Is there an English version of this post?Speaking of subjective, place the edge of the nickel in your diagram at "A" touching "B" so that it's top sits atop the ball's equator . . .
pj
chgo
Help with cue tip contact point.
- Thread starter dquarasr
- Start date
pj
chgo
Location of the arcs relative to one another doesn't change their properties...
How is this possible...? At least I certainly don't avoid the use of the edge of the tip when attempting to impart spin on the CB (approaching miscue limit). How do you impart spin on a ball without using the edge of the tip...?
...and just in case you ask. I have zero idea what arc my tip is shaped to. My cue guy just does it and I play with it.
JV, meet Matt.
Of course it's not possible. We have no control over when the edge of the tip comes into play - that's determined entirely by the tip's arc and where we're hitting the cue ball with it.
pj
chgo
1) Stick your two circles (nickel and ball edge) to be congruent at one point. You are emphasizing the difference in the degree of roundness falsely, when you overlay one over the other, you can see good control except for aiming near the miscue limit, aka edging the tip dangerously for any given shot.
2) Answer any of the other four challenges I posed.
3) Admit your own cue tip is between a nickel and a dime. I can see it from here, Florida to Illinois.
4) Play nicely with the other adults. I answered you in English, you duck over 90% of my questions--because you know I'm correct. I hope you are clued into the fact that when you constantly make smug remarks instead of responding to my facts, you're seen as a man of weak convictions. If you're so sure, for example, I'm wrong, hit ten of my shots--I'm giving you the chance to shoot my shot then tell me off. TAKE IT.
Last edited:
Location of the arcs relative to one another does not change their physical properties, yes. It does change our visual perception of their disparity, and PJ got cute putting a flat surface (I don't advocate flat tips) near the ball in his diagram, if he made the arcs congruent (at one point only where they can meet) it visually reveals it's pretty good for practical purposes, until one tips the cue ball out near the miscue limit, aka, most pro tips and most factory tips, etc. are shaped to U.S. nickel coins.Location of the arcs relative to one another doesn't change their properties...
How is this possible...? At least I certainly don't avoid the use of the edge of the tip when attempting to impart spin on the CB (approaching miscue limit). How do you impart spin on a ball without using the edge of the tip...?
...and just in case you ask. I have zero idea what arc my tip is shaped to. My cue guy just does it and I play with it.
My cue guy (or me with a tip shaper) hones it the way I like. My brand of shaper is actually the circumference of a nickel on one side and a dime on the other!
It's okay if you don't know, but if you want to know, take some pocket change and hold it behind the tip. My bet says your cue guy shapes it to a nickel or so. Yes, you likely use a nickel-shaped tip, and cue near the edge to impart spin, and (behold!) your shots work.
The two curvatures are shown "sharing" the same tip - so we can compare them as they'd actually be. You really don't get that?
lol
Start making sense and I'll stop "ducking".
pj <- believe it when I see it
chgo
People can do what they want and most likely my words will have no impact, but.... Awhile back everyone almost completely stopped interacting with this guy. Lo and behold his post count dropped off to almost nothing. Lately the nonsense is gaining traction and will quickly get out of control. Idgaf, maybe the lunacy is enjoyable to some (I'll admit I enjoyed it for awhile) but now it just seems tiresome.
Here:
I drew two circles, not that I have time for such silliness, one of them 13mm in width, the other 22.1mm, then made the circles/arcs congruent at a single point.
Besides reminding me of an olive in Bond's vodka martini (though he typically opts for lemon peel instead), you can see the arc disparity is slight for shooting pool unless you are working near the miscue limit (turn the diagram in your mind to where the top curved part of the tip gets flush with the ferrule aka miscue city.
You of course pushed the arcs away into incongruity to show "how different they are", which belies the fact that almost every pool player with a rounded tip has one (if shaped properly by a cue pro) to be a NICKEL.
I drew two circles, not that I have time for such silliness, one of them 13mm in width, the other 22.1mm, then made the circles/arcs congruent at a single point.
Besides reminding me of an olive in Bond's vodka martini (though he typically opts for lemon peel instead), you can see the arc disparity is slight for shooting pool unless you are working near the miscue limit (turn the diagram in your mind to where the top curved part of the tip gets flush with the ferrule aka miscue city.
You of course pushed the arcs away into incongruity to show "how different they are", which belies the fact that almost every pool player with a rounded tip has one (if shaped properly by a cue pro) to be a NICKEL.
No! Give PJ a chance.
That "flat surface" is the ball - both curvatures are placed on the same tip for realistic comparison.
You really don't get it, huh? Maybe you should leave this conversation to those who do.
pj
chgo
Thanks for posting the nickel tip illustration, it's a veritable template for a pro shaped tip. That's the point.
You managed to turn my subjective "very" to an argument. A shame.
Why? What does comparing nickel curvature to tip width tell you?
Your claim was that a nickel's curvature is "very close" to a ball's.
I can understand why you'd want to "forget" that...
pj
chgo
Realistic comparison? Of what, subjective words like "very" (me) and "not very" (you)?
Put differently to facilitate your understanding, pool players should use rounded tips, preferably to the circumference of a nickel, rather than flat tips, to play the cue ball.
Understand how objective and subjective comparisons differ and then we can go on to geometry and physics!
And if you say I'm making nonsense, I say, what is the shape of your cue tip, I'm saying a nickel shape. And what do most pros use?
Hint, a nickel shape. Stop your silliness.
It is very close in my opinion. Unless the subjective word very means an objective measure, like degree difference in arc.
What say you? Pistols at dawn? Over the word very?
Stop being childish.
Speaking of forgetting, PJ, before I forget, you ignored:
4) I wonder how many books Bob owns that advocate shaping to a nickel coin? But what do pros know? And countless strong amateurs shape to a nickel. You [PJ] consistently tell everyone you know more than the pros.
5) If I looked at your cue tip now [PJ], it will almost surely sit somewhere between a nickel and a dime shape, depending on preference. So give us a "break" (pun intended).
4) I wonder how many books Bob owns that advocate shaping to a nickel coin? But what do pros know? And countless strong amateurs shape to a nickel. You [PJ] consistently tell everyone you know more than the pros.
5) If I looked at your cue tip now [PJ], it will almost surely sit somewhere between a nickel and a dime shape, depending on preference. So give us a "break" (pun intended).
I ignored this because it has nothing to do with the single point I've made. Yes, nickel and dime shapes are common - that doesn't make either one of them "very close" to ball shaped.
Your strawmen are showing.
pj
chgo
I think I understand, thank you.
Your skill as a geometer qualifies you to teach seventh grade math.
Your interpersonal skills qualify you to attend the seventh grade.
For example, I invited you just a few posts ago to try an alternative stroke I use in teaching, hoping you might give it a go and respond, "Interesting and helpful, thank you," or "I tried it but it's not really for me, I prefer a regular stroke here for speed control," which I could accept though most I've shown use the stroke--you know, sharing knowledge and communication like adults do.
Instead, you wrote "So, you don't know what the shot does?" as if I haven't taught it many times, successfully.
In my imagination, you sound like Vinny Barbarino, "So wha? So wha?! Ya dunno wha 'da sha duz?" but that is insulting to Vinny Barbarino and all of us Brooklyn alumni.
Though I would fire any cue manufacturer who made a "ball tip" instead of that luscious nickel tip--you know, like the one on your own playing cue--I must say I now have the solemn duty to upgrade you from Bronze Heckler to Silver Heckler of Matt Sherman. After all, it only took you six posts and three illustrations to say that our opinion of "very" differs. It still differs, and very much so.
Congratulations! You've now joined a small group of small-minded people who pay human interpersonal communication skills no mind.
You now have the option to graduate to Gold Heckler, or "revert" to acting like an adult.
PS. "Not at all" in your post above = how many degrees of arc difference? I may have to revoke your math teaching privilege.
PPS. You're "not at all" behaving the way adults do, even when they are vigorously arguing on a forum. As we are currently, because you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective English sentences.
Your skill as a geometer qualifies you to teach seventh grade math.
Your interpersonal skills qualify you to attend the seventh grade.
For example, I invited you just a few posts ago to try an alternative stroke I use in teaching, hoping you might give it a go and respond, "Interesting and helpful, thank you," or "I tried it but it's not really for me, I prefer a regular stroke here for speed control," which I could accept though most I've shown use the stroke--you know, sharing knowledge and communication like adults do.
Instead, you wrote "So, you don't know what the shot does?" as if I haven't taught it many times, successfully.
In my imagination, you sound like Vinny Barbarino, "So wha? So wha?! Ya dunno wha 'da sha duz?" but that is insulting to Vinny Barbarino and all of us Brooklyn alumni.
Though I would fire any cue manufacturer who made a "ball tip" instead of that luscious nickel tip--you know, like the one on your own playing cue--I must say I now have the solemn duty to upgrade you from Bronze Heckler to Silver Heckler of Matt Sherman. After all, it only took you six posts and three illustrations to say that our opinion of "very" differs. It still differs, and very much so.
Congratulations! You've now joined a small group of small-minded people who pay human interpersonal communication skills no mind.
You now have the option to graduate to Gold Heckler, or "revert" to acting like an adult.
PS. "Not at all" in your post above = how many degrees of arc difference? I may have to revoke your math teaching privilege.
PPS. You're "not at all" behaving the way adults do, even when they are vigorously arguing on a forum. As we are currently, because you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective English sentences.
That's actually the importance of tip curvature - and why it's usually nickel/dime.
Tips are shaped like nickels and dimes because that size curvature can include 60 degrees of arc within the width of a typical cue tip. 60 degrees is what's needed to reach the miscue limit without going "past the edge" of the tip (30 degrees to each side).
A tip with a ball's curvature would include less than half that much arc within the tip's width, so it would already be hitting "past its edge" halfway to the miscue limit. That's what's not "very close" about them.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Backing up a bit.....this is clearly incorrect. A nickel is about 22 mm diameter, a ball is about 57 mm. The shapes are clearly not even close, unless i'm missing something.
PJ illustrated a cue with a nickel shape on top of it, like if you used that radius to shape your tip.
If you used the radius of the 'cue ball equator' to shape your tip, it would be too flat to be effective, and certainly doesn't lead to 'maximizing control and feel'
it may just be language, but the use of 'very close' above, translates to 'not very close at all'