And now the real question is....what's the definition of a curve or hook? Half in.? 2 in.? a foot??
In bank...a little goes a long way
John B.
In bank...a little goes a long way
John B.
curving an object ball....
- Thread starter John Brumback
- Start date
I was thinking the same thing after you brought that up. Great minds think a like I guessJohn B.
Well, I guess you could say that.
Or... perhaps that some 'varmints' like bob cats & alligators just don't like getting snared.:wink:
You do whatever you want to do & don't think you have to do anything that you don't want.
If I were you, I'd just put out whatever you wish whenever you wish & those that want to take it for the good info that it is will...
& those that don't won't.
Don't let yourself be bullied or goaded into doing anything or getting chased away.
Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick
Really???
The brain trust swore that you couldn't transfer enough english to the object ball for it to matter a few years ago... (please don't make me link stuff... you haven't deleted them all and wayback works). AND Brumback made you change your song..... Now once again here you all are, less the parrot..
If you wish to argue buy new simonis... now heat the simonis like it is under our lights... I won't tell you what John does in prep for Derby but the balls curve... They curve in my local room with new cloth... Pool needs money behind it so this "bs" science crap quits happening... otherwise we burn John at the stake as a witch.. We don't burn librarians so Dave is safe.....
The brain trust swore that you couldn't transfer enough english to the object ball for it to matter a few years ago... (please don't make me link stuff... you haven't deleted them all and wayback works). AND Brumback made you change your song..... Now once again here you all are, less the parrot..
If you wish to argue buy new simonis... now heat the simonis like it is under our lights... I won't tell you what John does in prep for Derby but the balls curve... They curve in my local room with new cloth... Pool needs money behind it so this "bs" science crap quits happening... otherwise we burn John at the stake as a witch.. We don't burn librarians so Dave is safe.....
Are you just playing games or do you really not understand the issue.
Unlike some instructors, I'd heard you were a player.
The middle peg is not the issue.
I'm not going to repeat it all again.
John understands & I'd bet others do too.
Last edited:
And now the real question is....what's the definition of a curve or hook? Half in.? 2 in.? a foot??
In bank...a little goes a long way
What's the difference between titing in & titing out?
1/8 inch or less?
I'd say less.
How about any of the scientists playing John some bank pool for some cash. I want to see their cash curve right into John's "pocket".
I don't think knowing the science behind a pool shot has ever helped anyone become a top player. Truth be known,I'm sure it hurts more than it helps. JMHO John B.
I'm not the ****ing guy that's discouraging him.
John,
I totally agree with you & I have 3 years of physics education.
I've said before that I am glad that I started at 13 and using english then too & that I am glad that that was 2+ years before my 1st. physics class.
There is absolutely no need to know the why regarding anything.
The only need is to know is the HOW.
Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Banks
Banned
Heck, even i knew spin transfer was a thing shortly after starting, despite what people with much more experience said.
Science is great, as long as it's understood. Some of those people came up with LD technology. Just because they can't perform doesn't discount the facts, just as making shots doesn't mean the same people know what happens.
Imo, part of the breakdown is where method isn't properly translated into data. I'm convinced a bank can curve, but i haven't spent the time breaking it down. Likewise, you've made countless banks, but how many times have you recorded them to show something like this? In the video, the ball clearly has diagonal spin, which can grab or fade.
I'd like to take a swing at Bob's grand when i get back from vacation. Hopefully it's still available.
I didn't see that so I don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, doesn't it prove that discussions like this are a good thing? If people said a few years ago that you couldn't transfer spin, and JB convinced them you could, we've all learned something. I know I've read lots of Dr. Dave-type articles on transferring spin, especially for bank shots, so it has now become common knowledge.
I really don't get the attitude in here that you can't question anything, that it's wrong to try to prove or demonstrate something. What if JB is wrong about what he thinks is happening - then we've discovered a new myth. How cool would that be? I bet JB would be the first to agree and find it interesting if what he thought was a curve was really a jump or whatever. Or, better yet, what if it can be finally definitively captured on video so that everyone who looks at it can agree? Either way it's a win for everyone, right? So why the nastiness?
I didn't see that so I don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, doesn't it prove that discussions like this are a good thing? If people said a few years ago that you couldn't transfer spin, and JB convinced them you could, we've all learned something. I know I've read lots of Dr. Dave-type articles on transferring spin, especially for bank shots, so it has now become common knowledge.
I really don't get the attitude in here that you can't question anything, that it's wrong to try to prove or demonstrate something. What if JB is wrong about what he thinks is happening - then we've discovered a new myth. How cool would that be? I bet JB would be the first to agree and find it interesting if what he thought was a curve was really a jump or whatever. Or, better yet, what if it can be finally definitively captured on video so that everyone who looks at it can agree? Either way it's a win for everyone, right? So why the nastiness?
It does not matter at all. What matters is that John uses a technique that gets the ball into the pocket. He does it regularly.
Can Dr. Dave proving that the ball does not actually curve but is rotating in the air & coming down with a changed spin orientation that then sends it on a different line help you to bank like John Brumback?
Or would you rather know what John Brumback does to get the ball to go into the pocket?
Best Wishes for You & Yours.
PS How about if John says do this & the ball will fly into the pocket.... then Dr. Dave says, 'Well... the ball does not actually fly into the pocket, only certain animals & airplanes can fly. The ball is actually propelled into the pocket because of the collision of the cue ball striking it. When I first came on AZB I referred to CIT as pushing the ball & I was crucified in less than 3 posts later by as many as 4 or 5 individuals. I still think of it as pushing the ball.
Last edited:
There sure has been a lot of smack talk, woofing, and immature schoolyard insults in this thread. This whole debate can be easy and simply resolved with a clear and convincing video (posted by anyone, not just John, and from any source ... a new recording, an excerpt from a DVD, an excerpt from an Accu-Stats-match overhead camera, etc.) showing a banked ball curving a useful amount (e.g., an amount necessary to clear an obstacle ball). The problem with anecdotal statements about what people claim they have seen in person is: our eyes and brain aren't fast enough to accurately visualize the path of the OB with fast-speed banks. As several people have pointed out in the thread, there are too many visual clues that can create optical illusions and mislead us:
- the ball can compress and slide down the cushion a significant amount during rebound.
- the ball typically bounces into the air (sometimes high, with multiple subsequent bounces) after rebound
- the ball typically has a combination of sidespin and topspin after rebound that might visually look like masse or bank-bending spin.
- the ball "turns" when it heads into the pocket if it hits the cushion adjacent to the pocket first.
- we are used to seeing slower-speed banks curve long (due to incoming topspin), so a fast-speed bank might seem to curve short in comparison.
Again, when all of this happens very quickly, or if poor-quality video is being used, our eyes (and brains) can easily be fooled into thinking something is happening that is not. Freddy's "bank benders" included and analyzed in my recently-posted video are good examples of this.
That's why Bob's $1500 challenge is so excellent. It totally eliminates the potential for optical illusions or deception. If the ball is curving, it should be able to get around the middle peg. Place the board wherever you want and at any angle you want, place the middle peg wherever you want, use more than one middle peg if you want, hit the shot as many times as you want, move the board and middle peg(s) as many times as you want to make adjustments, use "little white donuts" and/or rail markers and/or lasers to help you with aiming and alignment adjustments, and even use a thinner board if you want. If someone cannot beat this challenge after a large number of attempts and adjustments, then it is probably safe to say that bending a bank is probably not a reliable and important technique that can be used with confidence in an actual game situation.
Stop with all of the claims. Just do it, and post a video. It could potentially be worth $1500. Until that happens, I don't see any need for further smack talk, woofing, or immature schoolyard insults.
I honestly still think bending a bank a useful amount is possible with the right combination of cut angle, spin, speed, cue elevation, angle into the cushion, ball height at cushion contact, and ball/cushion/rail/cloth conditions (humidity included). I just haven't seen it yet.
Sincerely,
Dave
- the ball can compress and slide down the cushion a significant amount during rebound.
- the ball typically bounces into the air (sometimes high, with multiple subsequent bounces) after rebound
- the ball typically has a combination of sidespin and topspin after rebound that might visually look like masse or bank-bending spin.
- the ball "turns" when it heads into the pocket if it hits the cushion adjacent to the pocket first.
- we are used to seeing slower-speed banks curve long (due to incoming topspin), so a fast-speed bank might seem to curve short in comparison.
Again, when all of this happens very quickly, or if poor-quality video is being used, our eyes (and brains) can easily be fooled into thinking something is happening that is not. Freddy's "bank benders" included and analyzed in my recently-posted video are good examples of this.
That's why Bob's $1500 challenge is so excellent. It totally eliminates the potential for optical illusions or deception. If the ball is curving, it should be able to get around the middle peg. Place the board wherever you want and at any angle you want, place the middle peg wherever you want, use more than one middle peg if you want, hit the shot as many times as you want, move the board and middle peg(s) as many times as you want to make adjustments, use "little white donuts" and/or rail markers and/or lasers to help you with aiming and alignment adjustments, and even use a thinner board if you want. If someone cannot beat this challenge after a large number of attempts and adjustments, then it is probably safe to say that bending a bank is probably not a reliable and important technique that can be used with confidence in an actual game situation.
Stop with all of the claims. Just do it, and post a video. It could potentially be worth $1500. Until that happens, I don't see any need for further smack talk, woofing, or immature schoolyard insults.
I honestly still think bending a bank a useful amount is possible with the right combination of cut angle, spin, speed, cue elevation, angle into the cushion, ball height at cushion contact, and ball/cushion/rail/cloth conditions (humidity included). I just haven't seen it yet.
Sincerely,
Dave
Last edited:
Like I said much earlier in this thread.
If John Brumback & a 'science guy' with pool for a hobby are both giving banking lessons in the same pool hall...
I'm going to John Brumback's table.
In fact... if I want to get better at actually playing the game I would never take a lesson from a 'science guy' when I could take one from a world class Player.
That is unless they are both represented by one individual, then I would consider taking a lesson from a 'science guy' but only because he is also a world class player. The issue with that ever happening is that there has never been a 'science guy' that has ever been a world class player. At least not any that I know about. That does not mean that there are not any, but it would seem that one would be rather difficult to find. One can readily find many world class players that are NOT 'science guys'.
If one wants to learn physics as it relates to pool one could do that in a class room without ever having touched a pool cue & never actually touching one ever in their entire life.
Learning how to play & learning physics as it relates to pool are too mutually exclusive things & one is NOT dependent on the other.
Best Wishes to ALL,
Rick
If John Brumback & a 'science guy' with pool for a hobby are both giving banking lessons in the same pool hall...
I'm going to John Brumback's table.
In fact... if I want to get better at actually playing the game I would never take a lesson from a 'science guy' when I could take one from a world class Player.
That is unless they are both represented by one individual, then I would consider taking a lesson from a 'science guy' but only because he is also a world class player. The issue with that ever happening is that there has never been a 'science guy' that has ever been a world class player. At least not any that I know about. That does not mean that there are not any, but it would seem that one would be rather difficult to find. One can readily find many world class players that are NOT 'science guys'.
If one wants to learn physics as it relates to pool one could do that in a class room without ever having touched a pool cue & never actually touching one ever in their entire life.
Learning how to play & learning physics as it relates to pool are too mutually exclusive things & one is NOT dependent on the other.
Best Wishes to ALL,
Rick
Last edited:
Chris,
Why do you keep attempting to re-write history on this topic? You might believe what you are writing, but it is a grossly inaccurate.
Anyone who has been active on Internet pool forums for a long time, and has a decent memory, will know that the "science guys" have worked really hard to convince many players, some instructors, and even some pros that throw and spin transfer are important in pool. This is also clear to anyone who read the public debate about throw and spin transfer between Bob Jewett and Mike Sigel on the pages of Billiards Digest (in the late 1990s, I think), or has read my book The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards (published in 2004) which covers both topics in detail, or has seen the demonstrations, examples, and proofs on my spin transfer and throw resource pages. I have also written numerous articles in Billiards Digest dealing with throw and spin transfer, starting with the August, 2006 issue.
Chris, please try to be more careful with your "facts" in the future. If you keep repeating this same claim on AZB and Facebook (I have seen it several times already), I will keep re-posting this same reply so people can do the fact-checking on their own. Somebody has to keep you honest and prevent you from attempting to re-write history.
Regards,
Dave
You claimed you can curve a bank. When asked to provide proof you said you were headed for the door.
What would you call it?
I did say just a few posts ago, "We all have a ton of respect for you and your game and your accomplishments." If that makes me a "creep," I got nothin' more for you.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
I don't believe that is correct.
The "brain trust" always knew spin could be transferred. It was the snooker trolls on RSB that swore it couldn't be done. And it wasn't JB that made anyone change their tune. It is was the same guys -- like Bob Jewett and Mike Page and Ron Shepard and Pat Johnson.
Lou Figueroa
I'm just wondering what the core issue is?
The ball doesn't move in a straight line off the rail.
Anyone who does it or who has seen it KNOWS that.
So what's the problem then?
If it's curving from the get go, or hops in the air and then changes trajectory, or if aliens come down from outer space and hit the object ball with an invisible ray gun, IT'S STILL NOT TRAVELING IN A STRAIGHT LINE OFF THE RAIL.
So what is this? Is it a semantic thing where we must break this shot down into its sub parts and define every little detail of what is happening?
It doesn't travel in a straight line. THATS IT!
Who cares if it's in the air or on the surface the entire time.
What do you people want?
It's amazing how dense some people are with their need to categorize something.
This shot reminds me of when I used to watch bowling on TV as a kid.
You had these guys ripping this bowling ball down the lane, and the ball had tons of spin on it, and it would go straight, before BREAKING, and making a left turn.
And all this because a World Champion wants to give some insight into how they do things.
No wonder champions bail on this forum left and right. You can't say anything without a bunch of people trying to cut them down at every opportunity.
Let this be a lesson to champions who choose to share their trade.
DON'T SHARE and let everyone stay ignorant.
Let them all EARN insight the old fashioned way.
You pound them for lots of money, and give them a nugget of info for the donation.
J.B. should take all his DVDs off the market and let the pool world learn the hard way.
Through SACRIFICE.
The ball doesn't move in a straight line off the rail.
Anyone who does it or who has seen it KNOWS that.
So what's the problem then?
If it's curving from the get go, or hops in the air and then changes trajectory, or if aliens come down from outer space and hit the object ball with an invisible ray gun, IT'S STILL NOT TRAVELING IN A STRAIGHT LINE OFF THE RAIL.
So what is this? Is it a semantic thing where we must break this shot down into its sub parts and define every little detail of what is happening?
It doesn't travel in a straight line. THATS IT!
Who cares if it's in the air or on the surface the entire time.
What do you people want?
It's amazing how dense some people are with their need to categorize something.
This shot reminds me of when I used to watch bowling on TV as a kid.
You had these guys ripping this bowling ball down the lane, and the ball had tons of spin on it, and it would go straight, before BREAKING, and making a left turn.
And all this because a World Champion wants to give some insight into how they do things.
No wonder champions bail on this forum left and right. You can't say anything without a bunch of people trying to cut them down at every opportunity.
Let this be a lesson to champions who choose to share their trade.
DON'T SHARE and let everyone stay ignorant.
Let them all EARN insight the old fashioned way.
You pound them for lots of money, and give them a nugget of info for the donation.
J.B. should take all his DVDs off the market and let the pool world learn the hard way.
Through SACRIFICE.
Last edited:
I can't see why so many insults are flowing from this thread. The question is, does the OB curve? Money has been placed to prove it does. Post the video of it curving. Or even better, try being civil to your fellow pool players.
Sent from my SM-T530 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T530 using Tapatalk