You don't tug on Superman's cape and you don't spit against the wind and I'm not fixing to disagree with either one of them!
Hu
straightline: "Can you provide the logic behind this?"
- Thread starter jjohnson
- Start date
You don't tug on Superman's cape and you don't spit against the wind and I'm not fixing to disagree with either one of them!
Hu
Are you asking about shooting a frozen object ball down the rail?
Bob.... this is a fact.
Hitting the same contact point on a cut shot at a high speed.... INCREASES the CUTTING of THE object BALL.
Excessive spin combined with excessive cb speed Maximizes this situation.
I've very surprised but happy this came up why?
I might learn something new.
I learned when I started playing good in 70's I HAD TO aim ALLOT fatter on cut shots and even more when added draw while using ALLOT of speed. It becomes a feel shot, and conditions have a strong influence on your contact point choice.
Last edited:
Post 76, 78 & 79.
Yes, and I measured that effect about 30 years ago and put it in an article in Billiards Digest.
Here is a plot of the measurements from my June, 1995 BD column. The "soft", "medium" and "hard" lines refer to the speed of the shot. For a 45-degree cut, a soft shot throws about 5 to 6 degrees. For a hard shot, it only throws 2 degrees. Up to a 15-degree cut, the speed makes no difference to the cut angle.
The point relative to the current discussion is that the throw is never negative. If you are cutting a frozen ball down the rail, any shot without side spin that hits the ball and cushion at the same instant will throw the object ball into the rail and likely miss if it's more than a couple diamonds to the pocket.
I can't do a video right now, but maybe we can do it with words. I'm not sure what level you are starting from, so here are some basics. Do you understand these?
- The standard, simple ghost ball idea is that if the cue ball touches the object ball on its point farthest from the pocket, the object ball will be driven perfectly straight towards the pocket. At the instant of contact, the centers of the cue ball and object ball are on a line to the pocket.
- If you include the friction between the balls, and the cue ball is moving across the object ball -- like for a cut shot -- the object ball will be pulled off that ideal line by the sideways friction from the cue ball. This is called "throw".
Why do you assume I don't know how to do what your are discussing?
I wanted you or PJ or Bill to post a video demonstrating your point of view on the subject. Include not just pocketing the ball, but playing shape on another ball using a variety of spins.
Talking imo isn't doing.
Sorry, I didn't understand your request. The difference between what Bill is saying and what I'm saying is the cue ball hitting on the cushion about an eighth to a quarter of an inch different. I don't think a normal video of someone shooting a shot is going to show that. You have to look pretty carefully to see the difference.
It's all about "throw" - if you understand it our "views" are simple cause and effect.
A refresher:
When the CB's surface rubs across the OB's surface, either from the CB hitting the OB at an angle ("cut-induced" throw) or from CB side spin ("spin-induced" throw), or a combination of the two, it creates rubbing friction that "throws" the OB a little off the CB-OB line-of-centers (more on straighter and slower shots). Throw must be compensated for while aiming, either consciously or "by feel".
"Cut-induced" throw can be easily seen by freezing two OBs together against a rail and shooting that "dead" corner pocket combo straight into either OB from an angle (as if it's the "ghost ball"). You'll see that maximum throw does indeed happen at about a 30° (half ball) cut as shown by Bob's chart above.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I can't help you, I "just see the shots".
CB is airborne in a high speed hit. Thinner cut so it's not the same contact.
The high impact blows through the normal reaction window creating only directional force. This would probably normalize on an infinite playing surface.
Bob below is your response.
B. ''I don't think so. It's easy enough to test with a pair of frozen object balls and shooting the first thin and hard into the second. You seem to be predicting "negative throw".
Here's our beginning discussion of the situation.
When you said, I don't think so.
That surprised me why?
Because that was an Opinion not a fact.
I stated/Collision naturally overcuts more with high speed, why because I know it's a fact.
Last edited: