Looking for a better way to 1-rail kick

mikepage said:
Perhaps. But coaching professional outfielders on how to catch a fly ball is a little like coaching dolphins on how to swim.

More to the point, what does the little-league-tryout coach say to the kids who seem to keep wanting to run in toward the apex only to find at the last minute the ball landing behind them?

Of COURSE the goal is eventually to develop an intuitive feel. But what simple guidance in the early stages might facilitate that? That's the issue, imo.
Click to expand...


Well, that's the thing. I think it's important to know systems but I also think it's important to develop one's intuitive feel for kicking. The ony way to do that is to put the systems aside and go with what feels right. For competition, I think it's best to use systems when you simply don't see anything. If you can see both, go with your gut.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Kicking isn't just physics; it's geometry modified by physics. Geometry is the "skeleton" and physics is the "muscles and skin", if you will. Just as artists find it useful to learn anatomy so they can draw lifelike figures, pool players can find it useful to learn the geometry of kicking so they can understand (and learn more quickly and retain better) all of the factors that make up a successful kick.

Geometry can be a useful skeleton on which to build your intuitive kicking "anatomy", and a useful "advanced starting place" for rebuilding it after some time away.



I think it's worth noting that "play like the very best 3-cushion players" is advice that very few other players can follow.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


Patrick, until you prove otherwise, I find I cannot discuss things with you. Good day, sir. Shoot well.
 
I think it's important to know systems but I also think it's important to develop one's intuitive feel for kicking.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't know anybody who doesn't.

The ony way to do that is to put the systems aside and go with what feels right.
Click to expand...

That may be the only way for you, but not for everybody. Some can use a system as a guide from which to make the adjustments that feel right. They may eventually stop using the system and go entirely with their gut feeling, or they may keep using the system as a reference that keeps their gut feeling "in tune".

pj
chgo
 
I always had a hard time with the visualiztion of the full blown mirror systems (or spot on the wall)...

I like using #2 of the systems described in the link below as it keeps the whole system and visualization process within the confines of the table....I like to refer to it as the mini mirror system....

I think it is an effective "tool" to get a feel for a bank shot...and after you have done it for a while you can almost just stand back and visualize where the line cross and then find your point on the rail.

For difficult off angle banks I will use my cue as an aid.

I am not sure if this system was designed by Bob Jewett or if he is just the one that put together the presentation of the various mirror systems...but which ever it was, it is definatly a good reference tool to read.

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-10.pdf
 
BRKNRUN said:
I always had a hard time with the visualiztion of the full blown mirror systems (or spot on the wall)...

I like using #2 of the systems described in the link below as it keeps the whole system and visualization process within the confines of the table....I like to refer to it as the mini mirror system....

I think it is an effective "tool" to get a feel for a bank shot...and after you have done it for a while you can almost just stand back and visualize where the line cross and then find your point on the rail.

For difficult off angle banks I will use my cue as an aid.

I am not sure if this system was designed by Bob Jewett or if he is just the one that put together the presentation of the various mirror systems...but which ever it was, it is definatly a good reference tool to read.

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-10.pdf
Click to expand...

I like #3. It adjusts automatically for the fact that CB roll has more effect on wider angles. It's still an approximation, of course, but it's a closer one.

#2 is the one that Jen_Cen is trying to improve on.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
3 in 1

The 'X', mirror system and method of bisecting angles are all part of the same overall system. I made this cue table that hopefully helps explain why.

CueTable Help



In a nutshell what happens is that as the cue ball moves closer or further away from the rail all of the angles and distances adjust relative to one another with respect to the mirror ball. The 'X' and bisecting angle method are just ways to reflect the mirror ball onto the table which makes it easier to visualize for many people including myself.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Well, that's the thing. I think it's important to know systems but I also think it's important to develop one's intuitive feel for kicking. The ony way to do that is to put the systems aside and go with what feels right. For competition, I think it's best to use systems when you simply don't see anything. If you can see both, go with your gut.
Click to expand...

Jude, in a relatively rare break from tradition, I have to agree with pj here.

First, without intending to mince words about words, there is no such thing in pool as "intuitive" play.

Intuition is defined as "quick and ready insight independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge."

No person in history has ever come to a pool table with no previous experience or empirical knowledge and just started banging balls in the hole with any regularity.

Everyone who pockets given shots with regularity has a SYSTEM for doing so. Of course, systems vary but they exist...even if, as in banking or kicking, the player merely SEES the angles.

But my point is, that they SEE the angles only after hours on end of "previous experience" during which they began by missing regularly and ended up making the shots regularly because they trained their brains to eliminate the "bad looking angles" and adopt "good looking angles.:

Where I side with pj is his suggestion that geometric bank/kick angles can be derived without trial and error and are rather accurate for slowly rolling balls which are not spinning.

It is for the player to LEARN by rote, what effect speed and/or spin have on the rebound angle and adjust accordingly.

Again, I don't mean to split hairs on the use of words such as "intuition" or "feel" but IMHO, those often used words are really misleading because they don't exist in advanced players (bangers may use those things but that is why they are bangers).

So, instead of those words, I think that "rote practice" or "memory" or "trial and error" are much more correct.

Regards,
Jim
 
BRKNRUN said:
I always had a hard time with the visualiztion of the full blown mirror systems (or spot on the wall)...

I like using #2 of the systems described in the link below as it keeps the whole system and visualization process within the confines of the table....I like to refer to it as the mini mirror system....

I think it is an effective "tool" to get a feel for a bank shot...and after you have done it for a while you can almost just stand back and visualize where the line cross and then find your point on the rail.

For difficult off angle banks I will use my cue as an aid.

I am not sure if this system was designed by Bob Jewett or if he is just the one that put together the presentation of the various mirror systems...but which ever it was, it is definatly a good reference tool to read.

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-10.pdf
Click to expand...

Actually, it's funny to bring up an article like this. There is a player at my homeroom, a solid B who has always wanted to know EVERYTHING involved in a given shot. He would ask all sorts of questions and they're the type of questions I never bother to ask. Of course, everyone's mind works differently. For me, my memory of shots is in slow-motion. For others, I guess a shot can be instantaneous so the dynamics of what is involved need to be disected, analyzed, explained.

When I look at diagrams like this, they just feel too rigid like the rail is this a glass mirror and the ball is a beam of light reflecting off the mirror and into the respective pocket. What I see when I'm kicking is a ball pressing into a rubber rail, changing its direction. The spin suddenly grabbing the cloth more and causing the ball's new path to bend. I understand that mirror helps new players but that's only if you're using speed x on table b when cloth is t old. It's just not universal. Does it mean systems should be dismissed? Absolutely not! I'm just saying, if she wants to learn to kick, she should practice kicking, not look for new systems but create a system only her brain can read.
 
av84fun said:
Jude, in a relatively rare break from tradition, I have to agree with pj here.

First, without intending to mince words about words, there is no such thing in pool as "intuitive" play.

Intuition is defined as "quick and ready insight independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge."

No person in history has ever come to a pool table with no previous experience or empirical knowledge and just started banging balls in the hole with any regularity.

Everyone who pockets given shots with regularity has a SYSTEM for doing so. Of course, systems vary but they exist...even if, as in banking or kicking, the player merely SEES the angles.

But my point is, that they SEE the angles only after hours on end of "previous experience" during which they began by missing regularly and ended up making the shots regularly because they trained their brains to eliminate the "bad looking angles" and adopt "good looking angles.:

Where I side with pj is his suggestion that geometric bank/kick angles can be derived without trial and error and are rather accurate for slowly rolling balls which are not spinning.

It is for the player to LEARN by rote, what effect speed and/or spin have on the rebound angle and adjust accordingly.

Again, I don't mean to split hairs on the use of words such as "intuition" or "feel" but IMHO, those often used words are really misleading because they don't exist in advanced players (bangers may use those things but that is why they are bangers).

So, instead of those words, I think that "rote practice" or "memory" or "trial and error" are much more correct.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

Okay, I see what you mean. Perhaps it's time for some definition of terms. By intuition, I mean making a decision based on personal experience as opposed to a calculated measurement of a location.

This would be the same as knowing you can cross a street before a car hits you because you have a feel for how long it will take the car to arrive at your location. This would be in opposition to calculating the speed of the car and its present distance from you, how long it will take to arrive at your location versus how long it will take for you to cross the street.

What I'm saying, as you noted, is that your experiences have already trained your brain to make these calculations automatically. Your "intuition" or "feel" can also be referred to as your "experience". However, learning to make decisions based on this intuition is not very easy for most people. They instead refer to systems like these to make these decisions for them. When the system fails them, they question their calculations or they question the entire system but they don't actually LEARN from the mistake. Intuition-based decisions are entirely about experience which always factors in previous success/failure.


I mean, it's so hard to discuss this online. I have to actually show you what I'm talking about. I have a number of tests for this and every person I show this to is amazed by the results. Your intuition is so much more powerful than you think. It's already done most of the math for you. All you have to do is trust it.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I like #3. It adjusts automatically for the fact that CB roll has more effect on wider angles. It's still an approximation, of course, but it's a closer one.

#2 is the one that Jen_Cen is trying to improve on.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


LOL....Your right!!!...You know the whole post was so short I did not actually read it...I saw the thread title and did a quick google for the system that I use.

approximation is a good word...I think every system falls in that catagory... I refer to them as "tools" that help you find the feel for a bank....(since there are other variables that will change the angles)

Once I find the spot on the rail...I actually convert and visualize channel paths..for the bank...and I no longer really use a "point" on the rail.....

Everyone will be different I am sure as to which "system" they use to gain the feel for a bank shot...I suspect some people don't even use a system tool.
 
MBTaylor said:
Can anyone get a copy?
Click to expand...


Several people have a copy of this .pdf file - just ask around - or send me an e-mail and I will get it to you as soon as I can. (I am in the process of moving from one place to another, so I might not get back with you until sometime tomorrow - but I will get back with you) -

"Kicking Academy" comes from one of the best threads ever made on this forum by a player that knows how to explain the systems very well.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Actually, it's funny to bring up an article like this. There is a player at my homeroom, a solid B who has always wanted to know EVERYTHING involved in a given shot. He would ask all sorts of questions and they're the type of questions I never bother to ask. Of course, everyone's mind works differently. For me, my memory of shots is in slow-motion. For others, I guess a shot can be instantaneous so the dynamics of what is involved need to be disected, analyzed, explained.

When I look at diagrams like this, they just feel too rigid like the rail is this a glass mirror and the ball is a beam of light reflecting off the mirror and into the respective pocket. What I see when I'm kicking is a ball pressing into a rubber rail, changing its direction. The spin suddenly grabbing the cloth more and causing the ball's new path to bend. I understand that mirror helps new players but that's only if you're using speed x on table b when cloth is t old. It's just not universal. Does it mean systems should be dismissed? Absolutely not! I'm just saying, if she wants to learn to kick, she should practice kicking, not look for new systems but create a system only her brain can read.[/QUOTE]


I think that is what she is doing...

I only use the system as a "tool" ...many times I don't need it because the balls will lay in a "on" position for a bank...(meaning they are lined up with the diamond paths)

My process is to find the spot on the rail I need the object ball to hit. I then visualize a channel that the ball will follow going into and out of the rail...(that may be affected by speed, spin etc...so the channel angle in may be different than the angle out)..I then check to see that those channels are not blocked of course...

Since I have hit a million or so banks....quite often I just see the channels immediatly....but having a good reference "tool" to help you find those off angles is good to have in your back pocket.

A seasoned carpenter can look at a board and say...."that is a foot" just by looking at it....but they always keep that tape measure in the back pocket just in case they need to measure out 1' 3.5".......;)
Click to expand...
 
Wow! Thanks, all! What would I do without you...I can't wait to go try these out!

Jen
 
I understand that mirror helps new players but that's only if you're using speed x on table b when cloth is t old.
Click to expand...

For those who can use it, it helps on any table in any condition - by showing the geometric angle (a "universal constant" reference angle that's the same on any table) from which adjustments to actual table conditions can be made, consciously or unconsciously. It's a lot like aiming systems that show OB contact points which must be adjusted for throw. They're not perfect and they're not for everybody, but they're not useless either, and they can be useful for players at all levels.

pj
chgo
 
BRKNRUN said:
LOL....Your right!!!...You know the whole post was so short I did not actually read it...I saw the thread title and did a quick google for the system that I use.

approximation is a good word...I think every system falls in that catagory... I refer to them as "tools" that help you find the feel for a bank....(since there are other variables that will change the angles)

Once I find the spot on the rail...I actually convert and visualize channel paths..for the bank...and I no longer really use a "point" on the rail.....

Everyone will be different I am sure as to which "system" they use to gain the feel for a bank shot...I suspect some people don't even use a system tool.
Click to expand...


The one type of kick I will do something like this with is a 3-railer. I have a tough time visualizing them when the object-ball isn't hanging in the pocket. For all 1-railers though, I just go with it. I decide where and how I want to kick the ball (speed, location, spin) like, "I want to hit half the 1-ball and try to send it up table and leave the cue ball down table". I just visualize this happening and the contact point on the rail just appears to me. It's as though my brain is just saying, "Well, if that's what you want to do, this is where you have to hit it."

I can't say I'm always right but I've been more right going this way than any system I've ever used.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Okay, I see what you mean. Perhaps it's time for some definition of terms. By intuition, I mean making a decision based on personal experience as opposed to a calculated measurement of a location.

This would be the same as knowing you can cross a street before a car hits you because you have a feel for how long it will take the car to arrive at your location. This would be in opposition to calculating the speed of the car and its present distance from you, how long it will take to arrive at your location versus how long it will take for you to cross the street.

No, actually the reason that adults rarely get run over by traffic and children do is that adults have had tremendous practice at estimating the time/motion continuum. Hitting baseballs...the decision to continue aganst an amber traffic light or to stop...LOTS of things contribute to that SKILL which is derived from practice...not inborn intuition.

What I'm saying, as you noted, is that your experiences have already trained your brain to make these calculations automatically. Your "intuition" or "feel" can also be referred to as your "experience".

No, "intuition" by definition, occurs in the absence of experience.

However, learning to make decisions based on this intuition is not very easy for most people. They instead refer to systems like these to make these decisions for them. When the system fails them, they question their calculations or they question the entire system but they don't actually LEARN from the mistake. Intuition-based decisions are entirely about experience which always factors in previous success/failure.


I mean, it's so hard to discuss this online. I have to actually show you what I'm talking about. I have a number of tests for this and every person I show this to is amazed by the results. Your intuition is so much more powerful than you think. It's already done most of the math for you. All you have to do is trust it.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative Jude. It is just that the word you are choosing to define what you mean is the wrong word.

I would love to see the test you refer to above but to the extent that it succeeds, it is based on prior learning experiences not intuition.

But again...I know what you mean. I am just making the point that words such as "intuition" and "instinct" don't describe what is actually happening.

What is happening is success based on prior (often laborious) experience which is the opposite of instinct or tuition.

Regards,

Jim
 
av84fun said:
I'm not trying to be argumentative Jude. It is just that the word you are choosing to define what you mean is the wrong word.

I would love to see the test you refer to above but to the extent that it succeeds, it is based on prior learning experiences not intuition.

But again...I know what you mean. I am just making the point that words such as "intuition" and "instinct" don't describe what is actually happening.

What is happening is success based on prior (often laborious) experience which is the opposite of instinct or tuition.

Regards,

Jim
Click to expand...


in?tu?i?tion
n.

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.


in?tu?i?tion
?noun 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
Click to expand...



This is how I'm using the word. I think we use the word a little differently but I understand where the miscommunication lies.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
This is how I'm using the word. I think we use the word a little differently but I understand where the miscommunication lies.
Click to expand...

in?tu?i?tion
n.

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.


in?tu?i?tion
?noun 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

No Jude...drawing on prior experience is, in fact, a rational process.

Intuition would involve having a SENSE that a relative who you have not heard from in 20 years was going to call you...and it happened.

Conversely the thought..."I have to aim this bank a little farther up the rail or it will bank short."...is a learned experience and therefore has nothing to do with intuition.

Again, you can use the word any way you see fit...and a lot of people use "intuition" in the same context as you do. I am just point out that it is incorrect to do so.

Regards,
Jim
 
...learning to make decisions based on this intuition is not very easy for most people. They instead refer to systems like these to make these decisions for them.
Click to expand...

I think most players who use systems use them to inform their judgment, not to "make decisions for them". You don't seem to have much use for systems, but many players are able to include them effectively among the tools they use.

When the system fails them, they question their calculations or they question the entire system but they don't actually LEARN from the mistake.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. In fact, it's possible they learn faster and retain better, because they're not building their "feel" for kicks from scratch - they have a fixed starting point and ongoing comparison ("reference") angle to work with.

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