You're right about that but some shots the speed lies easy and others very difficult.
Is This A Difficult Shot For Most?
- Thread starter DrCue'sProtege
- Start date
What Johnny said. Plus, in order to get position on the two-rail shot, you have to create an angle-in that's going to give you the correct angle off of that 2nd rail for position. That angle-in is way too close for comfort to the cross-side pocket. Two-rails is not a safe choice for that shot.Apologies... Do you mean to get position after the two rail shot...?
The reason I suggested the two railer, is because you don't need an angle off the first rail to develop shape. Simply get the CB to directly the opposite side. Maybe if your goal is to pot the 8 into the same pocket as the 7. However that wasn't the intent behind the two rail shape.
I'm all about the CB, so I look for opportunities in practice racks to test my accuracy - like choosing to go through a narrow gap rather than a safer route, or aiming for target balls just to be specific.
pj
chgo
JC
Coos Cues
My apologies to this thread. I actually set up this on my table and the angle on the six is steeper than it looks in the diagram. Chalkysticks once again loses the nuances of the game.
Meaning it's virtually impossible to bring the cue ball back to near where it started without a ridiculous elevation of the butt. Not really an option. This leaves bringing it across the table off the far side rail either below or above the pocket as shown. A stroke soft enough not come across with the cue ball isn't really a sound option as you risk missing the shot with a skid or such. Plus you won't get any draw on it.
Pick your poison and keep Kojac out of the subway. I prefer to come across above the side pocket.
Meaning it's virtually impossible to bring the cue ball back to near where it started without a ridiculous elevation of the butt. Not really an option. This leaves bringing it across the table off the far side rail either below or above the pocket as shown. A stroke soft enough not come across with the cue ball isn't really a sound option as you risk missing the shot with a skid or such. Plus you won't get any draw on it.
Pick your poison and keep Kojac out of the subway. I prefer to come across above the side pocket.
No, she means while attempting to execute the 2 rail route you need to do such and such. Fran is talking about "entering the funnel" when coming off the 2nd rail in order to maintain a good angle for a longer distance. This would be conducive to playing the 7 and 8 in the same pocket. Most rotation players would prefer that but you are bringing the side pocket into play.
You're saying to go straight across with the intention of staying further away and therefore increase the width of the zone. Take another careful look at the diagram and you may see something that causes you to reconsider. Picture the CB directly across from the 6 on the opposite long rail and go from there. I know you're perfectly willing (as am I) to shoot the 8 up table but how available is that shot? If you look at it carefully I think you'll see where I'm headed.
Yes, I meant using two rails instead of one rail to get position on the 7. It's not a matter of just getting to the other side. If you want to play that two rail shot, you have to consider the angle in and angle out back off that cross-side rail. Once you consider that, then you will realize that you will have to allow the cb to come close to that cross-side pocket.
I think I see what you're saying, but "the zone" directly across is larger than the illustrations kindly posted in this thread display. If one is determined to play the 8 in the same pocket as the 7, then yes I agree playing the more difficult shape is the better course of action. Again, I've said a few times now, that this is the way I would play it as well.
I don't concern myself with distance, only angle. Playing the two railer is just a punching stun shot with no chance of sewering. The natural angle off the 6 would bring you slightly down from straight across the 6. The side pocket is only in play if you attempt to spin down further, which you don't need to.
I'm beating the skeleton of the horse I tried to lead to water at this point....lol. Frankly, I've lost interest... I do appreciate the civil discourse Sparkle. I think moving forward I'll just agree with everyone else. Debate and conversation be damned....lol.
I see what you're saying Fran... Maybe punching the CB across table on this type of shot has become too automatic for me, and I'm simply not seeing the threat the rest of you are. I'm really not attempting to get any lower than the 6 a the opposite rail. I also don't have a problem working the CB through the 7 and back up if I get a silly angle on the 7 from that spot.
You're certainly right about the dead horse. I was thinking the same thing as I wrote the previous post. Just like to mention a couple more things before moving on.
I'd really like to hear from DrCue and others, in as much detail as they care to divulge, if they feel like the question was answered satisfactorily. The point you brought up about varied skill levels has huge relevance when determining how to answer a question. I think at times (and it may very well be the majority of the time in these type of threads) the instructors &/or experienced non-instructors miss the boat.
Myself, I'm kind of basing my answers from the viewpoint of maximizing MOE and that may be of zero help to a <500 fargorate player.
The JV doesn't have a problem working the CB through the 7 and back up if he gets a silly angle on the 7 from that spot. For a 500 player that's a pretty difficult situation.
I'm rambling here but I sometimes wonder if we actually help anyone improve.
You're certainly right... What I was hoping to do by beating the alternative drum senseless was to wake players (DrCue) up to a different way to play the game. I can't say when it happened for me, but eventually I reached a point where I stopped trying to gain proficiency at shots that contain variables out of my control (fast/slow cloth, dead rail, shitty CB) and allowed myself to accept what may be percieved as more difficult but actually simplier. Shooting through the 7 to get either below or above the 8 is a great example. You're shooting through the 7 regardless, and the pace to which you hit the ball is merely dependant on the angle you have (soft for below, stronger for above). It's just not what players would normally do. I'm simplifying I know, but it's the concept I'm trying to voice.
The 500 player is exactly the person that needs to have their eyes opened. I wish I had adopted this alternative bag of tricks earlier. Rolling the CB and accepting natural angles is easier than drawing/spinning to create.
It's nearly impossible to help anyone on forums when the majority have an opposing view. Yet again this thread is a great example. I'm trying to impart alternative thinking to a otherwise relatively easy shot for an intermediate player. I'm not saying it's the "right way", only that it is another way that actually has a greater chance of success and is more forgiving on foreign equipment. However rather than supporting the notion that there's more than one way to skin a cat. It's become a battle over the validity of simply rolling the CB over drawing it, which is all I'm suggesting really...lol.
JV
your words are not falling on deaf ears among the people that want to learn such as myself...
THANK YOU
larry
I agree with the accepting natural angles part and taking what the table gives you, instead of fighting against it with extra spin and/or speed dynamics that can go wrong easily. The part about a rolling CB is where things can fall into the same type of category. Of course the table can make a difference. A seven foot diamond with ultra fast cushions and slick cloth needs a different treatment than a nine foot turtle cloth with quicksand rails. After thousands of matches on a huge variety of tables you learn some important lessons. I think the nugget behind your advise is keeping it simple.
Anticipating what can go wrong is the first rule of simplicity.
A rolling ball can roll off.
A dirty ball contact will affect a rolling ball more than a firm hit or spinning ball.
A stun shot allows for a firmer hit and more controlled travel.
A naturally rolling cue ball has a more consistent roll off a cushion than a spinning one.
A stun shot hit so that the stun wears off just inches from contact starts to develop a natural roll without rolling off, but has no follow.
A ball hit with a small amount of inside english achieves several objectives.
- it is spinning so is less effected by debris on either ball
- it counters the normally acquired outside spin that would be check side in this case, slowing travel after rail contact.
- the countering force factors that cancel each other out take energy out of the shot. So despite around a 45° angle a firm stroke can be used.
- the cue ball, after spin forces are cancelled, without follow, comes off the rail at about 90°, heading straight across table.
- the object ball on the other hand acquires left spin from the right inside. Think about shooting that ball with a bit of rail side spin towards that pocket. If it catches any part of the short rail jaw it will be sucked into the pocket.
- inside spin on these shots results in no more than 1° of throw.
- a rolling center ball shot at this angle will experience several degrees of throw.
A half tip below center stun shot with a touch of inside english won’t run away, won’t roll off, won’t be thrown off and rolls naturally across the table. Underhit the shot slightly so the stun wears off before contact.
This is why I don’t roll this shot.
Again, I was simplifying.... The CB after potting the 6 would need far more than just 'rolling' speed to reach the opposite rail. It's been so long since I first suggested it, but I think I said I would jack up a little and punch it through it. Performing it in that manner would negate most of what you listed as pitfalls to rolling. Which I am not disputing...
The big picture from my viewing angle was this...:
-Potting difficulty of the 6 with intention to reach the opposite rail was no different then hitting low/left as original drawn.
-Reaching the opposite rail landing zone only required pace (speed). Spin, cloth, rail conditions are minimized as variables.
-The possibility of the sewer in the opposite rail side pocket only comes into play if hit very poorly. (aka: not as intented)
-The landing zone for the opposite rail shape is in order of magnitudes larger than the low/left shot. (bigger than illustrated earlier)
-The simple 'potting' shape on the 7 is a given. No opprotunities to come up short (under hit, miscue, etc) and leave a back cut moving away from the 8 ball.
-The resulting 7 ball shot entails shooting through it, to reach the 8. Another natural shot, with natural angles. No stun/draw/whatever to reach the 8. The cut angle is 'almost' of no consequence.
-Playing the left/low (although honestly not difficult imo) allowed for the potential to under/over shoot. Under hit results in a hard hit flier on the 7 that forces the shooter to work the CB back and forth. Assuming he can avoid the 9. Or, run into the 9 and accept the bank, which in my book is failure..... Over hit, will result in the shooter either going into the 8 after cutting the 7, or playing multiple long rails to get back above the 8, or (if we're going to entertain unlikely sewers) drop the CB into the side pocket while attempting to stun above the 8 ball.
In the end, we can pro/con list this to death. If my math works differently then the others taking part, then I'll just have to accept that. My numbers tell me that the path I'm suggesting has a little better odds of success, and more improtantly less odds of going bad. ...and that isn't regulated to a single shot, but the pattern for the remaining key shots (6,7,8)
When I discuss things of this nature I exclude the ability/experience of the players involved. That may sound convenient but, the whole idea was to broach the concept of alternative play. Not argue against the status quo. Also consider I'm not suggesting the player spin off 4 rails and land the CB on a dime....lol. Simply break from the mold of the "draw" shot player, and consider follow as a way to play shape.
Thanks for the discussion
DCP personally I wouldn't play the shot that way. I would go 3 rails with top, maybe a little inside depending on table and table speed. Three rails brings the cb down the position zone instead of crossing it, in addition to avoiding the side pockets.
If you are familiar with the spf speed range with 1 being a lag this shot is around 3 or 4 for myself.
If you are familiar with the spf speed range with 1 being a lag this shot is around 3 or 4 for myself.
With just follow this is near a scratch in the corner pocket. You definitely need inside, which complicates a long shot like this.
Went back and looked at the shot. I had set it up with less angle, closer to the foot string. So yeah straight top is out, however a little inside hits diamond half from pocket, on my table at least. Spin is spin for me so with this shot I would be using spin either way. I would go forward instead of backwards personally.
IMHO, this is the best approach of everything mentioned. However I think you're under estimating the amount of inside spin you'd need to direct the CB into the funnel rather than crossing high. You're going to want to hit nearly center diamond on that short rail. Which means a ton of spin relative to the speed. Although totally doable, the shooter is working that CB a good deal.
Forward 3 rails is not a good choice here. You just can't get long enough.
I think you can, but it's a ton of spin with light pace...