C.J.'s touch of inside

[Patrick Johnson]

I did the experiment. If you are shooting a ball down the rail -- maybe 5-10 degrees from the rail -- and you can get some side spin on it such that when it hits the far face it will be helped into the pocket, the pocket can act about 20% larger. That's true for medium speed shots at least and on the Gold Crown I did the test on. If you have an angle on the cut down the rail (not a back-cut) the object ball will naturally have get-in english unless you use a lot of outside.

Way back when there was a discussion about whether or not get-in English worked, I did a similar experiment - but I exaggerated the effect (and my accuracy) by using only the CB, shooting it down the rail with all kinds and amounts of English. I didn't note any difference in pocketing, even hitting very near the opposite pocket point - but it was on a table with pretty big pockets as I recall.

How did you measure the 20% increase?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Way back when there was a discussion about whether or not get-in English worked, I did a similar experiment - but I exaggerated the effect (and my accuracy) by using only the CB, shooting it down the rail with all kinds and amounts of English. I didn't note any difference in pocketing, even hitting very near the opposite pocket point - but it was on a table with pretty big pockets as I recall.

How did you measure the 20% increase?

pj
chgo

I put a frozen three-ball combination on a template. The combination had an angle so the last ball would have some contact-induced spin. I moved the template carefully parallel to one side and the other until I got misses. I also did the shot with the three balls in a line.

One strange result I saw at the same time is that the effective pocket (on a GC3 with unknown maintenance) had a small hole at the edge. That is, for the particular angle and speed I was looking at, if the ball contacted the rail an inch or so from the near point, it would slide in. If it hit the rail right at the pocket facing it rattled. That means that if you were a little off you would miss, but if you missed the ball by more you would make the shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I put a frozen three-ball combination on a template. The combination had an angle so the last ball would have some contact-induced spin. I moved the template carefully parallel to one side and the other until I got misses. I also did the shot with the three balls in a line.

Sounds legit - thanks. Now the question is: does effective pocket size increase with get-in spin more than shooting accuracy decreases with side (from squirt/swerve/throw)?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

IOne strange result I saw at the same time is that the effective pocket (on a GC3 with unknown maintenance) had a small hole at the edge. That is, for the particular angle and speed I was looking at, if the ball contacted the rail an inch or so from the near point, it would slide in. If it hit the rail right at the pocket facing it rattled. That means that if you were a little off you would miss, but if you missed the ball by more you would make the shot.

Weird. Maybe the pocket facing affected the rebound angle?

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

Sounds legit - thanks. Now the question is: does effective pocket size increase with get-in spin more than shooting accuracy decreases with side (from squirt/swerve/throw)?

pj
chgo

Good point. There is the technical game then the practical one. A lot of great pool players don't understand the technical side at all and a lot of great technical instructors can't actually play well.

To me the classic misunderstanding has always been "overspin". Bert Kinister describes it like a ball shooting down the table "burning rubber with overspin". Watching the Mike Page demonstration I believe it is almost impossible to achieve any actual front slippage at all but there are probably more good pool players who think the ball is slipping on the cloth going forward then who understand the concept of roll momentum. It doesn't change how good or bad a player plays to understand the forces at work or not. It is more about their ability to achieve a result than to understand how or why.

That is why I have chosen to pick and choose from the instruction I get and find out what works for me. If a great player cocks his head at a 45 degree angle to see the shot better that doesn't mean it would help me. It also doesn't mean it is "wrong", just wrong for me. A lot of what people teach is the way they see things or think about things more than what is actually happening.

I think the work Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett and their group do is great to help me sort out the technical. I trust their analysis because it is unbiased and they use pretty consistent testing methods. But I also improve my game by watching training videos from some other instructors for the experience in play they bring.

 

[Imac007]

Not about 3-part pocket

From PJ
"Maybe all that stuff is relevant to the point you’re making (whatever that is). It’s still beside the point I made - none of this makes pockets “play bigger” with intentional spin than they do without it (the point of CJ’s 3-part pocket nonsense)."

The original poster was asking about clarity about TOI. You are making it about your POV about CJ’s 3-part pocket system not the info the poster was asking. Your private war with CJ is yours. The real issue you are failing to address is how center ball and center pocket aiming, makes pockets "play smaller". Using the whole pocket requires a method that allows you to actually hit the pocket consistently without have a degree in physics or massive unconscious muscle memory. How the pocket plays, big or small, is relative, not to the pocket but the player utilization of its space. Bob Jewett just pointed out ways the player can use pace and spin to increase the likelihood the ball goes in the hole. Taking Bob J’s examples, when the wrong spin, or the wrong pace is used in the noted examples, the shooter has made the pocket play smaller.

Under utilization compared to fuller utilization is the point i’m making. Using physics to show that using a small amount of inside side has a strong scientific basis supporting its use relatively, was the point. The relative comparison is to the use of center ball and center pocket aiming, and its shortcomings when matched against TOI reducing the effects of throw. Following the physics findings and their implications is the point. Your welcome to stay stuck on your POV and the implications of that.

My point was that I moved on from there and didn’t let it define me.

Reminds me of a story I once heard. There was a guy who decided he was dead. No matter how much his friends and family persisted, he remained steadfast. One day at lunch his wife became frustrated. She asked, since he was a corpse, if corpses bleed. He laughed and said "of course not". She promptly stuck her fork in his arm. It started to bleed. He looked in astonishment and said "I’ll be damned, corpses do bleed."

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The original poster was asking about clarity about TOI. You are making it about your POV about CJ’s 3-part pocket system not the info the poster was asking.

lol

Neither of us are "making it about" anything - we're having a (so far one-sided) conversation about one aspect of TOI, that you made specific claims about and I responded to specifically (with a quote). Fine with me if you don't want to talk about that part of TOI. You brought it up, but "make it about" whatever you want.

pj
chgo

 

[Cardigan Kid]

There are three ways I know of to make a pocket act as if it were larger:

The standard advice is to shoot softer. That works well at some angles along the cushion and on some tables where it is death to hit the near point in the corner pocket at high speed. Shoot softer and the ball has a better chance to slide into the pocket. The fact that it is rolling smoothly on the cloth when it hits the pocket helps.

The second way is to shoot harder. The classic example is a ball frozen to the point of the side pocket. If you shoot hard you can drive the object ball through the point. This can also work for the corner pockets. You can drive the object ball through the point and this can let you shoot straight at a ball you might think has to be cut into the pocket -- the setup is similar to the setup for the side pocket. Even when you shoot a ball off the spot (45 degree angle into the pocket), shooting harder makes the pocket larger rather than smaller.

The third way is to use "get-in english". For a long time I didn't believe this could make any difference. Then I did the experiment. If you are shooting a ball down the rail -- maybe 5-10 degrees from the rail -- and you can get some side spin on it such that when it hits the far face it will be helped into the pocket, the pocket can act about 20% larger. That's true for medium speed shots at least and on the Gold Crown I did the test on. If you have an angle on the cut down the rail (not a back-cut) the object ball will naturally have get-in english unless you use a lot of outside.

I don't think the last one is what CJ is talking about with TOI since inside may be the wrong spin to use to create get-in english and a little side spin probably won't change things much and maybe TOI is not even about side spin.

Bob, isn't that why I've heard using high inside on balls frozen to the rail, will make the object ball hug the rail more as it runs down the line to the pocket? Precisely why shots that are frozen to the rail, and you have to impart draw or low outside to get position have a bigger degree of difficulty.

Did you notice this with your testing?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Bob, isn't that why I've heard using high inside on balls frozen to the rail, will make the object ball hug the rail more as it runs down the line to the pocket? Precisely why shots that are frozen to the rail, and you have to impart draw or low outside to get position have a bigger degree of difficulty.

Did you notice this with your testing?

Inside can make hitting the OB contact point a little more likely, but “hugging the rail” because of it is a popular myth. How would that work? I think you’d need some masse spin on the OB, and that’s impossible (sadly).

pj
chgo

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Inside can make hitting the OB contact point a little more likely, but “hugging the rail” because of it is a popular myth. How would that work? I think you’d need some masse spin on the OB, and that’s impossible (sadly).

pj
chgo

I think I saw it on a Tor Lowry video. He showed putting high inside on the shot, put the object ball spinning forward and slightly toward the rail.
Seems to work when I try it.

Here's the video....

https://youtu.be/KgMS7MaFlXc

I just watched it again, he instructs center high.
I might have added the touch of inside after CJ...but it does work.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I just watched it again, he instructs center high.
I might have added the touch of inside after CJ...but it does work.

I shoot the OB “hugging” the rail all the time with whatever spin is needed for shape - it doesn’t matter; all that’s needed is to hit the OB on the correct spot, like any shot. If it was possible to put masse spin on the OB you could make it curve, and nobody has ever been able to do that.

By the way, in that Tor Lowry vid - the one where he says the OB “will absolutely stick to the rail” - half the time it doesn’t.

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

I think I saw it on a Tor Lowry video. He showed putting high inside on the shot, put the object ball spinning forward and slightly toward the rail.
Seems to work when I try it.

Here's the video....

https://youtu.be/KgMS7MaFlXc

I just watched it again, he instructs center high.
I might have added the touch of inside after CJ...but it does work.

Tor Lowry touts center top, no inside and a simultaneous hit of the ball and rail at the same time. Simultaneous is almost impossible but the concept does work well and you don't have to be perfect with it.

Inside goes with a rail first hit where you are coming off the rail and spinning the ball down the rail. I have done that shot for over 40 years and it is a fun shot if you don't scratch after making the ball. You have to balance the amount of inside spin with where you want the cue ball to end up. Dr. Dave demonstrates it with a more than 90 degree cut. He jacks up a little so the curve is accentuated to achieve the extreme approach angle coupled with the off the rail spin to get the extreme angle. This shot is not a very reliable shot for accuracy, it is possible but not likely. The full 90 degree version relies on squirt to move the cue ball over a little then swerve to bring it back and the angle coming off the rail to roll the object ball down the rail to the pocket. There is so much squirt at that distance and speed you have to aim for almost a half ball hit or use back hand English to compensate.

I used to think I was cool because I could put the cue ball on the spot and cut the object ball into either corner pocket from the center of the table on the rail with a lot of side spin until a friend of mine put the cue ball all the way back to the rail and did it off the rail and then his brother put it up on the rail on a cube of chalk and shot it off the chalk and made the shot. That was when I learned I was a good player but not a great one.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Tor Lowry touts center top, no inside and a simultaneous hit of the ball and rail at the same time. Simultaneous is almost impossible but the concept does work well and you don't have to be perfect with it....

If you actually hit the ball and the rail at the same time you will miss the longer shots. This "simultaneous hit" stuff only works if your subconscious says to itself, "This idiot is trying to miss again. Let's put the cue ball over there a little where he can make the shot."

I wish people would stop teaching "simultaneous hit". It doesn't work. Tor should know better if in fact he says the above.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, isn't that why I've heard using high inside on balls frozen to the rail, will make the object ball hug the rail more as it runs down the line to the pocket? Precisely why shots that are frozen to the rail, and you have to impart draw or low outside to get position have a bigger degree of difficulty.

Did you notice this with your testing?

If a ball actually does hug the rail on the way to the pocket I think it will have the wrong side of side spin when it gets there as the rail will rub it that way. I think what people see on "hugging the rail" shots is the object ball trapped in the rail groove.

The other factor is that the rail can make the target on the object ball somewhat larger because of the rail compression and the fact that for a fair distance while it is in the cushion the cue ball is moving nearly straight at the object ball. Most people don't realize that while the cue ball is in the cushion its path is a smooth parabola and not a triangle or something.

 

[skipbales]

If a ball actually does hug the rail on the way to the pocket I think it will have the wrong side of side spin when it gets there as the rail will rub it that way. I think what people see on "hugging the rail" shots is the object ball trapped in the rail groove.

.

That is a good point. Spin that holds the ball to the rail is pocket rejection spin at the pocket. I guess if the ball is truly hugging the rail the spin at the pocket won't matter much as the ball will be well within the jaws of the pocket and if it drifts out it doesn't have any "ball hugging" spin on it. Isn't what Tor talking about more a matter of it being easier to hit a more pure shot with top center than with low and or side spin? This might be one of those it works well but the instructor doesn't explain the dynamics right. I do find center high a more reliable way to pocket a rail shot than anything else. In my case I think it is because of speed. If I have to get draw I am forced to hit a little harder than with top. I don't like a hard or soft stroke on rail shots as much as a medium speed.

Speed seems to matter a lot. A lot of slow roll shots down the rail seem to drift out. It could be table roll or is it friction? I do know a nice medium speed shot is more reliable for me.

All of this moot unless the only thing that matters is making the ball. If you need low left for position you need to be able to shoot that shot too.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If a ball actually does hug the rail on the way to the pocket I think it will have the wrong side of side spin when it gets there as the rail will rub it that way.

That is a good point. Spin that holds the ball to the rail is pocket rejection spin at the pocket.

No spin "holds the ball to the rail". Bob was just saying that a ball that hugs the rail (simply by being aimed that way) will pick up some running spin from rubbing against the rail (like any ball that hits a rail).

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

No spin "holds the ball to the rail". Bob was just saying that a ball that hugs the rail (simply by being aimed that way) will pick up some running spin from rubbing against the rail (like any ball that hits a rail).

pj
chgo

Yes, I know. It is really just rolling along the rail on its horizontal axis but there is that momentum to keep rolling in the same direction. It is rolling both on the vertical and horizontal plane, not actually spinning or slipping at all. Everyone has been referring to it as spin so I just didn't bother to change the terminology.

The, with the direction sideways roll, does resist the "in the pocket action" when it collides with the pocket but doesn't keep it from going in. It doesn't help it either.

I believe it is both possible for a ball to roll down the rail and to slide down it. To spin in the opposite direction it would have to be slightly off the rail. As with a drag shot a sliding ball will eventually pick up roll if it travels far enough. Opposite spin is what makes those shots more difficult because even a small touch of the rail pushes the ball away from the rail. To spin a ball down the rail with spin that opposes the direction of travel is a harder shot. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, I know. It is really just rolling along the rail on its horizontal axis but there is that momentum to keep rolling in the same direction. It is rolling both on the vertical and horizontal plane, not actually spinning or slipping at all. Everyone has been referring to it as spin so I just didn't bother to change the terminology.

The, with the direction sideways roll, does resist the "in the pocket action" when it collides with the pocket but doesn't keep it from going in. It doesn't help it either.

I believe it is both possible for a ball to roll down the rail and to slide down it. To spin in the opposite direction it would have to be slightly off the rail. As with a drag shot a sliding ball will eventually pick up roll if it travels far enough. Opposite spin is what makes those shots more difficult because even a small touch of the rail pushes the ball away from the rail. To spin a ball down the rail with spin that opposes the direction of travel is a harder shot. Just my 2 cents worth.

OK, I get you now. Thanks.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I wish people would stop teaching "simultaneous hit". It doesn't work. Tor should know better if in fact he says the above.

I've always tried to aim them the same as if they were in the center of the table, trusting that the usual overcut for throw = the right amount of "rail first". Who knows if it's actually right or if I'm subconsciously adjusting a little - I'm not in the need-to-know loop for that stuff.

pj
chgo

 

[garczar]

Tor's table............?

Is it just me but does his table not look REALLY slow and have GIANT pockets? I would think almost anybody on this forum could put together packages on that thing.