Here are my thoughts after sleeping on this.
The SPF system is different than the PAT method. The OP is looking for an "established" (uniform) method of communicating CB speed.
This is as close as you'll ever get, unless you make one yourself and force everyone else to comply.
A 1 speed for SPF is a lag, 2 lengths of the table minus 2 diamonds & the 1 speed for PAT is 6 diamonds, etc. for both. They do NOT match up.
I know. The PAT drills are available in book form and are accessible around the world. That's why I suggested that.
Someone from Alphabet, USA might have a method where letters are used for every 1/2 table length.
If he makes a successful book, then maybe it'll catch on.
So... we need the BCA, or whomever, to come up with "OFFICIAL" CB speed designations that are defined by distances of a
rolling CB.
Please forgive me, but that's hillarious. The BCA?! :rotflmao1:
I would think that 1 table length might = 1, 2 table lengths might = 2, etc. but without the 2 diamonds less for the kitchen line that is involved in both the SPF & PAT designations. Why confuse the mater using such odd lengths?
The PAT one is basically a drill to practice speed and not meant to be a system as such. Having beginners both cue from the rail and learn speed control at the same time is just too brutal and adding the diamonds just makes it more difficult to remember the drill.
The above is NOT that of which I have an issue even though & think a physical pointing of the path & the landing area is much better for human beings as Michael Angelo did not paint by numbers & the caveman did not use numbers for his distance recognition when he throw his spear & we are visual creatures, especially the male gender.
But the OP meant to ask for a system by which to communicate speed to others.Besides, emulating cavemen or once-in-a-century artists is probably not the way to go when teaching the masses pool. Snooker for instance is tought using the five cut (quarters) system. That seems woefully inadequate, don't you think`? The thing is, when these five angles are ingrained, you have a mnemonic system under which to categorize your observations, thus enhancing your learning. The drill Steve Davis shows here will teach you to pot balls all over the table:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7M3z-lSSwI
Kids learn language the same way, by learning specific (verb conjugations or whatever else) and generalizing that specific knowledge and applying it to different situations, which is why they sometimes make mistakes with irregular verbs, etc.
My issue is the method dictated by SPF to obtain those speeds for the distances. My issue is delivery method of the cue stick for SPF.
That's irrelevant to this discussion.
SPF 'dictates' the 'stroke' method that should be used, a complete full back swing & a complete forward full follow through, or finish, delivered by various different arm speeds with a stationary elbow.
That goes against the grain of orthodox snooker teaching (the full swing), as you probably know. Still that's not the matter at hand.
So for THAT to be the "established" method for communicating CB speed, EVERYONE would have to change their stroke method to coincide.
What? No, of course not. That does not follow AT ALL.
I, for one, will NEVER go to a full arm pendulum swing type of cue stick delivery.
I don't think I will either, but again it's not the matter at hand.
Players in NO other sport, that I know of, uses a full arm motion with number designations assigned to desired distances of ball travel & most of them are playing for an extreme amount more money & prestige, etc, than pool players.
Pool may have some common traits with other sports, but the demands for exactness are at a completely different level.
I hope that better explains my take.
Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick