Banking with the Beard - PROBLEM

Druid

Druid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I recently picked up the book Banking with the Beard and I have a problem with it.

I have found some of "The foundations" information to be wrong in my experiments to test some theories. Perhaps this is something unique to my table (I'll test this on other tables as soon as I'm able), but so far I seem to be finding a couple things wrong.

Is it just me, or do others experience this as well?

The book claims:

1) A ball that is skidding (no top/bottom/right/left spin) into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle equal to the angle that it hit the cushion.

2) A ball that is rolling into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle greater than the angle that it hit the cushion. The top-spin will force the rebound to bend the angle longer.


My experiments show:

1) A ball that is skidding (no top/bottom/right/left spin) into a cushion with a soft hit, comes off that cushion at a reflecting angle less than the angle that it hit the cushion (about a 1/4 diamond).

2) A ball that is rolling into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle equal to the angle that it hit the cushion.


I am testing the lessons in the book on my home table that happens to have brand new rail bumpers.

I'm be interested to hear the results from other people who have tested these theories.

To do the test, simply setup a cross side bank. Place the cueball on the path between the corner-pocket-diamond and the center-rail diamond. In a perfect reflecting world, the cue ball would bounce off that cushion and head directly to the center of the side pocket. That works fine for me with a rolling cue ball, but if I stun it into the rail, the shot comes up short.

Either I'm doing something wrong, the table is abnormal, or the book is wrong. What do you think?
 
The book is not wrong... To test your table and remove the stroke/english element set up a 3 ball frozen combo on the bank line you refer to... set it close to the rail and you will get the skid angle. Setting it half table width down the line means the object ball will pick up roll by the time it hits and rebounds. If your table still performs as stated it's a rail issue. My olhausen acts like you describe. it shortens everything. dunno if it's the accufast rails or cushion/sub rail geometry.
 
the word "Soft" is the key word here. Your soft may not be the same as his soft. And not every table acts exactly the same.

The point he is trying to make is that english effects the exit angle as well as speed. The book is exactly right about this, if there is a error in your experiment it is probably due to the speed you are hitting the ball, english being applied or the rails are less than accurate.

Try this, set up a natural bank into the side pocket, one that would be made hitting it with the power of 5 on a scale of 1 -10 10 being your break speed. Now try that same bank at a power of 2, you'll miss long. Try it at 8 and you'll miss short. The apply inside english, you should miss short, and last apply outside english and you should miss long. Assuming that you shoot the object ball into the same spot on the rail in every shot.

This proves his theory. Hope that helps.
 
I've found that information learned, while practicing on my home table, had to be amended when I went to a different size table or a different manufacturer & cloth is a variable too...

I have The Beard's DVD & I enjoyed the learning experience.
 
I bought the book, sold the book, bought the All thew DVD's, and honestly the DVD's were a big help. IMHO the DVD's are GREAT, and the book was not the training tool for me.
 
I have always thought through experience that once the angle is past 45 degrees the angle off the cushion will be greater and it will go long. Maybe it's just my stroke or lack thereof.
 
Druid said:
So I recently picked up the book Banking with the Beard and I have a problem with it.

I have found some of "The foundations" information to be wrong in my experiments to test some theories. Perhaps this is something unique to my table (I'll test this on other tables as soon as I'm able), but so far I seem to be finding a couple things wrong.

Is it just me, or do others experience this as well?

The book claims:

1) A ball that is skidding (no top/bottom/right/left spin) into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle equal to the angle that it hit the cushion.

2) A ball that is rolling into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle greater than the angle that it hit the cushion. The top-spin will force the rebound to bend the angle longer.


My experiments show:

1) A ball that is skidding (no top/bottom/right/left spin) into a cushion with a soft hit, comes off that cushion at a reflecting angle less than the angle that it hit the cushion (about a 1/4 diamond).

2) A ball that is rolling into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle equal to the angle that it hit the cushion.


I am testing the lessons in the book on my home table that happens to have brand new rail bumpers.

I'm be interested to hear the results from other people who have tested these theories.

To do the test, simply setup a cross side bank. Place the cueball on the path between the corner-pocket-diamond and the center-rail diamond. In a perfect reflecting world, the cue ball would bounce off that cushion and head directly to the center of the side pocket. That works fine for me with a rolling cue ball, but if I stun it into the rail, the shot comes up short.

Either I'm doing something wrong, the table is abnormal, or the book is wrong. What do you think?
Click to expand...

First, I think you need to clarify whether you are sighting through the diamonds, or are using the projections of the diamonds on the cushion nose or the grove to calculate your banks. It makes a difference in how "short" the bank goes, and sometimes a big one.
 
Druid said:
....
My experiments show:

1) A ball that is skidding (no top/bottom/right/left spin) into a cushion with a soft hit, comes off that cushion at a reflecting angle less than the angle that it hit the cushion (about a 1/4 diamond).

2) A ball that is rolling into a cushion with a soft hit, will come off that cushion at a reflecting angle equal to the angle that it hit the cushion.


I am testing the lessons in the book on my home table that happens to have brand new rail bumpers.

I'm be interested to hear the results from other people who have tested these theories.

To do the test, simply setup a cross side bank. Place the cueball on the path between the corner-pocket-diamond and the center-rail diamond. In a perfect reflecting world, the cue ball would bounce off that cushion and head directly to the center of the side pocket. That works fine for me with a rolling cue ball, but if I stun it into the rail, the shot comes up short.

Either I'm doing something wrong, the table is abnormal, or the book is wrong. What do you think?
Click to expand...
On the Gold Crowns where I play, my results essentially agree with yours. I think point #1 is nearly universally true. Point #2 is more variable.

Jim
 
I have not read the Beard's books or saw his DVDs but buying them is on my mind from time to time.

I think it is important to understand his statements to be intended as explaining the physics of the rebound more than anything else.

I'm no physicist but I'd guess the only way to get an exact angle of incidence to equal the angle of reflection is with something like a light beam off a mirror that has no other forces applied to it.

Draw and follow are extreme forces applied to the CB or OB and a sliding center ball CB / OB hit is about the closest thing to no extra forces applied to the CB / OB.

Of course, as you hit the cushion, it collapses and you are shooting into a divot. The harder the CB hits the cushion, the deeper the divot, so the more it wants to come back at you off the leading face of that divot.

If there was a way to shoot a sliding CB/OB into the rail and not have it collapse at all from impact, the angle of refection would come much closer to the opposite of the angle you shot into the rail with. Much more so than if you applied draw or follow.

Again, I think it was an explanation meant to emphasize the more extreme effects of draw and follow.
 
The book is correct, unless you've got very lively rails, and then I'd imagine one would be right and one would be wrong...

Just like cheating a pocket, when a ball hits the rail softly with top, it grabs more of the felt than it will the rubber, causing it to pull along and pick up a little running english that can hold it closer to the rail.. with a 'pinball' bumper, the rail will try to kick it away as soon as possible so it may not be quite as noticable.

Hitting the rail without english will make for a truer return angle. It's kinda hard to hit a soft stunner that has the speed to cover the bank to the pocket, though (but then again, I play on bar tables).

If you are not hitting the ball straight on, there is probably collision-induced spin messing with things.

*Disclaimer: Individual results may vary. :grin:
 
The Renfro said:
The book is not wrong... To test your table and remove the stroke/english element set up a 3 ball frozen combo on the bank line you refer to... set it close to the rail and you will get the skid angle. Setting it half table width down the line means the object ball will pick up roll by the time it hits and rebounds. If your table still performs as stated it's a rail issue. My olhausen acts like you describe. it shortens everything. dunno if it's the accufast rails or cushion/sub rail geometry.
Click to expand...

This is a good way to test it.

Unless you're starting with your cue ball close to the rail, you're probably not going to be hitting the rail (1) soft and (2) with a sliding cue ball. The speed you would need to maintain the draw/slide over a couple of feet is enough to compress the rail and shorten the bank angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top