Bending the Object Ball

Jal said:
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
Click to expand...

It appears that you are trying to protect John from having to provide those two free cue cases. :mad::grin::grin: j/k

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
 
Chi2dxa said:
Here you go JB Cases.
Grady Matthews- Advanced Principles of Pool tape He calls it "The Passing Shot" Chapter4 at the 18 min part of the tape.He does it on the short rail which is even harder than the long rail shot that JoeyA has setup. JB I am to old do know how to do that YouTube stuff from video tape and I am not sure if Grady would like that but it is clearly demonstrated here when he was a much younger man. I hope that gets me one of your fantastic cases (4 butts 8 shafts) PM me.

Thank you
Click to expand...

You have to provide video that everyone can see so we can all agree that this is making the OBJECT ball curve around a blocking ball.

If you do that then you win the case.

I tried Bob Jewett's set up and I don't see any way to do it. So I am interested in seeing it done.
 
Robert Raiford said:
Sorry to burst Cushioncrawler's bubble, but he's almost 200 years too late ;) As with many billiard physics ideas we tend to think of as modern results, Coriolis got there first and had already described and diagrammed the effect in his 1835 book.

Like later scientists, Coriolis pointed out that the curve is too small to observe. I agree it could be fun if it weren't, though, although regular ball pocketing would indeed be tougher.

Robert
Click to expand...
Scholarship trumps illiteracy! To be fair to him, I don't know that he ever claimed to be the first to have the idea; I just assumed it. He may very well have come to it independently as he loves thinking about such minutia.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Jim
 
That Grady Mathews video is worthless. For one it doesn't show the ball curve, all it shows is that making the object ball spin a lot will spin it into the pocket when it hits the rail.
 
HuH?

themack said:
That Grady Mathews video is worthless. For one it doesn't show the ball curve, all it shows is that making the object ball spin a lot will spin it into the pocket when it hits the rail.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are seeing but a 1:07 the 4 ball clearly curves around the interfering ball.
 
Liar

:angry:
Neil said:
Good find. However, even though Grady says the ball is curving, it is not. If he reversed the balls, he would have no curve. What IS happening, is he is transferring spin to the ob, so when it hits the rail it tends to hug the rail and not bounce off. Thereby, he can "cheat" the pocket by up to a diamond. Doing that, he can make a ball go that wasn't clear to the pocket.
Click to expand...

Grady has made plenty of tapes with 100's of shots that are clearly described down to what english he uses but I never ever figured him for a liar. You have plenty of room to take that back. He is one of the most trusting people I have ever met in the pool world and surely not a LIAR Neil.
 
Neil said:
Good find. However, even though Grady says the ball is curving, it is not. If he reversed the balls, he would have no curve. What IS happening, is he is transferring spin to the ob, so when it hits the rail it tends to hug the rail and not bounce off. Thereby, he can "cheat" the pocket by up to a diamond. Doing that, he can make a ball go that wasn't clear to the pocket.
Click to expand...

You and JAL must be on Barton's payroll. :grin: j/k.
 
themack said:
That Grady Mathews video is worthless. For one it doesn't show the ball curve, all it shows is that making the object ball spin a lot will spin it into the pocket when it hits the rail.
Click to expand...

If you look at .45 it looks like the object ball can be shot straight in the hole. You would need a lot more video proof than this for me to pay up.

Seriously, this video doesn't satisfy me and I'm not the one to pay the piper.
 
I don't have the ability to do a table diagram on this shot But on a little different set up if object balls on long rail lets say .5 off that rail and 1 diamond bellow the side and there is a blocker lets say no more than a 3rd depend on stroke and equip. of the path though the pocket you can set CB center table outside eng. little above center little elevated butt is how I do it butt again so many variables its something you have to practice its almost like making the ball skid on you but you mean it to happen works way better with the measle ball CB weight will push the ball of it path as they stick together and how long they do is controllable to some extent and then the English through's it back down the new path which is a straight path but because of the cue ball pushing it over it a different path I learned this by putting the cue ball in your left hand on table with thumb and pointer finger than put object ball on table with pointing finger on top and slide cue ball with outside and observe what happen till you get it right
 
Last edited:
JoeyA said:
So now you're believing in the occult? Hidden force? pffft. :wink:
Click to expand...

Semantics?

OK, so maybe the problem is you can't curve an object ball, so people
hear bend and think curve.

I may be wrong, but I think the ball can be made by 'over cutting' the OB
with inside english then 'throwing' it back just enough to go in the pocket.
Yes, you might pocket the ball by sliding it in off the rail, but IMHO,
you don't have to.

The argument about curving the ball reminds me of a similar popular topic
that got lots of press when I was a boy.

From Base ball - Does a curveball "curve" or "break"?

I don't know if that question was ever answered - but in this case,
it doesn't matter, so long as the OB goes into the pocket.

Again, I may be wrong, but - IMHO you can't make the shot unless you
'stall' or stun the CB.

Dale<who has observed what seemed to be delayed english effect on bank
shots>
 
themack said:
That Grady Mathews video is worthless.
Click to expand...
I think the video has great value. It's not often we have visual evidence directly demonstrating the questionable claims of past champions. Otherwise, we're only left with "Great player X could do crazy sounding shot Y..." with no way to be sure about the setup and context.

Robert
 
JoeyA said:
... Seriously, this video doesn't satisfy me and I'm not the one to pay the piper.
Click to expand...
I'm also not satisfied by the video which is why I wrote the article HERE in 1992. No one who read the article ever came through with a technique. Nor has anyone who has read subsequent offers of payment for a technique.

On most video setups, unless they are done very, very carefully, it is impossible to say where things are to an accuracy of better than an inch. That's not good enough for go/no-go decisions at pool.

Personally, I think it's impossible to get any useful curve on an object ball directly after being struck by the cue ball.

Maybe a more interesting question is whether a ball can be helped to go into the pocket when landing at a slight angle maybe 3/4 diamond from the pocket. That's a tougher question to answer because the setup is harder than for the shot in the article above. Not a lot harder, but the experimenter has to be a lot more careful and accurate in ball placement. Whether the ball goes or not is also affected by speed and spin which are far harder to measure and control than the static starting position.
 
JoeyA said:
You and JAL must be on Barton's payroll. :grin: j/k.
Click to expand...
I may have given the wrong impression, but I'm with you in believing an OB can be made to curve, if that's what you believe. Physics says it absolutely will curve when contacted above the horizontal equator and also acquires a sidespin component from friction. Obviously, because of the limits of induced spin, it isn't going to curve all that much, and it'll happen over a very short distance due to speed constraints when contacted at higher latitudes, but curve it will.

As far as making it curve with a non-airborne cueball, good luck.

Jim
 
Bob Jewett said:
I'm also not satisfied by the video which is why I wrote the article HERE in 1992. No one who read the article ever came through with a technique. Nor has anyone who has read subsequent offers of payment for a technique.

On most video setups, unless they are done very, very carefully, it is impossible to say where things are to an accuracy of better than an inch. That's not good enough for go/no-go decisions at pool.

Personally, I think it's impossible to get any useful curve on an object ball directly after being struck by the cue ball.

Maybe a more interesting question is whether a ball can be helped to go into the pocket when landing at a slight angle maybe 3/4 diamond from the pocket. That's a tougher question to answer because the setup is harder than for the shot in the article above. Not a lot harder, but the experimenter has to be a lot more careful and accurate in ball placement. Whether the ball goes or not is also affected by speed and spin which are far harder to measure and control than the static starting position.
Click to expand...





Well Bob, are we going to have to start another thread to get the information results from the 1992 study?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top