90+ degree cut shot

[mr3cushion]

That's a nice thin cut, but that shot is slightly less than 90° and nobody disagrees that shots that are less than 90° can be cut in with any english.

On all of your shots that are actually over 90°, on every single one of them you are spinning from the rail first and then into the object ball. Even if you were managing to just barely graze the object ball first on some of them, which you probably aren't, but even if you were the cue ball is still hitting the rail and spinning back into the object ball to send it on its final path, and that is the only thing that is making the over 90° cut with inside english and a level cue possible.

If you or anyone else could cut the object ball more than 90° with inside english and a level stroke you would be able to do it the way Bob Jewett diagrammed it post #44 and which I included again below, but yet you are unable to do it without having the rail there to be able to spin into with the cue ball prior to its last contact with the object ball.

Get the object ball away from the rail and shoot it like in Bob's diagram below, where it is not possible for you to spin into the rail with the cue ball prior to its last contact with the object ball like you have been doing in all your other videos even though you don't realize it, and where the shot can clearly be seen to actually be over 90° and not under as it is in the video from the post I quoted.

View attachment 883330

First of all, at Even almost 81 years old, I'll Bet on what I claim!

I Never said anything about a 'Perfectly Level cue'!

Riddle me this Batman, in this video if I'm Not contacting the OB first how does the CB go to the 'Short rail' and the OB goes into the pocket?

BTW, in examples #2 and #3 the CB is closer to the 'Short rail' than the OB!

 

[iusedtoberich]

Bill, with all due respect, you've been showing this same video for 10-15 years on here. Every time, people think you hit it rail first, and you end up arguing with everyone. Even Incardona from the best of my recollection when you showed it on the onepocket.org forum thought you hit it rail first. (or might have been here, he's a member on both I believe).

The 2 thin carom table shots you showed from 1992 were not even close to the same. The OB banked at a sharp angle (using pool, not carom terminology). It didn't go anywhere near the corner which would have been 90deg if it did.

The latest video you showed on a pool table of a thin cut "far away from the rail" doesn't look like it was even close to 90 degree.

All you had to do to put this all to rest was recreate your first pool video with the 3 shots on it, but with the OB a solid ball width away from the rail, and the CB at a recognizable spot that is easy to verify its 90deg. People have been asking for that for 15 years, and you never provide it, just argue more.

 

[mr3cushion]

Bill, with all due respect, you've been showing this same video for 10-15 years on here. Every time, people think you hit it rail first, and you end up arguing with everyone. Even Incardona from the best of my recollection when you showed it on the onepocket.org forum thought you hit it rail first. (or might have been here, he's a member on both I believe).

The 2 thin carom table shots you showed from 1992 were not even close to the same. The OB banked at a sharp angle (using pool, not carom terminology). It didn't go anywhere near the corner which would have been 90deg if it did.

The latest video you showed on a pool table of a thin cut "far away from the rail" doesn't look like it was even close to 90 degree.

All you had to do to put this all to rest was recreate your first pool video with the 3 shots on it, but with the OB a solid ball width away from the rail, and the CB at a recognizable spot that is easy to verify its 90deg. People have been asking for that for 15 years, and you never provide it, just argue more.

I've known Billy and been good friends since 1965, He argues More than I!

And He's Not the End all in the 'Niches' of Pool!

Great Natural talent!

The CB and OB in the 92 Carom shot video are in an exact 'Straight line' with each other!

You actually believe I hit the 'Cushion First' in those 2 shots?

In 2012 I demonstrated this shot in front of 25 people, including, Jimmy Fusco, Pete Fusco and Mitch Brown!

I've only been in a PR once since 2019 and Now I have only one eye!

 

[iusedtoberich]

...snip...

The CB and OB in the 92 Carom shot video are in an exact 'Straight line' with each other!

You actually believe I hit the 'Cushion First' in those 2 shots?

In 2012 I demonstrated this shot in front of 25 people, including, Jimmy Fusco, Pete Fusco and Mitch Brown!

I've only been in a PR once since 2019 and Now I have only one eye!

In your 1992 carom video, the starting positions of the white and yellow are fine. BUT, you didn't cut the yellow anywhere close to 90 degrees. Instead, you BANKED the yellow to the first diamond on the short rail. So it's actually immaterial if you went ball first or rail first. (I do think you went ball first since the spin was retained, or, the contact happened when the CB was still buried in the rail).

The whole crux of this thread and your 3 shot pool video was that you can make a 90 deg cut shot with inside spin "in the open". You've never once done that in 15 years on video.

I know Mitch Brown. I'll ask him when I'm in Philly next month what shot you played, if he remembers.

 

[mr3cushion]

In your 1992 carom video, the starting positions of the white and yellow are fine. BUT, you didn't cut the yellow anywhere close to 90 degrees. Instead, you BANKED the yellow to the first diamond on the short rail. So it's actually immaterial if you went ball first or rail first. (I do think you went ball first since the spin was retained, or, the contact happened when the CB was still buried in the rail).

The whole crux of this thread and your 3 shot pool video was that you can make a 90 deg cut shot with inside spin "in the open". You've never once done that in 15 years on video.

I know Mitch Brown. I'll ask him when I'm in Philly next month what shot you played, if he remembers.

I await Your response!

 

[Poolplaya9]

First of all, at Even almost 81 years old, I'll Bet on what I claim!

I Never said anything about a 'Perfectly Level'!

Riddle me this Batman, in this video if I'm Not contacting the OB first how does the CB go to the 'Short rail' and the OB goes into the pocket?

You were already offered a bet in post #57, and you didn't take the bet because you can't actually do what you are claiming. You can't do the shot for pride, you can't do the shot for bragging rights, you can't do the shot to save face, you can't do the shot to prove all the doubters wrong, you can't do the shot to win a very large bet that was offered to you, you can't do the shot for green eggs and ham, you can't do the shot period (nor can anyone else, it just can't be done).

In your video, there are several potential reasons the cue ball is able to get to the bottom rail, and more than one of them at a time can be at work.

First, in a cue ball and object ball collision, the amount of time that they are in contact with each other is very, very small, just over a thousandth of a second if I recall correctly. In a near perpendicular collision between cue ball and cushion like in your video though, the amount of time the cue ball is in contact with the cushion is much, much longer than that, with a lot of time spent compressing into the rail, and then a lot of time spent with the rail pushing back against the cue ball to rebound it but where they are still in contact with each other for a while during that time.

What is happening in yours and similar shots is that the cue ball is hitting the rail first and then spinning over into the object ball, sending the object ball on its way, but all while the cue ball is still compressing into the rail. Now that the object ball is out of the way, as the cue ball continues compressing into the rail, and then as the cue ball is rebounding back out but still in contact with the cushion, the spin on the cue ball has been working that whole time changing the rebound angle. That is what allows it to head towards that opposite corner pocket or even the end rail because the cue ball spin was still working on the rail after the object ball was gone.

You also have the object ball like a half diamond away from the pocket in this case, which creates lots of room for slop here. You might have even hit the front side of the object ball, a less than 90° angle hit, and "banked" the ball into the pocket because from this distance the object ball can be hit from a big spectrum of angles and still go.

After all the responses you should be seeing a theme here. You can only supposedly "do" the over 90° cut shot with inside english and a level cue when you set it up in ways that allow for inadvertent "cheating" to be happening, and as soon as the possibility for those are removed you can no longer do the shot. That should tell you something.

As soon as you set it up like in Bob's diagram below, where it is away from the rail and it is no longer possible for you to hit rail first and spin into the object ball even though you didn't realize that is what you were actually doing, and as soon as you set it up where the angle of the shot is very clear and it is no longer possible for you to be shooting a shot that is actually less than 90° even though you might have thought it was more than 90°, and as soon as you move the object ball far enough away from the pocket that you can no longer cut the object ball less than 90° but have it go in anyway because from that distance the pocket takes almost anything, as soon as the possibility for those inadvertent cheats is gone so is your ability to be able to make the shot. You just didn't realize what was actually happening but now you do.

If you still want to try to prove to yourself or anyone else that you can cut a ball over 90° with inside english and a level cue, you have to do it in a way that doesn't allow for cheating, even accidental cheating, so you have to do it like in this diagram where those cheats aren't able to happen. I think the physics say it is impossible to do without a cheat.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Slightly off topic, when I first moved to Atlanta in 2009, the main action room was called xyz (I forgot now the name, long since closed) Billiards. There was a loaded sucker that lived near it that would bet 20k sets on the regular. Tons of pros and road players would be there. I went to check it out one night. It was packed with a who's who in pool.

Anyway, there were a few top players there and they were betting 1000 a try on an "impossible cut shot". I want to say it was Billy Thorpe for one of the players, but can't remember for sure. It was with the OB on the center spot of the end rail, and the CB 5 or 6 feet away, and 90 deg to it. The OB was a ball's width away from the rail, however, taking away any rail first possibilities. All of the players were shooting it with outside spin, and hitting it HARD. I saw it go a couple times, probably 1 out of 15 or 20.

More off topic, Mark Gregory was there, and I introduced myself to him. He had adjusted the rails on a 7' Diamond with "his" formula of the cushions. Stong Arm John had asked him to do it, and he was playing a set for 5 figures on it. He won the match, and later said something like "that is the best playing Diamond I ever played on". This was when Diamond was still Red Label. That "fix" is not what became the Blue Label. The Blue Label was Glen's design, not Mark's, and they were different.

 

[mr3cushion]

You were already offered a bet in post #57, and you didn't take the bet because you can't actually do what you are claiming. You can't do the shot for pride, you can't do the shot for bragging rights, you can't do the shot to save face, you can't do the shot to prove all the doubters wrong, you can't do the shot to win a very large bet that was offered to you, you can't do the shot for green eggs and ham, you can't do the shot period (nor can anyone else, it just can't be done).

In your video, there are several potential reasons the cue ball is able to get to the bottom rail, and more than one of them at a time can be at work.

First, in a cue ball and object ball collision, the amount of time that they are in contact with each other is very, very small, just over a thousandth of a second if I recall correctly. In a near perpendicular collision between cue ball and cushion like in your video though, the amount of time the cue ball is in contact with the cushion is much, much longer than that, with a lot of time spent compressing into the rail, and then a lot of time spent with the rail pushing back against the cue ball to rebound it but where they are still in contact with each other for a while during that time.

What is happening in yours and similar shots is that the cue ball is hitting the rail first and then spinning over into the object ball, sending the object ball on its way, but all while the cue ball is still compressing into the rail. Now that the object ball is out of the way, as the cue ball continues compressing into the rail, and then as the cue ball is rebounding back out but still in contact with the cushion, the spin on the cue ball has been working that whole time changing the rebound angle. That is what allows it to head towards that opposite corner pocket or even the end rail because the cue ball spin was still working on the rail after the object ball was gone.

You also have the object ball like a half diamond away from the pocket in this case, which creates lots of room for slop here. You might have even hit the front side of the object ball, a less than 90° angle hit, and "banked" the ball into the pocket because from this distance the object ball can be hit from a big spectrum of angles and still go.

After all the responses you should be seeing a theme here. You can only supposedly "do" the over 90° cut shot with inside english and a level cue when you set it up in ways that allow for inadvertent "cheating" to be happening, and as soon as the possibility for those are removed you can no longer do the shot. That should tell you something.

As soon as you set it up like in Bob's diagram below, where it is away from the rail and it is no longer possible for you to hit rail first and spin into the object ball even though you didn't realize that is what you were actually doing, and as soon as you set it up where the angle of the shot is very clear and it is no longer possible for you to be shooting a shot that is actually less than 90° even though you might have thought it was more than 90°, and as soon as you move the object ball far enough away from the pocket that you can no longer cut the object ball less than 90° but have it go in anyway because from that distance the pocket takes almost anything, as soon as the possibility for those inadvertent cheats is gone so is your ability to be able to make the shot. You just didn't realize what was actually happening but now you do.

If you still want to try to prove to yourself or anyone else that you can cut a ball over 90° with inside english and a level cue, you have to do it in a way that doesn't allow for cheating, even accidental cheating, so you have to do it like in this diagram where those cheats aren't able to happen. I think the physics say it is impossible to do without a cheat.

View attachment 883338

Firstly, I've been gambling at the cue games and other games of chance since 1965!

Regarding post #57, so when I Win, I put the $ in My pocket, not someone else's Charity!

I'm going to reply to you, but I want to be careful about how I phrase it, being the language You use is 'Pool Geek' what if's or could Be's!

I have one question before I proceed, "Do You think I contacted the OB First in the videos I provided"?

 

[straightline]

What's the argument?

On paper, a 90 degree cut has no impact/imparts no energy. On the table, the thinnest hit may <try> to spin the object ball but won't otherwise impart motion. In pool if the ball doesn't move, foul. All known.

Just to put a number on it, the thinnest I can deliberately hit a ball outside of a yard away is 85 degrees. This is considerably thicker than rocking the ball which would still be short of 90 degrees.

So much for facks. What are you guys trying to say?