14.1 Hail Mary Shots

[Bob Jewett]

Bob,
Just curious. Do you know of any evidence that deceleration is directly proportional to speed regardless of cloth type?

So far as I have measured, the "rolling friction" is constant on a particular kind of cloth and the deceleration is constant. It is not proportional to speed.

 

[Will Maynard]

I think the cloth is not as large a factor as some feel.

It is possible to measure the speed of the cloth by measuring the time it takes a good lag shot to get from the far rail to where it stops just before the near rail. If you square that time in seconds and multiply it by 2 it tells you the "speed" of the cloth or the equivalent slope of the table. For example, a 7.1 second lag gives a speed of 100 which says that the equivalent slope that would stop the ball as fast would be 1% or 1/100.

In the Crane-Balsis match (150-and-out) which is available on YouTube, I time Crane's lag at 6.7. After length adjustment because it does not get to the end rail, that gets a cloth speed of about 100. I also timed the lag of a Frost/Reyes one pocket match and got a cloth speed of 120. That is not a huge difference.

In comparison, high-end carom cloth has a speed of about 180, and in the 1970s typical pool room fuzzy cloth from Stevens was about 70.

The number gives you the relative distances balls with the same speed will travel. That means that the balls for Efren and Scott would roll about 20% farther than Irving's would for the same starting speed.

I love this analysis, Bob. Thanks for this. I didn't realize you were a physics wizard. No surprise you and Dr. Dave A. have worked on projects together.

 

[Will Maynard]

Bob,
Is there a method for measuring cushion speed?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob,
Is there a method for measuring cushion speed?

The usual way is to shoot straight up and down the middle of the table and see if you can hit the far cushion three times or come close. I played on a table last week on which you couldn't hit the near cushion twice.

 

[DynoDan]

So far as I have measured, the "rolling friction" is constant on a particular kind of cloth and the deceleration is constant. It is not proportional to speed.

Sorry, I obviously misstated the question. The rate of ‘deceleration’ (after collision) would involve both ‘rolling‘ friction AND ‘sliding‘ friction (the proportion between would likely depend on both collision energy & CB english). I just wonder if the two friction factors are proven directly related?
Without a long winded discussion of the myriad physics principles involved, my question (more to the point) I think, was: if a cut shot hit with draw on slow cloth (causing the CB to thus ‘slide’ some distance before it begins rolling) might travel a shorter distance than the ’lag-timed’ /rolling-friction cloth speed determination would ordinarily predict (?). In other words, on fast/clean cloth, players tend to ‘roll‘ more shots, and thus the CB isn’t usually sliding upon contact (difference between ‘kinetic’ & ‘rotational’ energy?). I just have the impression that once the CB gets rolling on really fast cloth, it seems to travel farther than expected (or, that ‘rolling friction’ speed specs. would predict). Which is why the ‘position’ style of earlier players (used to slower/dirtier cloth) may have been more drastically different than ‘lag timed’’ proportional speed/deceleration cloth specs. might suggest (?).
Maybe one reason why all of Willie‘s shots were typically reported as so ‘easy’ (?). A cueball that barely moves (after collision) seldom ‘gets away’!

 

[Pool Hand Luke]

To quote Dobie Gillis… "Great stuff Maynard!"
Seriously, you came up with some very creative solutions I had no idea were on the table. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I just wonder if the two friction factors are proven directly related? ...

They are not. I've played on cloth that was slow and slippery and other cloth that was fast and sticky. Usually new cloth will be fast and slippery and old cloth will be slow and sticky.

... Maybe one reason why all of Willie‘s shots were typically reported as so ‘easy’ (?). A cueball that barely moves (after collision) seldom ‘gets away’!

I'm not convinced that the cloth that Willie was playing on was like shag carpet, but it was probably slower than the current tournament cloth. I think that you do not want fast cloth for 14.1 exactly because you want precise control -- or at least Willie did. You can hit the ball with a little authority and the cue ball doesn't go far.

 

[TheBasics]

Howdy All;

One thing to remember is that the 'Older' cloth was also directional. Meaning it had a 'grain' to it.
It ran faster from the head to the foot of the table and would also help curve the balls at slow speeds
to either the left or right. Freddy the Beard had a good bit to say about it in his book Banking with
the Beard.
I started playing on some of that older stuff in the early 60's and kinda learned as the materials changed.
Truly a messy era to learn the game in. Constant change in cloth and the materials the balls were made from.
Amazing a majority didn't turn their cues into tomato stakes and learn to play quoits.

hank

 

[CESSNA10]

I think that a lot of the 1970s players would not take a 70% shot and would instead play safe. When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary. However, if you instead go into a safety battle with no lock-up safety to start with, you are probably around 50% to get the first runnable position. That is a mistake. You should take the 70% path rather than the 50% path.

Bob, I have been playing with a now 25 year old for 3 years. When I started with him
he had never played straight pool, only 8 ball and nine ball. I have helped him immensely,
and it took me over a year, 52 weeks of playing to get him to look into the rack every time they were disturbed
for dead shots. When he started a good run was 5. He is now running in the 20's.
I am 76 and the eyes are not so good anymore but still have at a couple 20 plus runs in a
game to 150. Still waiting for Pool wars 3. Get on that word processor.

 

[AtLarge]

Bob, ... Still waiting for Pool wars 3. Get on that word processor.

"pool wars" and "more pool wars" were written by Jay Helfert.

 

[CESSNA10]

"pool wars" and "more pool wars" were written by Jay Helfert.

 

[CESSNA10]

You are correct, Had a 76 year old brain fart. Happens at least once a day.

 

[jrctherake]

It seems to me that back when 14.1 was king, up through the 1960s or so, the best players (Mosconi, Greenleaf, Caras, Lassiter, Crane, etc.) tended to play safe when the shooter got out of line and without a reasonable shot. Hard to say as there aren't many videos of those times. Today it seems that the pros just hate giving up the table and they are more likely to take a lower percentage "Hail Mary" shot than play safety.

What do you think? Were there some of the old great players that took plenty of high risk shots? Does the fact that the current equipment makes it easier to break the balls shed any light?

This game is still my favorite and I practice often. I get out of line more often than I'd like so I don't hesitate to look for a Hail Mary shot to keep the run going. I have nothing to lose. Finding these shots are good for the imagination and they're fun to try.

Here's a video of about 30 of these shots, all made on the first attempt.

I know this is an older thread, but here goes my opinion:

Pros back then shot safe more often than today's pros....yep.

But, today's pros as you mentioned, "don't like giving the table up"....

Thing is, the pros from yesteryear didn't look at safes as "giving the table up". They looked at playing safe as a way to.... not keep the table, but rather keep "control" of the table.

Today's elite are the same way. It's the mid-level pros and down that do not keep control and look at it as giving the table up vs letting their opponent have the table, but control what they faced while there.

IMO... 9 ball and the like hurt pool by giving the opportunity for luck to be a bigger part of the game.

 

[sjm]

It seems to me that back when 14.1 was king, up through the 1960s or so, the best players (Mosconi, Greenleaf, Caras, Lassiter, Crane, etc.) tended to play safe when the shooter got out of line and without a reasonable shot.

You need to take Jimmy Caras off this list. Jimmy was known for playing extremely difficult shots in competition and was less likely than the others to play safe when faced with a difficult shot.

 

[DynoDan]

IMO... 9 ball and the like hurt pool by giving the opportunity for luck to be a bigger part of the game.

Tell me about it! Growing up playing 9 ball instilled in me an irresistible urge to turn whitey loose/barge into the pack. Just to try my luck.

 

[Will Maynard]

You need to take Jimmy Caras off this list. Jimmy was known for playing extremely difficult shots in competition and was less likely than the others to play safe when faced with a difficult shot.

Thanks for the info about Jimmy Caras. I didn't know that.

 

[Will Maynard]

I know this is an older thread, but here goes my opinion:

Pros back then shot safe more often than today's pros....yep.

But, today's pros as you mentioned, "don't like giving the table up"....

Thing is, the pros from yesteryear didn't look at safes as "giving the table up". They looked at playing safe as a way to.... not keep the table, but rather keep "control" of the table.

Today's elite are the same way. It's the mid-level pros and down that do not keep control and look at it as giving the table up vs letting their opponent have the table, but control what they faced while there.

IMO... 9 ball and the like hurt pool by giving the opportunity for luck to be a bigger part of the game.

Thanks for your comments. I like your point about pros of yesteryear looking at playing safe as a way to.... not keep the table, but rather keep "control" of the table.

I was speaking of today's elite playing 14.1 where I've witnessed several occasions where an obviously low percentage shot was taken (and missed leaving an open table) rather than a reasonable safety.

 

[jrctherake]

Thanks for your comments. I like your point about pros of yesteryear looking at playing safe as a way to.... not keep the table, but rather keep "control" of the table.

I was speaking of today's elite playing 14.1 where I've witnessed several occasions where an obviously low percentage shot was taken (and missed leaving an open table) rather than a reasonable safety.

I agree.

Selling out every other shot ruins 14.1 matches.

Same way in 1hole. Nobody wants to watch players sell out time after time.

 

[justnum]

In 14.1 its a huge moment in a match when the player sells out and can maintain the run. The anxiety and anticipation make it a more exciting moment than a speedy 9 or 10 runout.

It is not hail mary in the sense of football because two way shots exist. In football the pass is made and score updated else wise the outcome is well known.

Selling out in a 14.1 runout is more exciting because not everyone can read the table the same like in 9b and 10b.

 

[sjm]

My opinion is that many of today's top players are quick to shoot 30% shots rather than playing safe. I feel it's, at least in part, due to their lack of mastery of the defensive part of the game.