Slow Rolling

[Blackjack]

Your point WAS that the stroke influences the speed of the cue ball - at least that's what you said above.

pj
chgo

...and that is exactly what I will say and I can show YOU shot after shot that can prove it.

I fully admit that I am not into the physics of the game as much as you are, but in this case it seems to have blocked you from seeing a different way of doing things. I say that respectfully, but honestly I can't believe you are actually arguing this.

Most of your tests will apply only to YOUR stroke and YOUR abilities.

Just because YOU can't do something with the cue ball or if you can't prove it with YOUR shooting or stroking ability - doesn't mean that holds true for everybody. Larry Nevel can do some unbelievable things with a cue ball that I am incapable of doing. The stuff Larry Nevel can do will defy all of your physics laws as well - especially if you test the physics of his abilities with your stroke.

Making a blanket statement that the cue ball won't move that way because of your tests seems a bit closed minded to me. My tests with that shot have different results than yours - and Flex's results are similar to mine - they are different because we each have different stroke mechanics.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Blackjack:
The stuff Larry Nevel can do will defy all of your physics laws...

They aren't my physics laws, David; they're the universe's physics laws, and everybody and everything in the universe obeys them - even Larry Nevel's stroke. If you can show otherwise I suggest you call the newspapers because it will be the first time in recorded history and you and Larry are about to get rich.

What special thing can Larry do with his stroke during the 1/1000 of a second that his tip is on the ball? Can he make the cue ball go faster or slower than I can hitting it at the same speed? That's the claim I was commenting on above.

If you or I or Flex could hit as accurately as Larry while hitting as hard as he does, we could do the things he does (actually, we probably can - 1 out of 100 tries or so). There's no mojo in his stroke other than its accuracy over a very wide range of power.

But I'm interested to hear about the shots you can do that you think show otherwise.

pj
chgo

 

[Russ Chewning]

...and that is exactly what I will say and I can show YOU shot after shot that can prove it.

I fully admit that I am not into the physics of the game as much as you are, but in this case it seems to have blocked you from seeing a different way of doing things. I say that respectfully, but honestly I can't believe you are actually arguing this.

Most of your tests will apply only to YOUR stroke and YOUR abilities.

Just because YOU can't do something with the cue ball or if you can't prove it with YOUR shooting or stroking ability - doesn't mean that holds true for everybody. Larry Nevel can do some unbelievable things with a cue ball that I am incapable of doing. The stuff Larry Nevel can do will defy all of your physics laws as well - especially if you test the physics of his abilities with your stroke.

Making a blanket statement that the cue ball won't move that way because of your tests seems a bit closed minded to me. My tests with that shot have different results than yours - and Flex's results are similar to mine - they are different because we each have different stroke mechanics.

Blackjack,

Those young ladies in CaptainHook's avatars....I've heard THEY can do some interesting things with a cue ball.

What?

I'm just SAYIN!

Russ

 

[Russ Chewning]

They aren't my physics laws, David; they're the universe's physics laws, and everybody and everything in the universe obeys them - even Larry Nevel's stroke. If you can show otherwise I suggest you call the newspapers because it will be the first time in recorded history and you and Larry are about to get rich.

What special thing can Larry do with his stroke during the 1/1000 of a second that his tip is on the ball? Can he make the cue ball go faster or slower than I can hitting it at the same speed? That's the claim I was commenting on above.

If you or I or Flex could hit as accurately as Larry while hitting as hard as he does, we could do the things he does (actually, we probably can - 1 out of 100 tries or so). There's no mojo in his stroke other than its accuracy over a very wide range of power.

But I'm interested to hear about the shots you can do that you think show otherwise.

pj
chgo

PJ,

I think what Blackjack is saying is that Nevel can do some stuff that you would not be able to look at the table and say, "Yup, that's possible." at just a glance, not that Larry is literally defying the laws of physics.

It's just a figure of speech.

Also.. I think Blackjack's use of the term, "your" laws of physics connotates that what YOU believe is physically impossible is not what the UNIVERSE believes is physically impossible.

If Blackjack and the other poster say they have tested, and can execute the shot they are talking about, then that's just friggin' good enough for me. Especially considering BJ is a pro who has competed against (and beat) some of the game's best players.

'Nuff said.

Russ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, I've yet to figure out what the problem is. You seem to get lost in minutiae from time to time, and it makes figuring out these problems quite difficult.

I don't see a problem, Preston; I just pointed out that I responded to one thing you said (different strokes can affect CB speed and spin) and you replied that you had said something else (different cues can affect CB speed and spin). Maybe I just misunderstood you, or maybe we disagree about who got lost.

Either way, there's no problem to figure out that I know of. We're just airing different views of what causes what.

pj
chgo

 

[DrCue'sProtege]

Especially considering BJ is a pro who has competed against (and beat) some of the game's best players.

i bet Blackjack never beat Travis Trotter. and if he did, he'd have had to play a good game of 9-Ball, probably not missing any more than two shots.

thanks,

DCP

 

[Cuebacca]

Sometimes the Cuetable can be misleading. There's no substitute for setting up the balls on a real physical table.

I've changed my mind sometimes about shots that I looked at on the Cuetable, after setting them up on a real table. Before even shooting the shot, I've changed my mind after just seeing it laid out on the table.

I think it's because we're not used to evaluating shots from a birds-eye-view. I'm not saying this is necessarily true for any one or another in this case, but it could be.

How cool would that be if a future Cuetable version allows for 3D adjustment of the view?

 

[Blackjack]

i bet Blackjack never beat Travis Trotter. and if he did, he'd have had to play a good game of 9-Ball, probably not missing any more than two shots.

thanks,

DCP

He gets the wild 7 and the crackles.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

I think what Blackjack is saying is that Nevel can do some stuff that you would not be able to look at the table and say, "Yup, that's possible." at just a glance, not that Larry is literally defying the laws of physics.

I've seen Larry's stuff (he used to hang out at Chris's in Chicago when I did), and some of it doesn't look physically possible to me - in particular how he makes a shaft last longer than a week.

It's just a figure of speech.

Depends who you're talking to. I believe it's just a figure of speech coming from Blackjack, but I know there are other readers who will take something like that literally.

Also.. I think Blackjack's use of the term, "your" laws of physics connotates that what YOU believe is physically impossible is not what the UNIVERSE believes is physically impossible.

I believe he meant my laws of physics in the sense that they're my pet topic (and maybe he's a little tired of hearing about it). That's close, but my pet topic is really pool myths - physics is just a means.

If Blackjack and the other poster say they have tested, and can execute the shot they are talking about, then that's just friggin' good enough for me.

I don't think this is about a shot - it's about what a player can do with his stroke generally. But it's also about a broader and more important topic, especially on discussion boards like this where people come to learn: the difference between what something "seems like" and what it actually is. It wasn't too long ago that many world class players didn't "believe in" things like squirt and throw.

It seems like we can control the CB in more subtle ways than just where and how hard we hit it - it seems like that to me too. But I've learned that "seems like" isn't very reliable - it seems like the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, and it took us centuries of more and more careful tests to know otherwise.

Especially considering BJ is a pro who has competed against (and beat) some of the game's best players.

I wish I had half of Blackjack's game and had contributed half of what he has to pool - but you don't have to have ever picked up a cue stick to know something about what's possible and what isn't, and you can be a world champion and be completely wrong about that stuff.

I'm no science wizard - just willing to look closer to find out if what things seem like is really how they are, and convinced that knowing how they are can only help my game.

pj
chgo