brain rate?
You really need to use the quote function to reply when you are dialoguin to a specific post?
I'm wondering how often these slight/nearly impossible to cal fouls occur. Did Gorst also have some slight touch fouls during the match?
What I've said has been crystal clear and repeated many times, but I will go ahead and state it for you once more, just please make sure to read it however many times it takes for it to really sink in and take the time to really think it out so you actually comprehend and understand it. In regards to things like a cue shaft side swiping a spherical pool ball sitting on a pool table covered in brand new Simonis 860 that is sitting under hot lights as was the case here (i.e. the fastest, slickest conditions), if a ball has been hit hard enough to be moved, it starts moving right away. It doesn't sit there absolutely perfectly still for a while before deciding to move at some later time or date. That's just not how the physics works. Because of this fact, we know that if the shaft hits the nine ball then in the next frame after that we should be able to see that the ball is no longer in the same place that it was before it was hit, and that it has now moved at least some amount as a result of that impact it received from the shaft.
So what do we actually see in this particular case when we look at the next frame after the foul had to have happened, if it had happened? What we see in that next frame after the foul would have had to have happened, if it happened, is that the nine has not moved even an iota, not even maybe. This strongly indicates that the shaft never hit the nine ball, because if it had we would seen that it had moved at least slightly from where it was before the impact, but yet it hadn't moved even the tiniest, most miniscule bit.
Now you have been and continue to argue that a nine ball hit by a shaft hard enough to move may not actually move right away, that it may and in this case did just decide to sit there dead still for a while before finally deciding to move at some later time at its leisure when it felt good and ready to go ahead and move in reaction to the fact that it was hit by a shaft some while back. Since you keep claiming that is exactly what happened here, I want you to explain the physics of how that would be possible. And for whatever explanation that you try to come up with, I want you to also explain why it would make sense to believe that is more likely what actually happened than the scenario I laid out, which is that no foul occurred, that the nine ball is "moving" in literally 80+% of the frames of the video both before and after the shot because of very obvious camera/video issues, and when you see the nine ball "moving" again a couple of frames later after the shot, and after the foul would have had to occur, that it was just another one of those 80+% of the frames where the there is the optical illusion of the nine "moving" due to the camera/video issues.
You keep talking about "how frames" work, and are completely oblivious to the fact that this is as much or more about how physics works. Everybody understands videos and frames, except perhaps you. That's the easy basic part. Worry about trying to understand and explain the physics, because that's what you obviously don't understand and your arguments so far have been in conflict with the laws of physics.
I also want to make sure we agree on the same premises, as obvious as they seem I'm wondering if you aren't comprehending that part of things either. Do you agree that in the video in post #138, once the clip actually starts playing at about the 60% point, that there are optical illusions obviously caused by camera/video issues that make the nine ball appear to be "moving" both before and after the shot all over the place in like 80+% of the frames?
Also, if a foul occurred where the shaft hit the nine ball like you say happened, do you agree that it had to have happened BEFORE this frame taken from the video in post #138? You are going to have to look at a few frames from right before and right after the shot in the video from post #138 in order to be able to answer.
Occams razor...something new to learn every day...
The shaft brushed the 9 AFTER the tip hit the cueball. Ever so slightly. If the apparent movement was caused by flaws in the video process, then wouldn't the balls show the same effects at other times in the video?