Joey, it appears that some of the naysayers and haters such as John Barton are trying to rain on our parade. Why can't they just leave us alone and let us enjoy our illusions about OB curve.)
![]()
)
But seriously, I'd like to suggest a variation on Bob's test. Instead, freeze the 1-ball to the 2-ball such that they're jutting out perpendicular to the cushion (as accurately as possible, perhaps using a carpenter's square or whatever). This, I believe, would eliminate any question of the 1-ball jumping over the 2-ball while on a pre-established non-parallel path. Though experimentation is called for, I'll also suggest placing the cueball directly behind the 1-ball, on a line parallel to the cushion, then jump the cueball onto it using sidespin to "throw" the 1-ball into the 2-ball. Unless someone comes up with a convincing argument or demonstration, I believe the 2-ball will effectively prevent all but a fraction of a degree of that throw from occurring, and any significant deviation from a path parallel to the cushion will be due to a masse spin component on the 1-ball.
If nothing happens, it has to be attributed to poor execution or having one's eyes in the wrong place. (just kidding again) On the face of it, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to get the 1-ball to in fact hit the long cushion before the pocket. But, I haven't tried it, and of course, the proof is in the pudding.
Just a thought.
Jim
It appears that you are trying to protect John from having to provide those two free cue cases.

You bring up a good point as usual. With Bob's shot layout it would be possible to jump the first ball over the second one without bending the object ball. You might even get some hop without trying very hard and it doesn't have to hop very high to get on a path toward the pocket. He warns not to jump cue second ball but with your suggestion I might always be concerned about picking up some ever-so-slight contact friction from the impeding ball.
I haven't had the chance to try out this shot but maybe tonight. I wish Bob would give this shot to John Brumback who, if there was a way, would be the one who could make this happen.
I'm wondering if the yea-sayers are still confident that the object ball can be bent enough to make the shot?
(Just because John Barton can't make this shot, it doesn't mean it can't be made by someone else) :wink:
JoeyA