You didn't appear to know that when you said this:
"I just called Bobby Pickle at The Cue in Clarksville, TN and asked him to measure
the height of the nose from the slate bed on one of their Diamond Pro tables. It measured
EXACTLY 1.5 inches or 3/16 lower than yours..."
Are you on medication Patrick. HOW, in your foggy thought process did you arrive at the notion that my asking someone to measure the height of the nose, implies that I don't know what the nose is?????????
Nothing I can think of "protrudes" above the nose by an inch or more.
Yes, Patrick. That was a misstatement due to the TEDIOUS nature of having to respond to your hair-splitting drivel. But you know EXACTLY what I meant...which was I was AGREEING with you that I had to reduce the protrusion of the cb above the rail by 1/16th due to the fact that the top of my cushions are that much higher than the nose.
Me:Quote:
But you are still HOPELESSLY wrong that the couple of 16ths of an inch we are talking about is sufficient to impart any material amount of swerve on a typical hard break shot...which is the NONSENSE you stated which started this whole debate...as Bob Jewett will confirm if he cares to respond further.
No, I didn't state anything of the sort. That's something else (not the first thing by a long shot) that you made up in your fevered imagination. I simply said that speed and squirt aren't directly related.
You lie like a rug Patrick. Why? Here is what started all this...
Quote: captainJR...in reference to a break shot which was the subject of the thread
... "the harder you hit the cue ball, the more deflection you get. "
You
This is only true when you go from a pretty soft shot to a pretty hard shot, because a lot of the swerve in the soft shot is eliminated by shooting harder.
But you don't continue to get more and more squirt with harder and harder shots, because you can only eliminate the swerve once. (Also, you're not technically propducing more squirt, just eliminating the swerve that counteracted squirt.)"
Where in that comment did you state that squirt and swerve aren't directly related??? You said that a hard shot eliminates "the swerve that counteracted squirt." By definition, that statement implies that swerve exists on a hard, properly executed break shot BUT IT DOES NOT and therefore, there is nothing to eliminate.
But now you are wrong AGAIN by saying that swerve and squirt are not directly related because in FACT...THEY ARE! They are RELATED because require a hit off the vertical centerline AND that one tends to reduce the magnitude of the other...at least when they both exist...which is not true with the hard break shot.
It's false, because you don't understand what "level orientation" means. As Bob has said, a level stick means its centerline is level, not its bottom edge.
Bull crap...to you...and I beg to differ with Bob if that is what he said.
A cue could just as easily be cylindrical (like a round pencil since you don't seem to know the difference between cylindrical and conical...more on that later) in which case the centerline and bottom line would be identical.
In FACT...the first few inches of standard cue sticks ARE cylindrical for all intents and purposes and don't give me any of your hair-splitting crap if those lase few inches aren't parallel by a few thousands of an inch because that would be functionally meaningless. do you think that the tip and ferrule are not a cylindrical????
In any event, in a given orientation, if the tip/ferrule and a few inches more of the shaft are level or all intents and purposes, to say that the cue stick is not level is SILLY. And if you think it is NOT silly, then you show me an engineering study which shows that swerve can be imparted to any meaningful degree by a cue stick oriented such that its tip and ferrule are level with the slate. The subject here is POOL, Patrick...not quantum physics so if a variable is meaningless you should just shut your pie hole and stop making a fool of yourself.
And, by the way, a conical taper isn't standard for pool cues (even though I have one).
No, I didn't. I said it quickly flattens and is therefore rarely in actual use. Most players simply don't shape their tip that often, for whatever reason. "Cant be easily maintained" is another one of your fevered fantasies.
Just more of you self-delusional clap trap. HOW quickly does a dime shape flatten Patrick? Show me the research. Show me the research that suggests that "most players simply don't shape their tip that often."
And how often is "that often?"
And why does Predator specifically recommend a dime shape? Do you think they are STUPID?
I said this and still mean it.
And you are still wrong.
Fevered fantasy. Show us the quote.
Oh, come on Patrick. You splattered that nonsense all over the aiming thread when I stated that "raw geometry" does not predict the ob path on most cut shots hit with center ball...and you blatantly disagreed. Go look it up for yourself.
(-:
