Replace OB With CB

[av84fun]

I don't think you and pdcue are on the same page, considering all pdcue's "stun" hints. Stunning implies no initial roll after contact.


I still don't see a difference. Anything that is rolling is also rotating. But not everything that is rotating is also rolling. For this particular discussion, if the CB moves forward after a straight-in collision, the CB must be rolling, and thus it is also rotating. But I say let's stop nitpicking semantics.

I still would like to hear what pdcue has to say for himself.

But here was Patrick's statement...

"Yes, and the ball rotates about 1/3 of a full revolution to get from point A to point B "

The ball does not get from point A to point B because it rotates. It gets there because is rolls. It could "rotate" 1000 revolutions and only roll an inch. (but there would be no cloth left at the point of rotation!!) (-:

No big deal...just a little good natured banter.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

LOL. Priceless.

(Hint: all the ball's spin/rotation/roll axes run through its center.)

LOL.

pj
chgo

Read up and stop mischaracterizing and posting other's thoughts as though they were your own.

You STATED that the ball got from A to B because it rotated. That is incorrect. Rotation does NOT necessarily correlate to forward/backward motion....ROLL does.

ROLL

To move forward along a surface by revolving on an axis or by repeatedly turning over.

to move by turning on an axis; to impel forward by causing to turn over and over on a supporting surface; as, to roll a wheel, a ball, or a barrel.

Rotate

To turn, as a wheel, round an axis; to revolve.

Note the absence of any reference to forward/backward MOVEMENT.

jsp is, of course, correct. An object that is rolling must also be rotating but an object that is rotating does not necessarily roll.

If you took an IQ test and were asked:

What BEST describes the forward, non-skidding movement of a ball?

A. Rotation
B. Roll

If you pick "A" then you would be wrong.

I just have to keep you on the straight and narrow from time to time...otherwise you will keep posting diagrams that portray an OB traveling along its geomentric line of centers to the pocket when struck at an angle by a CB...and insisting that "raw geometry" precisely predicts the OB's path...when it does not...as you now know.

(-:

 

[Cuebacca]

LOL. Why, oh why, did I take you off ignore? Dude, let it go. There are other posts to read.

1) Who cares. It is descriptive enough.

2) Think about it; he's actually correct. The cue ball does get from point A to point B because of its rotation. Point A is the point at which it stops for an instant upon collision with the object ball. Guess what type of energy causes it to start rolling again to make it to point B... Rotational Energy. I am curious, how is it that you think an object can have rotational energy without rotating? Never mind; I don't want to hear your answer to that.

3) Who cares?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[snip hilarious tapdancing nonsense]

I take it back - you shouldn't stop stalking me. This is too entertaining.

LOL.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[av84fun]

CUEBACCA..." Who cares? "

Well, you do! (-:

It's FUN! Try to be as neutral as you purport to be and tell me whether you think Patrick has ever "split hairs" in his jousts with me.

Yes or no. (-:

We're just "fencing" so don't get your shorts all up in a bunch.

Now, how 'bout you?

What BEST describes the forward, non-skidding movement of a ball from point A to point B?

A. Rotation
B. Roll
C. Peristalsis

(they always throw in a trick answer)

You remember those pesky IQ and ACT tests don't you? Are you familiar with the concept of being required to choose the best answer from a list of answers that are all "correct"?

A ball could "rotate" 1000 revolutions and not leave its starting place but cannot roll without leaving its starting place.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? (-:

Regards,
Jim

 

[Cuebacca]

We're just "fencing" so don't get your shorts all up in a bunch.

Keep your mind out of my shorts, thank you.

A ball could "rotate" 1000 revolutions and not leave its starting place

On Simonis when the axis of rotation is parallel to the plane of the slate? Prove it!

 

[Cuebacca]

Keep your mind out of my shorts, thank you.



On Simonis when the axis of rotation is parallel to the plane of the slate? Prove it!

And before you say, theoretically it could, my answer again is, who cares. It's not going to in a practical situation. Go ahead and keep nitpicking things that don't need to be nitpicked. I'll just put you back on ignore and unfortunately will miss the good posts you do make due to not wanting to put up with pages and pages of nonsense. Oh well.

 

[Cuebacca]

It's FUN! Try to be as neutral as you purport to be

When I said I was impartial, I meant that I had never met either of you, and did not have a pre-existing bias either way before viewing the little war that you've declared on him. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out and had to twist it against me.

and tell me whether you think Patrick has ever "split hairs" in his jousts with me.

I've only seem him split hairs on things that could cause confusion if they hadn't been cleared up. On the other hand, I've seen you nitpick a countless number of things that seem to be done only for petty reasons. Just give it a rest is all I'm saying.

 

[av84fun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
[snip hilarious tapdancing nonsense]


Would you kindly point me to the post of mine you quote above? I don't seem to recall using those words...but, of course, may have.

(-:

 

[av84fun]

Keep your mind out of my shorts, thank you.



On Simonis when the axis of rotation is parallel to the plane of the slate? Prove it!

Where in my post did I refer to Simonis or any other surface. Do you and Patrick take dancing lessons together?? (-:

But you're a nice guy so I'll ask you another question so that you can practice more dance steps.

Given:

1. That a device positioned slightly above a pool table covered with Simonis cloth (pick your version number) causes a cue ball to be spun up to 1500 RPMs around its horizontal axis.

2. The device is capable of releasing the CB from such a low height above the cloth that it does not bounce upon being released.


Question:

Upon coming into contact with the table, will the ball spin in place (rotate about its horizontal axis) at or above 1000 rpm while remaining in place?

Yes or no?

(-:

 

[enzo]

enzo...and just as respectfully, I have to completely disagree with you. The replacement shot comes up (as absolutely necessary) about 1 out of 100 shots (at best), where a stopshot will suffice. Playing 'good position' means that you don't have to 'replace' the OB, except in very rare occasions where you end up with a very tiny window on the next shot.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

all the people in the world can disagree all they want, the fact is people that look at a strait in shot and say to themselves "i'll be fine with a stop shot here" are screwing themselves without knowing it many times. this is why people think they are right because they screw up and don't know what happened (oh, i missed that ball, i wont do that again, whereas they really should have had a better angle on the previous ball).

many many times recognizing that going forward a ball will make things infinitely easier is what makes good players get out where you may not. if you think about what a stop shot is, it is totally arbitrary where that ball lies that you are stopping off of; that means that to get an idea angle for your next shot, replacing the ball will be ideal just as much as stopping the ball. there is no reason to think any differently because the ob is located totally arbitrarily. the art in this game lies in subtleties, there is just no doubt about that. the people who recognize exactly what angle they need get out (not just the people who recognize, gee, i'll have an angle if i stop the ball). a great seasoned player runs out without ever doing anything hard or difficult, and these are the things you are overlooking if you dont realize it at this point. dont argue with me just start trying to do it and improve your game. im gonna go hit some balls (and i'll probably use a replace the ball shot like a half dozen times, not to mention all the times ill use that stroke on slight cut shots to just go slightly forward).

 

[av84fun]

When I said I was impartial, I meant that I had never met either of you, and did not have a pre-existing bias either way before viewing the little war that you've declared on him. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out and had to twist it against me.



I've only seem him split hairs on things that could cause confusion if they hadn't been cleared up. On the other hand, I've seen you nitpick a countless number of things that seem to be done only for petty reasons. Just give it a rest is all I'm saying.

Cuebacca..."When I said I was impartial, I meant that I had never met either of you, and did not have a pre-existing bias either way before viewing the little war that you've declared on him. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out and had to twist it against me."

For whatever reasons, you have elected to adopt the utterly incorrect opinion that I have declared war on Patrick. But a FACTUAL review of our exchanges shows conclusively that just the opposite is correct.

You need look no farther that this very thread when I suggested an end to the banter between us and made particular note that my posts to him would, from then on, be thoughtful and polite. His very next post to me was petty and impolite.

So, based on the irrefutable text in these and other threads, your opinion is either biased or uninformed which is, of course, your right. But it certainly does not help your credibility to post falsehoods which can be shown to be such without question.

Having felt the need to interpose your views on this matter, duty might lead you to review this thread, if none other, and to modify your views as required by the post history.

Thanks for stating that I do post usefully from time to time. You do as well.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Cuebacca]

Cuebacca..."When I said I was impartial, I meant that I had never met either of you, and did not have a pre-existing bias either way before viewing the little war that you've declared on him. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out and had to twist it against me."

For whatever reasons, you have elected to adopt the utterly incorrect opinion that I have declared war on Patrick. But a FACTUAL review of our exchanges shows conclusively that just the opposite is correct.

You need look no farther that this very thread when I suggested an end to the banter between us and made particular note that my posts to him would, from then on, be thoughtful and polite. His very next post to me was petty and impolite.

So, based on the irrefutable text in these and other threads, your opinion is either biased or uninformed which is, of course, your right. But it certainly does not help your credibility to post falsehoods which can be shown to be such without question.

Having felt the need to interpose your views on this matter, duty might lead you to review this thread, if none other, and to modify your views as required by the post history.

Thanks for stating that I do post usefully from time to time. You do as well.

Regards,
Jim

Alright, I'll take your word for it. I'm too lazy to read the entire thread again, and I'm watching the IPT match now. You should too if you're not already.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... people that look at a strait in shot and say to themselves "i'll be fine with a stop shot here" are screwing themselves without knowing it many times. ...

Sure, and I'll guess that as often as a "replacement" shot is better than a stop shot, you would be better off with a "back it up one ball" rather than a stop shot. Or two balls forward or two balls back, etc. If you are going to master position, you need to have all those in your arsenal.

On the other hand, if two balls forward is better than a stop shot, and you play it, and because the two balls forward is harder to achieve you get three balls forward and hook yourself, then you played the wrong shot, based on your ability. A stop shot, if it is not too bad for position, is much easier to control than the other choices I mentioned above.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sure, and I'll guess that as often as a "replacement" shot is better than a stop shot, you would be better off with a "back it up one ball" rather than a stop shot. Or two balls forward or two balls back, etc. If you are going to master position, you need to have all those in your arsenal.

On the other hand, if two balls forward is better than a stop shot, and you play it, and because the two balls forward is harder to achieve you get three balls forward and hook yourself, then you played the wrong shot, based on your ability. A stop shot, if it is not too bad for position, is much easier to control than the other choices I mentioned above.

Are you saying that some small amount of follow or draw on the CB at impact won't result in forward or backward movement? What happens to it?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Are you saying that some small amount of follow or draw on the CB at impact won't result in forward or backward movement? What happens to it?

pj
chgo

In the article referenced above, the result is diagrammed. The important thing is that the amount of movement of the cue ball is proportional to the square of the rotation rate of the cue ball at impact. Suppose one unit of follow or draw will take a stop shot one ball diameter away from the ghost ball. If your target is two units of follow so you can follow four ball diameters, andyou have only one unit of follow, the cue ball will be three ball diameters short of position. If you have one unit extra of follow, the cue ball will follow forward nine ball diameters instead of the four that you wanted.

For follow, the easiest way to control the distance is to let the cue ball roll smoothly on the cloth and then regulate the speed of the shot. This sometimes doesn't work for small amounts of follow due to the requirement to drive the object ball at least as far as the pocket. Then, you have to exactly control the amount of spin on the cue ball when it gets to the object ball.

For draw, you're always fighting losses to friction.

 

[av84fun]

all the people in the world can disagree all they want, the fact is people that look at a strait in shot and say to themselves "i'll be fine with a stop shot here" are screwing themselves without knowing it many times. this is why people think they are right because they screw up and don't know what happened (oh, i missed that ball, i wont do that again, whereas they really should have had a better angle on the previous ball).

many many times recognizing that going forward a ball will make things infinitely easier is what makes good players get out where you may not. if you think about what a stop shot is, it is totally arbitrary where that ball lies that you are stopping off of; that means that to get an idea angle for your next shot, replacing the ball will be ideal just as much as stopping the ball. there is no reason to think any differently because the ob is located totally arbitrarily. the art in this game lies in subtleties, there is just no doubt about that. the people who recognize exactly what angle they need get out (not just the people who recognize, gee, i'll have an angle if i stop the ball). a great seasoned player runs out without ever doing anything hard or difficult, and these are the things you are overlooking if you dont realize it at this point. dont argue with me just start trying to do it and improve your game. im gonna go hit some balls (and i'll probably use a replace the ball shot like a half dozen times, not to mention all the times ill use that stroke on slight cut shots to just go slightly forward).

Pretty stern talk directed to one of the most respected instructors in America.

The problem with your logic is that it presumes that with significant frequency, on exact spot...the one occupied by the OB is utterly superior to ANY other spot.

In fact, that is fairly rarely true. Yes, sometimes the width of a pool ball means getting on the right or wrong side of the OB. But the skillful position player will plan routes for down-the-line shape so that such ultra-perfect position is only infrequently required.

Position is most often quite acceptable within a ZONE wherein it is unnecessary to achieve any one EXACT spot. The skillful player can manage pace and spin off the next ob from anywhere in the zone in order to fall correctly on the next ob, whereas, the less skillful player might need...as you suggest...to achieve some exact spot.

But possibly such a player needs to attempt such exact position because he has been spending too much time practicing the replacement shot that for more skillful players would be required but rarely.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

Alright, I'll take your word for it. I'm too lazy to read the entire thread again, and I'm watching the IPT match now. You should too if you're not already.

Thanks. I appreciate your quite well placed willingness to take my word for it. Now it would be both apporpriate and quite nice of you if you would retract your remark that I am precipitating any "war" on Patrick...a "war" if one needs to grossly exaggerate, that he refuses to stand down from and has repeatedly reignited.

(-:

 

[enzo]

Position is most often quite acceptable within a ZONE wherein it is unnecessary to achieve any one EXACT spot. The skillful player can manage pace and spin off the next ob from anywhere in the zone in order to fall correctly on the next ob, whereas, the less skillful player might need...as you suggest...to achieve some exact spot.


Regards,
Jim

this is just such flawed logic, and anybody who has played high stakes pool or under any extreme pressure knows it. of course a good player can do that, but if he has a choice he'll put it in a slightly more desirable spot. if you were right, and good players (like say efren, buddy) just squandered their opportunities to play very good position, they would dog so many more balls under big pressure you can't believe it. but they don't cus they have learned it's within these little intricate (yet many times very simple) position shots that the game is made so much easier through subtle cue ball movement. players like you don't even notice, thinking, oh, he was perfect there. but really they are doing precise little movements that evade your capacity (to be fair, they evade you capacity hitherto). to note, a guy like say earl may be one exception to my logic, where he just plays for an angle and, as you say, he don't care he knows he's gonna get there his next shot. im sure there are others, but they don't come to mind.... mark tadd in his prime perhaps. but certainly the vast majority of great players don't just get any angle that will suffice, and "less skillful" players get very precise angles, ARE YOU SERIOUS..... really think of what you are saying?? to me, that is literally like saying if tiger woods is pitching, and he knows he can make an 6 foot putt, he'll put it at 6 feet instead of 2 feet because, what the hell, he's confident, great and he knows he'll make it. in reality, he'll attempt to put it within 2 feet to increase his percentage, because he's learned this through actual battle (something many in here obviously need to do more of).

as i get to the end of this post, this is a really big moment for me. i have realized that when someone says something really illogical (i try my best to be euphemistic), there is really no reason in the world not to put them on ignore, at least if i want to actually absorb credible information, which is why we are all here, isn't it?? further, i will not respond to them knowing it's a total waste of time, and, again, i will just immediately and and without prejudice put them on ignore.

how many people can one have on ignore? does anyone know??