Fingering the one ball
- Thread starter m79a
- Start date
Shameful
What’s shameful? I’ve seen guys do this and I’m trying to figure out why?
I can barely contain myself, but
I'm sure he's talking about people that touch the balls once they are considered set...triangle removed or fully assembled onto testicle ahh, template.
They are either checking for gaps or making gaps or parroting.
No other peter... ahh, possibility.
I'm sure he's talking about people that touch the balls once they are considered set...triangle removed or fully assembled onto testicle ahh, template.
They are either checking for gaps or making gaps or parroting.
No other peter... ahh, possibility.
It probably means gently brushing the one ball back against the two balls behind it with the tip of a finger. Usually this is an attempt to freeze the one ball to the rack.
However, there are some racking techniques that use small adjustments to doctor the rack for a better -- rack for yourself -- or worse -- rack for opponent -- kind of rack.
sudocrushms
Well-known member
I asked this of an old school player in Seattle area, Mike Zimmerman, because I had seen him tell a player (might have been John Horsfall?) to not touch the 1 ball when racking for his opponent.. I asked Mike why this was a problem?
He told me that some players will rub their fingers through their hair, pick up oils, then they will touch the 1 ball in the area the CB will be striking on the break, transferring the oil from their finger to the 1 ball, which increases the likelihood that the CB will lose friction with the 1 ball, climbing up over the 1 ball and scratching, or simply not transferring enough energy to the rack to make a ball on the break.
He told me that some players will rub their fingers through their hair, pick up oils, then they will touch the 1 ball in the area the CB will be striking on the break, transferring the oil from their finger to the 1 ball, which increases the likelihood that the CB will lose friction with the 1 ball, climbing up over the 1 ball and scratching, or simply not transferring enough energy to the rack to make a ball on the break.
Physically, that makes no sense. If the oil reduces friction, it will make the follow on the cue ball less effective in making the cue ball jump up. And it will have essentially zero effect in energy transfer.
My experience with this has just been getting the head ball to be tight to the rack. I especially had problems with this with the old Diamand wood racks, which I actually love, but when it was humid the lacquer finish could be a little sticky and if you had a tight rack up to the head ball and the head ball would stick to the rack a tiny big creating a small gap as the rack was removed. It was really hard to get a tight rack without a tiny little touch to the one as you were removing the rack or just after to gently nudge it back to tight with the second row balls.
I have seen some people go after that head ball a little more heavily and I have wondered if they're trying to get a specific type of gap somewhere to assist in the break or something. I don't know, but I did pick up on the lightly touching the head ball habit when racking with some racks as it really helps to get it tight.
I have seen some people go after that head ball a little more heavily and I have wondered if they're trying to get a specific type of gap somewhere to assist in the break or something. I don't know, but I did pick up on the lightly touching the head ball habit when racking with some racks as it really helps to get it tight.
g0ds gReeN
Active member
I get a thumb in there too, sometimes both. But I always buy dinner first.
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
Playing 10 ball and 8 ball this technique is used to create a tiny tiny space between the balls in second row of balls, this makes them "more wired" into the side pockets than they are when completely frozen.
I don't believe this works at all for 9ball though because we are breaking more closely to the side rails OR cut breaking to simulate that. You're better off having those balls all frozen as can be for 9 ball.
Would love to hear some of the top players thoughts on this topic but don't think that's going to happen in a public forum. Some conversations I've had in person have been pretty eye opening to say the least.
I don't believe this works at all for 9ball though because we are breaking more closely to the side rails OR cut breaking to simulate that. You're better off having those balls all frozen as can be for 9 ball.
Would love to hear some of the top players thoughts on this topic but don't think that's going to happen in a public forum. Some conversations I've had in person have been pretty eye opening to say the least.
I can’t
Just don't finger the one hole.
Bob.. You seem to be assuming the CB is striking the CB midpoint to midpoint, sliding across the cloth.
If the CB is in the air when it strikes the 1 ball, and the contact point has oil on it, the CB will tend to climb up over the 1 ball, leading to a higher chance of driving the CB off the table. (Or maybe "slide" up it's face, is a better way to say it...)
And am I wrong in saying that an angled strike on the CB, however minute, will have a reduced transfer of power if the contact point is frictionless? The CB spends momentum crawling up the face of the 1 ball, versus transferring momentum into the pack.
Well, OK, sliding off the top of the one ball will be a tiny bit more likely. But only a tiny bit. The vast majority of the speed of the cue ball up is due to being off the cloth. And if the cue ball has follow, my point still holds -- a sticky contact will launch it better.
Also, the friction between the cue ball and object ball on the break shot is way, way down on the effects to worry about. Side spin on the cue ball might be the equivalent of hitting the ball a millimeter farther right or left. The problem with putting side spin on the cue ball (or a lot of follow, for that matter), is that an off-center hit puts less speed on the cue ball. It is almost entirely that forward speed that determines how much energy you put into the rack. Spinning the cue ball reduces that energy transfer.
Here's a way that pressing the one ball back against the rack might help the non-breaker. Suppose pressing the one ball causes the two balls behind it to split. (They should be frozen to each other and to the one ball.) If they move away from the center, they may also move away from their contact on the nine ball. I think if those balls are not touching the nine, the nine will not move regardless of what the balls farther back do.
Of course, the nine won't move with a really tight rack either, but if the back half of the rack is loose, the nine can move. Fingering the one ball might stop that. On some tables, the nine ball movement is consistently towards a pocket.
Of course, the nine won't move with a really tight rack either, but if the back half of the rack is loose, the nine can move. Fingering the one ball might stop that. On some tables, the nine ball movement is consistently towards a pocket.
In order to get the head-ball tight onto the second 2 balls if you move the head-ball "by ANY means" so that it touches the other 2, it will have moved other balls in the rack by tiny amounts. This is simple collision physics.
Only when you move the head-ball while the rack is still holding the rest of them firmly, can the head-ball be made to touch the second 2 with the rest of the tack remaining tight.
