I took it as this:
On a shot with follow and fullish hit on the ob, hitting it with top very hard vs light will see the follow angle more shallow on the harder hit than on the lighter one.
Quick quiz by Sharivari
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
On a shot with follow and fullish hit on the ob, hitting it with top very hard vs light will see the follow angle more shallow on the harder hit than on the lighter one.
Sure, but what about this:
I don't think he is talking about a scenario where a stun break shot will hit the rack above the corner ball, and he wants to hit the corner ball instead (is that a thing?). Rather, he is proposing a scenario where the break shot is potentially going to completely miss the rack below the corner ball. As far as I can tell, he is claiming that somehow follow with high speed will pull the CB up towards the corner ball, while high speed draw will still miss the corner ball:
Last edited:
The cue ball slides to the side more with a harder hit but goes in the same direction as for a soft hit once the slide ends for the same amount of follow.
Which results in a shallower path of travel than a softer strike, no?
The straight portions of the paths are parallel. This is explained well by both Byrne and Alciatore. It is essential knowledge at English Billiards.
If people like this sort of thing and want to really put their knowledge of pool terminology (50 questions), physics (50 questions), and rules (100 questions) to the test, check out the online quizzes and supporting resources here:
Enjoy!
Which reminds me of an impromptu lesson I overheard at a world championship by a Hall-of-Fame member to one of the lower ranked players. It was something along the lines of:
On a follow shot the cue ball bounces back from ball before it starts following forward and of course on a draw shot the cue ball slides through the object ball before it pulls back. Follow makes the cue ball light and draw makes it heavy.
That was quite a revelation to me but not about ball action.
There were two things that stood out to me.
The first one was about the tangent line changing. And, honestly, I think that was just poorly worded. The reason I felt that one was kind of cheap is that, the way I look at it, the tangent line never really changes. It's *always* 90 degrees from the point of contact. I'm probably not describing that properly. But you probably know what I mean.
The second one was also about the tangent line. And this feels a little nit picky, but on a true stop shot the ball isn't going to move. I know it's borderline impossible to hit cue ball into an object ball at a perfect zero degree angle so there is going to be some VERY slight movement along the tangent line. But, come on... It's basically imperceptible. I mean, that's why they call it a stop shot right?
I see what you mean, but he illustrated the question pretty well with the object ball moving from one place to another. That's moving the point of contact on the table. Of course the point of contact is (ideally) the point on the object ball farthest from the pocket and the tangent line is tangent to that point, but that is referencing the shot to the object ball. I think you need to use the table as the reference. Try thinking of it this way: for a shot, draw the tangent line on the cloth. Now move the object ball. Draw the tangent line. Are they different?
Last edited:
I'm going to send it right back in that I see what you're saying. Technically, the tangent line does move. (And I know that technically right is the best kind of right.) The cue ball definitely does hit a different point on the rail.
I guess my issue with it is the idea of the tangent line. That doesn't change. It's always going to be 90 degrees (left or right) of the contact point.
I guess my issue with it is the idea of the tangent line. That doesn't change. It's always going to be 90 degrees (left or right) of the contact point.
The tangent line goes through the middle of the ghost ball, so it's 1 1/8" back from the contact point.
dquarasr
Registered
I read the question on tangent line many times. Before his answer was revealed, I hadn't figured out what he meant by "the OB is moved". Oh, you mean in relation to the pocket and the CB, which is a totally different shot!
On the question about where to aim the cut shot with outside spin, he states that the shooter is using outside English on a soft hit: since he mentions the shooter is already using outside English, I interpreted that to mean the shooter accounted for the throw and that's the reason for using outside spin. Again, I misinterpreted the question.
On the question about where to aim the cut shot with outside spin, he states that the shooter is using outside English on a soft hit: since he mentions the shooter is already using outside English, I interpreted that to mean the shooter accounted for the throw and that's the reason for using outside spin. Again, I misinterpreted the question.
Right. But it's at a 90 degree angle regardless of where the cue ball is coming from.
To be proper, I should have said (and written) that the CB stays closer to the tangent line longer with more shot speed. Regardless, the illustrations clearly show the effect.
The definition of the tangent line doesn't change when you move the OB to another location, but the actual tangent lines are two different lines. Similarly, the definition of the perimeter of a rectangle doesn't change for a rectangle that is twice as large as another rectangle, but the actual perimeters are different.
I get that. I understand now that what I was referring to as the tangent line was actually the "idea" of the tangent line. (I hope that makes sense.)
Yes. The actual line the cue ball moves from the object ball on the table changes based on where the object ball is. But the line the cue ball takes off of the object ball, regardless of its location, doesn't change.
I've had conversations with a top player that revealed he knew nothing about the actual physics underlying the game. He just played so much he knew what would happen if he did things a certain way, even if he had no clue why it happened that way.
In pool, just like other sports, if you want someone to perform well, take the pro player. But if you want someone to explain why certain things work the way they do, take the scientist. If I need someone to explain exactly how and why a football behaves like it does in certain wind conditions and calculate the velocity needed to hit a WR streaking down the field 40 yd away...I'd trust an MIT prof over, say, Tom Brady. But if I need someone to actually throw the ball 40 yd through the wind to the sprinting receiver then of course I'd trust Tom Brady.
Don't forget Bob Jewett! 2x Fuller Rule anybody? 10x Fuller Rule? Bob Jewett's and Dr. Dave's online material is what I look at the most often. For me, these two have blazed the path for deeper pool knowledge--and they share it! I'm very grateful and humbled that they will respond to my pool questions on azbilliards. I hold them in the highest esteem.
You can read articles written by Bob Jewett in Billiards Digest going back to 1992 here:
Here is an interesting article that Bob wrote about how to assign a difficulty number to various shots:
How Tough is Tough?
Last edited:
I head Blomdahl say that hitting the ball hard and with topspin can be the same as draw...
Ceulemans Continental Cup, Sanchez's final match (2018? The year EU won it big).
Ceulemans Continental Cup, Sanchez's final match (2018? The year EU won it big).
That’s pretty much what I’m claiming when referring to break shots where the margin is very thin as to whether you’ll hit that bottom ball (with the cue ball) on the break shot, or miss it.
I did try some shots doing this yesterday, and there seemed to be an extremely slight variance in the direction that cue ball initially takes off the object ball, on about a 30° angle cut break shot, using firm stroke draw vs firm stroke follow.