Is it possible to throw an object ball? Nope

zpele said:
I think for the most part many people are starting to ignore you. I'm not saying that to be mean but you have a tendency to be set in your way as far as your knowledge of the game.

You have a brain for the game but you are lacking the ability to adapt your thinking to grasp new concepts and you look at situations from a limited perspective.

I'm not saying you aren't knowledgable about the game and I'm not saying you aren't a good player. In fact I know nothing about you as a player.

What I am saying is that you are unwilling to adapt and add in new variables to an issue when you encounter them.

I don't pretend to know about the physics of balls colliding as it isn't something I have studied but I can understand why spin does little to alter the course of an object ball.

Because they are round objects they are only making contact at one point. We also know that pool balls don't have any 'give' upon contact.

Depending on the force of the contact the contact time will change. If a ball is in contact with the object ball for longer (ie, a softer shot) there will be more opportunity for the spin to translate to the object ball.

I do agree that the softer the shot the more spin is transferred because the more contact time there is but I also think the spin translated is negligble at any speed because pool balls don't 'give' upon contact.

There are other factors that would play a part in this however such as if the balls were dirty or pitted from extended use.

If the balls are dirty or pitted I imagine there is more surface area upon which the spin can transfer.



The thing that you are having difficulty with is that pure mathematics do not always translate to the real world. There are too many factors involved and more often than not some unknown variable in the real world will change the way something behaves.

Don't take this as proof that your theories are correct however. You have to look deeper into the problem and figure out what variable is changing the outcome.

Also, work on your combativeness. It is putting off quite a few people and there are other, better, more diplomatic ways of debating and communicating your thoughts. I can tell you are angry and acting out of defense but take a step back before you do and think of a better way to phrase things sometimes.



As to your example about cutting a ball with spin- I believe that the direction a cueball is travelling as it relates to the point of contact will alter the course of the object ball. I do not think that cutting the ball with spin will alter the path of the object ball any more than cutting the same ball without any spin.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your sentiments. As you stated your opinions & thoughts on the 'pool' issues, they could be discussed by me or others. Some on this site make snipits as though they are 'Pool Gods'. They twist posters words to make a truthful statement that has little or sometimes nothing to do with the posters point.

I know 'pool' I know physics but it has been 40 yrs. since I've had occasion to 'discuss' it in 'full'.

I learned something when I was about 12 yrs. old that I would like to relay to you even though you may already know it. When you read something or someone tells you something, keep in mind the source & their possible motives. I love pool. I have no ulterier motive for coming hear. In fact I stumbled upon it while searching for a couple of 'LD' shafts to try.

Go see the dispute between myself & mr. lee in the break speed thread. Note his money challenge to me & note my response. Note that he did not respond (& not on that subject) until today after I have said that 'I' was leaving. I am leaving AZ because I choose to do so. I have found that their is nothing that I can learn here about pool & many on here do not really want to learn to shoot better pool.

You and others like you are all that I will miss upon leaving this site.
Good Luck in your endeavors to play better pool & gaining in your understanding of the whys & wherefores of it. Take care of what you 'believe' from certain sources & check them out for yourself.

In Salem, way back when, they burned healers & others as witches.

PS PGTeacher Posted that my leaving AZ would be a lose-lose situation. I respectfully disagree. Me leaving is WIN for me. Me leaving is win for cilicks on AZ. Me leaving is LOSS for some on AZ.

PSS Maybe someone should ask Mr. Martin (Ghost), a THREE(3) time World Champion wht he rarely posts on AZ.

PSSS Okay, I think I'm done. I 'think' I'll go play (not shoot) some pool instead of listenning to the so called experts explain to me why I can't do what I know I can do. Maybe Mr. Martin will walk into the room & we can 'play' a few games. I would love to get my butt kicked by Mr. Martin. I'm fairly sure he knows more 'pool' than me even if I might know more physics than he does. I'm fairly sure I'd learn something 'pool' related from him, unlike here at AZ.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
No, it was clearly not 90 degrees. The object ball was on the foot spot. The cue ball was centered in the jaws of the corner pocket and about 6 inches from the shelf (on a line from the center of the pocket to the foot spot). If you work through the geometry, you will discover that in fact the cut was more like 93 degrees. That's calculated from the assumed straight line path of the cue ball relative to the assumed straight line path of the object ball. If you account for swerve on the cue ball to the left (away from the object ball) the angle was a little larger.

I would have said that a cut over 90 degrees was impossible before I saw it for myself.

As for 15% being important or not, that depends on the specific situation. In the case of time of contact between pool balls, it is not important. The post I was responding to claimed that the contact time varied "exponentially" with speed which most people would expect to mean by orders of magnitude. In fact the dependence is sub-linear.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You actually hit the OB on the oposite side of the 90 degree line. Can you explain that with the appropriate physics?
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Interesting. You actually hit the OB on the oposite side of the 90 degree line. Can you explain that with the appropriate physics?
Click to expand...

No, the hit was under 90 degrees and the ball was thrown with a lot of outside english to achieve a cut angle larger than 90 degrees. You may also want to look at Joe Tucker's "impossible" bank shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql-vXWEA_TU -- Dr. Dave has a ultra-slow-motion video of this shot with the angles marked.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Interesting. You actually hit the OB on the oposite side of the 90 degree line. Can you explain that with the appropriate physics?
Click to expand...

No, he did not hit the OB there. Pay attention: this thread is about throw.

Edit: Bob beat me to it while I was typing.
 
Bob Jewett said:
No, the hit was under 90 degrees and the ball was thrown with a lot of outside english to achieve a cut angle larger than 90 degrees. You may also want to look at Joe Tucker's "impossible" bank shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql-vXWEA_TU -- Dr. Dave has a ultra-slow-motion video of this shot with the angles marked.
Click to expand...
FYI, here are links to my pertinent videos:


Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
I did respond. You're the one who made the bold (read: BS) statement that you could make the head ball in the side pocket, off the break, 8 out of 10 tries. I merely challenged you to "prove it"...and was willing to back it up with a bet, if you were interested. You then decided to make it a different challenge that had nothing to do with your original ridiculous claim. I don't blame you...I wouldn't take that bet either. IMO, there aren't 10 pros on Earth that would take that challenge.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

ENGLISH! said:
Since you brought up the world challenge, what about my challenge to you on the break shot issue to which you never responded?.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
I did respond. You're the one who made the bold (read: BS) statement that you could make the head ball in the side pocket, off the break, 8 out of 10 tries. I merely challenged you to "prove it"...and was willing to back it up with a bet, if you were interested. You then decided to make it a different challenge that had nothing to do with your original ridiculous claim. I don't blame you...I wouldn't take that bet either. IMO, there aren't 10 pros on Earth that would take that challenge.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Scott, you're making me curious. Not who those 10 pros might be, I have a pretty good idea of my own. But since Pat Fleming's no longer doing his stats, I wonder, is anyone still gathering data, and would that be indicating that 80% is feasible?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
Scott, you're making me curious. Not who those 10 pros might be, I have a pretty good idea of my own. But since Pat Fleming's no longer doing his stats, I wonder, is anyone still gathering data, and would that be indicating that 80% is feasible? ...
Click to expand...
If Corey Deuel offered a bet on 80% head-ball breaks into the side pocket, I doubt that anyone would bet serious money against. A lot depends on how the equipment is set up. I've seen the wing ball go on a nine ball rack on a particular table (9B WC) 90% of the time for multiple players over multiple days. The standard break at 10 ball seems to be the ball behind the head ball into the side pocket. Smash break shots from solid racks have become trick shots.

In the other direction, I've seen a table on which the nine ball into a particular corner was so common that it was a house rule that the nine didn't count in that pocket. Those racks were far from solid.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If Corey Deuel offered a bet on 80% head-ball breaks into the side pocket, I doubt that anyone would bet serious money against. A lot depends on how the equipment is set up. I've seen the wing ball go on a nine ball rack on a particular table (9B WC) 90% of the time for multiple players over multiple days. The standard break at 10 ball seems to be the ball behind the head ball into the side pocket. Smash break shots from solid racks have become trick shots.

In the other direction, I've seen a table on which the nine ball into a particular corner was so common that it was a house rule that the nine didn't count in that pocket. Those racks were far from solid.
Click to expand...

Silly me, I misread the proposition! :sorry:

You guys were talking about the head ball into the side: there 80% is tough but in the realm of possibility for some.

I was somehow thinking of the 10-Ball break and that second-row ball going into the side pocket. Although I've made that ball more than ten times in a row myself, I have a hard time believing 80% would be a safe bet in anyone's book, especially without e.g. tapping the balls or using a Magic Rack template.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
... You guys were talking about the head ball into the side: there 80% is tough but in the realm of possibility for some.
...
Click to expand...
On a related note, if someone could make the head ball in the side pocket 80% of the time, they should shoot it at 14.1 as the opening break. Also, assuming they could run the balls pretty well, they could take 3 fouls all the time and make progress.
 
ralphe said:
not sure if he still does so. but this was at an european championships QF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmZh_0HrdWI
Click to expand...

Hi there my dear Si Dai! :wink:

Should mention, Mario wouldn't do this if the balls weren't tapped - at least I don't believe he would.

You may also remember that Roger's (our Roger) shooting the corner ball straight into the corner contacting the second-row ball from the top instead of ever getting on a Straight Pool break shot in one semi final at the Nationals a few years back led our officials to no longer allow tapping for Straight Pool at all.

At the European Championships, it's still being done. Nick van den Berg did the same (not ever leaving himself a Straight Pool break shot, instead shooting dead balls out of the tapped stack), he said not despite the fact that, but because he feels tapping the balls in Straight Pool is a mistake, and that this should be changed.

In my opinion, all they'd need to do is to use the table two directions, that is, with a rack pencilled in on what for all the other disciplines would be the head of the table.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
Visiting Ron Vitello this weekend, I learned of something I did not believe at first. Can an object ball be thrown? I've always assumed "of course", as just about any book you read explains how to throw a ball. You put spin on the cueball, it strikes the object ball, transferring the spin and the object ball moves off its natural course. However, Ron claims it is impossible to throw an object ball. :confused:

Firstly, we are not talking about frozen balls, they can be thrown all day. What we are talking about specifically: a cueball striking an object ball, forcing/throwing the object ball along a different path by transferring spin from the cueball to the object ball. This cannot be done, says Ron. You are cutting the ball in every time, either by deflection or subconsiously aiming at a cut.

You don't believe either? Try setting up a shot that requires a slight cut to the pocket. Strike the cueball straight into the object ball, such that the cueball stops *dead*, attempt to "throw" the ball into the pocket. One of two things will happen: the cueball stops dead and the object ball moves straight forward (no throw) missing the pocket, or the cueball drifts/stuns to the side and the object ball goes toward the pocket (you just cut the ball in, no throw involved!)

It still seems odd, but I couldn't prove him wrong.
Click to expand...
Thread Revisit:


I'm not disagreeing with Ron, since I've been saying that throw is so low on the totem pole of spin compensation. I think it's more fair to say things like:

Throwing balls doesn't do what most people think happens.

The 99 Critical Shots diagram is pretty much impossible and has misled players for decades.

In order to stop a ball, spinning madly in place, you have to cut the ball such that cut angle and spin throw cancel each other out. (Note, this is why there is an "Effective Pivot Point" or "Effective Squirt" vs "Natural" or "Pure Squirt.

Yes, there is throw from spin, but most players have no idea how it's actually manifested.

When players begin to really understand the spin/throw interaction, then Touch of Inside becomes an understandable weapon.


Freddie <~~~ round and round
 
Cornerman said:
Thread Revisit:


I'm not disagreeing with Ron, since I've been saying that throw is so low on the totem pole of spin compensation. I think it's more fair to say things like:

Throwing balls doesn't do what most people think happens.

The 99 Critical Shots diagram is pretty much impossible and has misled players for decades.

In order to stop a ball, spinning madly in place, you have to cut the ball such that cut angle and spin throw cancel each other out. (Note, this is why there is an "Effective Pivot Point" or "Effective Squirt" vs "Natural" or "Pure Squirt.

Yes, there is throw from spin, but most players have no idea how it's actually manifested.

When players begin to really understand the spin/throw interaction, then Touch of Inside becomes an understandable weapon.


Freddie <~~~ round and round
Click to expand...


All I know is that if you play 1pocket and/or 14.1, opportunities to throw balls into pockets come up all the time when another ball is very slightly blocking an otherwise straight in shot on an OB.

Lou Figueroa
 
You can most certainly throw an object ball using spin. I'm the king of spinning the ball out of the pocket so I've got a pretty good frame of reference.
 
lfigueroa said:
All I know is that if you play 1pocket and/or 14.1, opportunities to throw balls into pockets come up all the time when another ball is very slightly blocking an otherwise straight in shot on an OB.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...



Well put Lou


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
This thread has been silly from day one. I don't have any idea who Ron is but if he really said this he's wrong unless I'm misunderstanding the statement.

Almost every day I shoot a shot that is obstructed by another object ball making it physically impossible to strike it on the ghost ball contact point to the pocket line without skimming the other ball first. And I make these shots most of the time. I am not curving the cue ball around the obstructing ball. How does this work if the target ball is not throw?

Silly I tell you, just plain silly.

JC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top