Problem With Our Understanding Of Side
- Thread starter Imac007
- Start date
Life intervened so thanks for the patience. This diagram is correct. The cue line points back to and eventually crosses the ghost ball line. While the angle created dictates at what point along the line the cue line crosses, I had suggested a very specific crossing location, the midpoint between the cue ball and ghost ball. I had also suggested a torque line a dimes width off center. That gives us two points. An extended line running over those two points is the cueing line for this introduction. When that line is extended to the ghost ball location it will cross a dimes width to the outside of the ghost ball original center. The original ghost ball line and the convergent side line cross in the middle. Those two lines when looked at as an elongated X from cue ball to ghost ball cross in the middle. The X is created from ball to ball. That is what creates a 1:1 ratio between the ends of the imagined X. By choosing the midpoint, the 1:1 ratio, the amount the cue line is offset at the ghost ball location is consistent, a dimes width, regardless of shot length. That offset at the ghost ball location is always a dimes width. Without the use of geometric consistency, any arbitrary placement of the cue line so that it crosses the original line past the cue ball fits the definition of convergent. I wanted to present it with a more usable methodology already thought through.
This is just an example. If a player chooses a different torque line length at the cue ball and uses the midpoint the offset at the ghost ball would match that torque line length. If a specific target line is desired by the object ball, the original aim line used before the convergent angle was set, would need to be adjusted. There is a direct connection between the torque line distance chosen, the point of convergent intersection and the resultant effect on the object ball at impact.
Different ratios could be considered. If the dimes width at the impact area is maintained as the ideal impact point and the undercut aim line for an inside side shot is used, a different ratio might be considered. If instead the torque line chosen at the cue ball is 3 dimes width, and a geometric point to cross the undercut reference line is chosen at ¾ of the distance to the ghost ball, the geometric relationship is 3:1 so, the geometric distance at the ghost ball is still a dimes width. Of course now the amount of deflection will not be negligible and depend now on speed because it will now more closely resemble the Dr. Dave results found on the deflection graph uploaded earlier. From soft to hard, that deflection would range from a half degree to a degree of difference.
The point is that a whole new world of relationships between aim lines and cueing lines can be explored. There are reasons to choose some of those lines over current center ball and ghost ball options. That will be the topic for a different post.
Last edited:
Are you saying you think the diagrammed shot can be made by stroking the cue straight as shown along the “convergent” line?
If so, I think you’re mistaken.
If not, what’s your point?
pj
chgo
I'm much dumber than most esteemed posters commenting here, so i have difficulty following the discussion so please bear with me.
With reference to the convergent diagram mentioned: to aim that line and to hit the point as indicated i'd have to have a soft punchy stroke with a hair of elevation. for me this would be a slight masse shot, the kind that you use for those trick cuts. As far as I know, no way in a month of sundays will i be able to hit the point with a level stroke, be it parallel (or as close to parallel as you can get) or pivot, LD or conventional shaft. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that is physically possible otherwise.. is there a simpler way to explain how it works
ps: cos discussions on forums can be easily misunderstood, just wanted to be clear i'm not trolling/being passive aggressive... i'm genuinely lost and i need help lol
I want to acknowledge the respectfulness with which this thread has proceeded. Some very knowledgeable and respected posters have weighed in and helped when descriptions have failed to connect with everyone. Clarifications, definitions and a new vocabulary needed to introduce something new can be confusing and frustrating. I have read more than a few threads in the forum that have denigrated into something other than originally intended. While there will be detractors who will not yet see a use for this knowledge in their game, maybe never, I thank you for your curiosity and willingness to follow the journey my mind chose to take me on.
The diagram by Bob shows the cue line crossing the original aim line used for reference, a ghost ball line. The line is just a line of infinite length. The point is that the application of side proposed here has the cue line crossing the reference line at a point past the ghost ball. In truth the two lines converged, so that part is true. My response was to have people consider a different point of convergence of the two lines. What if instead of crossing at a point beyond the ghost ball, the lines converged half way between the two balls? I suggested that now we have a starting point to start looking at this seriously. Predictability is a huge part of decision making. Predictability feeds into confidence and those certainties help performance. Hope this helped clarify.
I have no doubt that in the scenario you envisioned that is true. Try to find mine. Imagine a 20° cut to the right. The object ball is on the spot. Your cue ball is nearer mid table about 2 feet away. On this shot I choose to use inside convergent english. Initially I have to set up a ghost ball aim line as a reference. In this case because I am using the inside version, I would line my ghost ball line to point at the undercut side of the pocket. Locating the midpoint on the cb to gb line, just for this example, physically put the tip on the line at that midpoint. That will act as a pivot point. The cue is on the cueing line to the undercut side. In order to put inside side by pivoting from that point the butt of the cue would need to create the pivot by moving to the right. When you sense that the contact point of the eventual tip contact at the surface when extended to the tip would cross beside the center of mass of the cue ball about a dimes width to the side, that is the cue line you want to use. Since the point beside the cb center is only offset by the width of a dime and extends from there through the end of the tip to a point a dimes width left of the original ghost ball, it will now cut the ob slightly more than the original undercut line set up originally. Now all that remains is cue delivery.
Using a spotted cue ball or striped ball stroke the ball straight through. The stroke should be the same kind of stroke you would use with center ball, no attempt to spin the ball, a clean stroke. The reason I use a striped or spotted ball is that it reveals side spin. A properly stroked ball with slight inside turn when meeting the natural outside turn of contact moving in the other direction, cancel each other. The cue ball simply rolls away from contact without side spin. Once the cue ball has a natural roll off contact, the stroke will be calibrated for shooting these shots. The object ball goes to the pocket and the cue ball has no side spin. You can also note that the cancelling forces actually removed momentum from the equation. I’ve had it described as feeling like a "heavy" cue ball, without side spin it stops sooner. On slick tables this allows me to still stroke firmly without whitey spinning away.
If you use outside convergent english, a different initial gb line is aligned. That gb points to the overcut side of the pocket. Placing the tip on the actual midpoint of the cb to gb line the pivot is to the left on the described shot. Once the tip to cb cueing line extends the tip contact point to a point a dimes width left of the center of mass to the midpoint where the tip has pivoted and the cue is delivered truly the ball will be pocketed. This time the cue ball will have side spin.
Here is an interesting experiment for you guys. Compare a center stroked rolling cue ball’s outside side generated at impact, to a convergent side outside side spin and tell me your result. A good way is to note the a first and second rail contact point using each method and make sure you use that neutral straight stroke.
This was just a reminder that a straight stroke is needed for valid comparison and evaluation of this application of side.
Last edited:
No offense guys but if had to go thru ANY of this mental gymnastics to make a ball i would have quit 40yrs ago. Regardless of how you spin your rock you have to make some type of adjustments. The beauty of the human eye-hand-brain computer is it just figures it out. Just play and you WILL figure out YOUR way to play. I've enjoyed some of these posts and replies to my dumb ass so thanks for that. I'm stickin' with see it, adjust, fire. Any other way,to me anyway, leads to paralasys-by-analysis.
Well, I’m not going to say that the fact that speed change alters aim point entirely negates the value of contemplating geometric relationships (if that were so, then the whole BHE “natural pivot point of each cue stick” analysis would be useless), but I will say that because different speeds do mean different aim points, I feel the urge to go and work on developing my feel rather than my understanding of relevant scientific theory.
You’ll have to learn to make your point with FAR less word salad if you want to keep anybody’s attention long enough to “find” it.
EDIT: Against my better judgment I forced myself to read your post. I should have listened to my better judgment.
You’re describing nothing new - it’s just CJ Wiley’s “touch of inside” nonsense again with way too many words. And there’s no impossible “convergent” english - “changing the ghost ball line” (in other words, changing where you aim) makes the alignment “divergent” as usual.
And somebody else was right - this belongs in the aiming forum. Sorry for disagreeing about that before.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
It’s a 3D world.........when the cue is at a angle to the table surface as when the butt of the cue is higher than the tip......the cue center line is now going into the table not parallel with the table like the path of the CB.
The CB path is always parallel to the table surface, the cue stick center line is not always parallel with the table.
Top view diagram is no good without a side view diagram......
Also means with a angle cue, you are stroking into the table surface and not parallel as when the cue is level.
The CB path is always parallel to the table surface, the cue stick center line is not always parallel with the table.
Top view diagram is no good without a side view diagram......
Also means with a angle cue, you are stroking into the table surface and not parallel as when the cue is level.
I finally had some time to go back to this post.
So given a 1.35mm tip offset, the squirt may be negligible as you say, but so too would be the side spin. So what is the point of hitting the CB with such little side spin? Why not simply just hit center ball and stay on the ghost ball line?
For any normal application of english in which side spin is used to move the ball around the table, I still stand by my statement that any "convergent" cue lines will result in severely missed shots.
I also predict this thread will eventually devolve into an aiming thread.
Yup. Any shot can be seen as "convergent" if the ghost ball line is changed enough to make it so. It makes the terms useless.
Knowing how much you like to pick nits...
The CB path is not always parallel to the table surface, especially when the cue stick center line is not parallel with the table surface - that makes the CB hop a little.
Also, the CB might hit an uneven part of the table surface, like over a slate seam or a bit of chalk, and hop up a little because of that. Or there might be an earthquake...
pj
chgo
Yes, your stick can be "convergent" with any number of imaginary lines that aren't where you're trying to make the CB go (and none that are).
And, by the way, adding a little inside spin to counteract collision-induced spin is nothing new either - it's just one of the normal things you learn to do to control the CB.
The ratio of information to verbiage is almost zero here.
pj
chgo
P.S. You're talking about a dime's thickness, not its width.
pj
chgo
pj
chgo
I’m here to learn, not troll or debate. And I claim no expertise. So please straighten me out if I’m mistaken. But would it not be more accurate to say that adding a little inside “counteracts” collision-induced throw only in the sense that by hitting the CB with inside, the CB will be squirted such that a thinner hit will result, which will offset (at least to some degree) the ADDITION of gear effect throw (due to the CB spinning with inside spin) on top of the collision-induced throw? Whereas, by using a little outside, you are actually counteracting the collision-induced throw by “rolling” the CB off the OB?
![CropperCapture[370].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/390/390558-ac22abf71e1cf83e09c44594b571ee69.jpg "CropperCapture[370].png")