2 rail kick fail and here is why.

[Patrick Johnson]

A 2-railer factoid I find helpful:

2-railers (with no sidespin) that hit the first rail at steepest (most perpendicular) or widest (least perpendicular) angles rebound more parallel to their first leg, and ones that hit the first rail at in-between angles rebound less parallel to the first leg. Most or least perpendicular = more parallel; in-between angles = less parallel.

pj
chgo

 

[Coos Cues]

Dear thenatural
I will play with you but only briefly.
First it seems you have come to this forum recently with the desire to be regarded as an authority. The handle you have chosen strikes me as pretentious. If you desire credibility, why not use your name?
A statement of your credentials would also go a long way towards establishment of credibility.
My prejudgment is that you are more than likely a troll that simply likes to stir. Well if that's the only way to get others to talk with you..... Perhaps Porkchop would have been a better username.

He is post pubescent Justin

 

[tomatoshooter]

A 2-railer factoid I find helpful:

2-railers (with no sidespin) that hit the first rail at steepest (most perpendicular) or widest (least perpendicular) angles rebound more parallel to their first leg, and ones that hit the first rail at in-between angles rebound less parallel to the first leg. Most or least perpendicular = more parallel; in-between angles = less parallel.

pj
chgo

View attachment 673079

That may explain some of the mixed results I've been getting! I need to work on these. Right now they are so low percentage that the work I need to put in to become useful would be better spent on aspects of my game that are weak but showing potential. I should just kick at an object ball for 15 minutes a day.

 

[phreaticus]

A 2-railer factoid I find helpful:

2-railers (with no sidespin) that hit the first rail at steepest (most perpendicular) or widest (least perpendicular) angles rebound more parallel to their first leg, and ones that hit the first rail at in-between angles rebound less parallel to the first leg. Most or least perpendicular = more parallel; in-between angles = less parallel.

pj
chgo

View attachment 673079

Indeed, that is a helpful tip to remember. I find these type of 2 railers to often be unintuitive and very sensitive to table conditions.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

Using benchmarks is a great way to learn these shots by feel. Set up 1 shot using paper hole protectors. Put the cue ball on 1 and and an object ball on another. Now shoot this shot until you are comfortable making it.

Now set up this shot again but put the object ball in
a different area. Repeat the process. ⁰This should help you make a benchmark for these shots. It will be a good way to use your 15 minutes of practice.

Now vary the object ball or cue ball locations and retry. It won't take long to get comfortable with this.

 

[dr_dave]

See why systems don't help you?

He is using a 2 rail center point, parallel cue system. He ends up adding right english to lengthen the angle off the long rail, and shorten the angle on the short rail, in hopes to get the 2 rail kick. I mean he knew enough to feel that he needed a tonne of right english from the contact point he chose...because he felt the running english angle he was getting would bring him under the 2 ball. It turned out that even with the right english he still came under it. Why not just adjust the contact point and hit lower on the long rail?

He would have done better to just visualize the two rail kick versus trying to force the contact point he got from the system and compensating with right english to accomplish what running english would do naturally if he hit farther down the long rail. The problem is he was relying on the system instead of just knowing or "feeling" the shot.

Actually if you look at when he parallels the cuestick it actually lines up with a lower contact point that where he hit on the long rail. So if he hit the proper point with running english it would have worked. I have used this system at times, but I recall it would tend to run long in some situations or something about it not being totally consistent in different scenarios...better as a guide. Anyway I now do all my kicks by "feel".

To use the midpoint-parallel-shift 2-rail kicking system effectively, you need to know when and how much to make adjustments for different CB angles and different OB distances from the rail:

 

[thenaturalpoolplayer]

To use the midpoint-parallel-shift 2-rail kicking system effectively, you need to know when and how much to make adjustments for different CB angles and different OB distances from the rail:

​

My point was mostly that at the pro level you shouldn't need any systems...it should be automatic. If you rely on systems you will never develop a feel for shots...that's what happened to Ruiz...he could'nt feel that he was going to come under the ball..heck I could tell just from watching where he was aiming on the rail that he would need tonnes of rights to compensate...when he should have just aimed down the rail a bit with running english. I can nail 2 rail kicks all day long just by looking at it...even shave whatever side of the ball I want with way more accuracy than any system will give. Also I believe that the diamonds should be removed from the sides...no need for training wheels here.

 

[dr_dave]

My point was mostly that at the pro level you shouldn't need any systems...it should be automatic. If you rely on systems you will never develop a feel for shots...that's what happened to Ruiz...he could'nt feel that he was going to come under the ball..heck I could tell just from watching where he was aiming on the rail that he would need tonnes of rights to compensate...when he should have just aimed down the rail a bit with running english. I can nail 2 rail kicks all day long just by looking at it...even shave whatever side of the ball I want with way more accuracy than any system will give. Also I believe that the diamonds should be removed from the sides...no need for training wheels here.

Good point. Perfect intuition and feel built up by countless hours of dedicated practice with shots like this is always better than a poorly-applied system.

 

[bbb]

Good point. Perfect intuition and feel built up by countless hours of dedicated practice with shots like this is always better than a poorly-applied system.

dr dave i am disappointed in you for this statement
a properly applied system tweaked if necessary by feel
is better than a poorly applied "intuition/feel" shot
the debate of system vs feel is a long debated one
among the 3 cushion players who have to be more precise than pool players
you have champions from both groups
for those of us who havent/cant spend "countless hours" of dedicated practice
the systems will get us closer than feel
for natural man
diamonds are not crutches but tools that some have spent the time to learn how to use
even if its "too complicated " for some
jmho
icbw

 

[ShootingArts]

dr dave i am disappointed in you for this statement
a properly applied system tweaked if necessary by feel
is better than a poorly applied "intuition/feel" shot
the debate of system vs feel is a long debated one
among the 3 cushion players who have to be more precise than pool players
you have champions from both groups
for those of us who havent/cant spend "countless hours" of dedicated practice
the systems will get us closer than feel
for natural man
diamonds are not crutches but tools that some have spent the time to learn how to use
even if its "too complicated " for some
jmho
icbw

They are kinda slipping in apples and oranges. The real question is how each method works when the person has the same amount of expertise in the system they are using. Perfect feel vs perfect system use, it is a wash! Both work, dast I say it, perfectly!

At the other extreme where the skill level is very low, but equal, I'd give the system users a small edge. The system user is likely to distribute his shots in a smaller area than the feel user. That being the case, random distribution of ball paths inside that area should create more success.

The real difference is in the intermediate skill levels. Now the system user has a precise target, even if it may not be precisely the target it should be. The feel shooter has an area of rail to hit. He will probably hit the shot with running english because that is what worked for him in the past. The problem being he might not be hitting the spot on the rail that running english worked with.

Unless you are comfortable about your feel for a shot, you are probably better off using a system. Aside from anything else, having a system gives a more precise point to adjust from if the balls aren't falling or getting to the position you want tonight.

Lots of good reasons to use a system, any system, over feel. That is until you get into a game with somebody that is using feel and is "on" that night. Best to remember the wife has baked a cake for your birthday or some other critically important reason to leave. When feel is on it leaves all of the systems in the dust!

Hu

 

[Pubo]

dr dave i am disappointed in you for this statement

didn't he say "poorly-applied system"?

 

[Pubo]

A 2-railer factoid I find helpful:

2-railers (with no sidespin) that hit the first rail at steepest (most perpendicular) or widest (least perpendicular) angles rebound more parallel to their first leg, and ones that hit the first rail at in-between angles rebound less parallel to the first leg. Most or least perpendicular = more parallel; in-between angles = less parallel.

pj
chgo

View attachment 673079

I think part of the reason is when cue ball hits the rail at shallow angle, it picks up more running spin by rubbing along the rail, which causes the angle to widen. If the cue ball hits the rail almost perpendicular, then not as much spin is picked up, and the two paths are relatively parallel.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think part of the reason is when cue ball hits the rail at shallow angle, it picks up more running spin by rubbing along the rail, which causes the angle to widen. If the cue ball hits the rail almost perpendicular, then not as much spin is picked up, and the two paths are relatively parallel.

Also, when the first angle is wider, then the second angle is steeper, giving the extra spin greater effect on the second rebound angle.

But this is only true until the first angle is so wide that it hits the first rail with less force, picking up less spin, not more. Then the rebound angle from the second rail changes less, not more (third example in my diagram).

pj
chgo

 

[gregcantrall]

My knowledge of the system gives me a starting point. Then the analysis of conditions that are variable. Then the knowledge I have aquired through practice practice practice of the system through a variety of conditions. Then give it my best shot. Sometimes it works. I got lucky, as Efren would say.

 

[dr_dave]

Good point. Perfect intuition and feel built up by countless hours of dedicated practice with shots like this is always better than a poorly-applied system.

dr dave i am disappointed in you for this statement

Read my post again. Every word is important. For example, nobody has "perfect" intuition and feel. Also, a "poorly-applied" system is pretty much useless.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

A 2-railer factoid I find helpful:

2-railers (with no sidespin) that hit the first rail at steepest (most perpendicular) or widest (least perpendicular) angles rebound more parallel to their first leg, and ones that hit the first rail at in-between angles rebound less parallel to the first leg. Most or least perpendicular = more parallel; in-between angles = less parallel.

pj
chgo

View attachment 673079

This is great... thanks for developing/sharing...