eze123 said:LOL, I think you just made it even more confusing than it was before.
C'mon! I know what I am talking about, therefore everyone else should too!
I just learned another system!
- Thread starter cuetable
- Start date
C'mon! I know what I am talking about, therefore everyone else should too!
Here are 9 diagrammed shots - 3 shots per link.
They demonstrate the differences between a normal, short and long table. The cue ball reacts differently on each type of table. On some rails, it may appear "short", even though the table is long. Thus, the confusion.
Make sure you see all 3 diagrams for each link - total number of diagrams is 9.
Shot # 1
Shot # 2
Shot # 3
Jim
They demonstrate the differences between a normal, short and long table. The cue ball reacts differently on each type of table. On some rails, it may appear "short", even though the table is long. Thus, the confusion.
Make sure you see all 3 diagrams for each link - total number of diagrams is 9.
Shot # 1
Shot # 2
Shot # 3
Jim
jimshovak said:
That's interesting, Jim. I would label the shots in #3 opposite to what you have marked (and what many players would agree with). I explain why in this series of three diagrams:
Click for a different interpretation of shot #3
Each diagram in the set shows two shots: the original shot Jim drew (AAA), along with what I see as the proportionally equivalent shot (BBB) in what I call the "small table" that is 2x4 diamonds on each end of a billiard table.
Since I see both as short angle shots, it's intuitively obvious to me that they should be labeled the same way. Interestingly, it's just as intuitively obvious to many other experienced players that they should be labeled differently. I think defining an unambiguous set of criteria for long/short terminology that works in every case to the intuitive satisfaction of all players is extremely difficult to do. It's no surprise that beginners are so confused!
Robert
Good points, Robert. The 2nd page showed final angles which were too wide, so you consider them long. Page 3 showed final angles which were too narrow, so you call them short. These are fairly easy calls, since they can be considered either outside (long) or inside (short) the design of the shot. Where it gets trickier to label is when rails are doubled up, or unnatural angles are created.
Doc
Doc
Robert Raiford said:That's interesting, Jim. I would label the shots in #3 opposite to what you have marked (and what many players would agree with). I explain why in this series of three diagrams:
Click for a different interpretation of shot #3
Each diagram in the set shows two shots: the original shot Jim drew (AAA), along with what I see as the proportionally equivalent shot (BBB) in what I call the "small table" that is 2x4 diamonds on each end of a billiard table.
Since I see both as short angle shots, it's intuitively obvious to me that they should be labeled the same way. Interestingly, it's just as intuitively obvious to many other experienced players that they should be labeled differently. I think defining an unambiguous set of criteria for long/short terminology that works in every case to the intuitive satisfaction of all players is extremely difficult to do. It's no surprise that beginners are so confused!
Robert
Robert,
I have great admiration for your billiard knowledge, but I disagree here. I'm in Jim's camp: If the shot misses on the side where a "short" table would miss, then the shot missed "short". In the case of short angles (no equivocation here), on a table that plays "short" the first angle lengthens too much (sticky rails?) using up too much english, and the second angle doesn't lengthen enough (all the english is gone) causing the shot to miss "short".
So my best try for an unambiguous criterion is: What would happen with the same hit and speed on a table that plays "short". Don't we all agree about what happens on a "short" table?
Mark
Robert,
As I said, on each shot the cue ball reacts differently depending on the type of table. On this we can agree. It is sometimes difficult to agree on whether or not the cue ball missed "short" or "long" as we can all now see. It is based on the player's perspective.
This is how I look at it: in shot # 1, my cue ball should hit 1 and a half diamonds LONG of the corner on the 4th rail or the "40" track for all you diamond system players. If I hit the ball as I am supposed to, and it hits closer to the corner, let's say the 37 or 35 track, then the table is playing "short".
In shot # 3, if I play it normally, my cue ball will hit the last ball full in the face. On a SHORT table, it will "come up short" as in example # 2 of shot # 3. At least that is how I perceive it. If it reacts like in example # 3 of shot # 3, then I know that the table is playing long. That is assuming, of course, that I use the correct speed and english and make the right hit.
I think the main difference between the "short angle" shot and the "long angle" shot we have discussed is that the long angle shot requires a little more speed, thus changing the scenario a little bit. Also, in the short angle that you diagrammed, the cue ball hits the 2nd rail much quicker than in the long angle shot which changes everything. The reason that the long angle shot plays "longer" than usual (based on my diagram) is because when the cloth is newer or the balls are more slippery, it follows through more dramatically to the first rail than normal which can make a HUGE difference in the outcome. In the long angle shot on a long table, after the cue ball follows through to the first rail, it flattens out towards the 2nd rail. In the short angle shot on a long table, there is still follow when it hits the 2nd rail which can cause it to go "long" just as you perceive it.
I also call that "going long" in your short angle, but I view the 2 shots as completely different, even though I understand your point.
As I said, on each shot the cue ball reacts differently depending on the type of table. On this we can agree. It is sometimes difficult to agree on whether or not the cue ball missed "short" or "long" as we can all now see. It is based on the player's perspective.
This is how I look at it: in shot # 1, my cue ball should hit 1 and a half diamonds LONG of the corner on the 4th rail or the "40" track for all you diamond system players. If I hit the ball as I am supposed to, and it hits closer to the corner, let's say the 37 or 35 track, then the table is playing "short".
In shot # 3, if I play it normally, my cue ball will hit the last ball full in the face. On a SHORT table, it will "come up short" as in example # 2 of shot # 3. At least that is how I perceive it. If it reacts like in example # 3 of shot # 3, then I know that the table is playing long. That is assuming, of course, that I use the correct speed and english and make the right hit.
I think the main difference between the "short angle" shot and the "long angle" shot we have discussed is that the long angle shot requires a little more speed, thus changing the scenario a little bit. Also, in the short angle that you diagrammed, the cue ball hits the 2nd rail much quicker than in the long angle shot which changes everything. The reason that the long angle shot plays "longer" than usual (based on my diagram) is because when the cloth is newer or the balls are more slippery, it follows through more dramatically to the first rail than normal which can make a HUGE difference in the outcome. In the long angle shot on a long table, after the cue ball follows through to the first rail, it flattens out towards the 2nd rail. In the short angle shot on a long table, there is still follow when it hits the 2nd rail which can cause it to go "long" just as you perceive it.
I also call that "going long" in your short angle, but I view the 2 shots as completely different, even though I understand your point.
I wish I could play three cushion, but after reading this I may never learn. All the guys I play pool with say it will ruin my stroke. I've seen Miguel play once or twice, I would listen to him.
Don't get scared. We are just getting hung up on technicalities.
The important thing is knowing what the cue ball will do on short, normal and long tables.
Never mind all the "it went short" and "it went long" terminology. We are just getting hung up on semantics.
The important thing is knowing what the cue ball will do on short, normal and long tables.
Never mind all the "it went short" and "it went long" terminology. We are just getting hung up on semantics.
APA sleeper said:
It will not ruin your stroke. 3 cushion is about pinpoint accuracy when striking the cueball. that can do nothing but improve your stroke. The key is not getting lazy with your cuing.
I stopped playing pool for about 1 1/2 years stricly playing 3 cushion.
first time I played pool in a year and a half and I either broke and ran out..or my opponent missed and I ran out.
Now lets talk about games that DO ruin my stroke. ONE POCKET.
and that the reason why i dont play it anymore
What would you say lengthening means in terms of the 2nd cushion? Wouldn't less spin at the short (2nd) rail cause the ball to go longer in terms of its 3rd-rail contact point instead of shorter?mbvl said:
I would say that "short" tables play longer than "long" tables when you are relatively perpendicular to the 1st-rail and are measuring 3rd-rail contact points. (Beyond the 3rd rail is a different story since the angle opens due to more spin left on the ball.) Many shots are missed on new cloth because players misunderstand how the 2nd cushion distorts the "normal" patterns they are used to, especially if everything is supposed to go "long".
That seems like it might work intuitively, but I wonder if it will hold up under examination, even setting aside its slightly circular nature.
One problem is that tables can play long or short for reasons beyond ball-cloth friction. For example, dead rails can make any table play long (and slow), even with high friction. Also, rail height affects any curving due to natural roll and therefore the lengthening (or not) of rebound angles. However, we can set details like these aside and just look at the friction component by comparing the same table before and after installing new cloth (assuming the mechanic didn't screw up).
So, considering the 1st and 2nd rail-type effects mentioned above, will keeping shot variables the same cause these misses to consistently align with your intuitive labels according to your criterion?:
Which misses are long and short in these 6 diagrams?
Robert
-There may be two [billiard players] somewhere that agree with each other on everything, but I'm not one of them. (apologies to economist David Friedman)
jimshovak said:
Is that like park in the driveway and drive on the parkway. On your basic three cushion shot, when your long you hit the short rail and when your short you hit the long rail. In pool we just miss.
jimshovak said:
Actually, I would say that that is *exactly* the answer I want to hear.
I already know my own intuitions about billiards. What fascinates me is how other thoughtful people make sense of this beautifully abstract game differently than I do. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!My intent in the diagram was to clarify what seemed might be obvious to you from your response, but is impossible in my own billiard world-view: that the shots are somehow qualitatively different enough to swap the labels.
Your answer has me wondering: at what point as you start incrementally moving the balls towards the 2nd position that the threshold is crossed and long becomes short?
Robert
now you did it
I think you will have to ask the Oracle that question. If she's busy just use the magic 8 ball. that's how i picked my college.
I think you will have to ask the Oracle that question. If she's busy just use the magic 8 ball. that's how i picked my college.
"Your answer has me wondering: at what point as you start incrementally moving the balls towards the 2nd position that the threshold is crossed and long becomes short?
Robert"
I don't know. I guess I don't really care. In my mind, when I miss a shot, I usually say one of a few different things:
1) I missed it because I hit it right but I forgot to compensate for the short table, or
2) I missed it because I hit it right but I forgot to compensate for the long table, or
3) I hit it too thin, or
4) I hit it too thick, or
5) I used the wrong english, or
6) I guessed wrong, or
7) I simply just stink.
Trying to figure out if the ball went "too long" or "too short" on every possible position seems like too much work to me. I missed it, that's all.
How's that for a "scientific" approach?
Robert"
I don't know. I guess I don't really care. In my mind, when I miss a shot, I usually say one of a few different things:
1) I missed it because I hit it right but I forgot to compensate for the short table, or
2) I missed it because I hit it right but I forgot to compensate for the long table, or
3) I hit it too thin, or
4) I hit it too thick, or
5) I used the wrong english, or
6) I guessed wrong, or
7) I simply just stink.
Trying to figure out if the ball went "too long" or "too short" on every possible position seems like too much work to me. I missed it, that's all.
How's that for a "scientific" approach?
I think gulfportdoc had it basically right at the beginning - 'long' and 'short' have too many definitions - are you talking about a long table, a long shot, aiming too long, coming short of the corner on a long shot? Too many ways to say the same thing. Maybe a 'long' or 'short' table indicates only slide on the rails that the player has no control over, and on a particular shot it's better to say 'narrow' or 'wide' instead? Like long and short depend on the rails and cloth rather than the shooter and wide and narrow depend on what the person making the shot intended?
It's the most interesting thing that's been on this board in awhile, but we've probably frightened away fifty newbies that were kind of skeptical of every understanding the game to begin with.
It's the most interesting thing that's been on this board in awhile, but we've probably frightened away fifty newbies that were kind of skeptical of every understanding the game to begin with.