The "Z" kick

[Patrick Johnson]

Thank you Patrick, that makes a TON of more sense!!!

Unfortunately, Reid needlessly complicates things the way he demonstrates it in the video.

I'd ignore the "equal-opposite" measurement he does with his cue and just calculate the 2nd rail target the way I show. Then you can hit that target by using the "mirror" aiming method Reid shows or some other simple 1-rail kick aiming method - they all produce the same result (after adjusting for table conditions).

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Have you even tried it on the table with different cb and ob positions??

Yes, but it wasn't necessary to understand Reid's system.

And, you really want us to forget what Reid says, and do it your way??

My way is Reid's way, just broken down into more easily understandable parts. For the second part (aiming the 1st-rail kick at the 2nd-rail target) you can even use the "mirror" method shown by Reid. Or you can substitute another way that's equivalent, such as this well known "x" method:



...or you can use whatever 1-rail kick method you're comfortable with (I usually use the "2:1 diamonds" method and adjust for table conditions from there). Both the "mirror" method and the "x" method have the advantage of being easy to use no matter where the cue ball is.

My path (in white) is exactly the same except aimed a little short to adjust for table conditions (after trying it out at my pool hall). In fact, because of different cloth/ball conditions, neither the 1st-rail target nor the 2nd-rail target are likely to be exactly as Reid calculates and measures.

pj
chgo

 

[12squared]

Thank you Neil & Patrick! You both helped a great deal with the understanding of Jimmy's system, I'm sure it's appreciated by all who were interested. I sent you both rep for your time & effort.

Now please stop arguing, you are saying the same thing and they were both helpful :thumbup:. Neil was 1st with the explanation so he gets extra credit!

Again, we (at least I) appreciate both of you for your knowledge and willingness to share.

Dave

 

[TX Poolnut]

Thanks Patrick. You made it very easy to understand with that last post.

:smile:

 

[klockdoc]

Aaron, didn't read the whole thread, but this is a system that I use and adjust as needed.

KICK SHOTS - TWO RAILS DOUBLE CROSS SIDE AND CORNER (Use rail point numbers v/s diamonds) On two rail cross kick shots to corner pocket across end rail from one rail kick corner pocket; the following rule applies: The aim point on the first kick rail is exactly one half diamond number higher than it is for a one rail kick shot. The two exceptions are rail of origin diamond numbers 8.0 and 1.0. A. Cue ball off 8.0 goes into opposite rail point 5.0 for two rail kick, versus rail point 4.0 on one rail kick shot. B. Cue ball off diamond 1.0 moves it’s aim point only a quarter diamond to .75 versus half diamond .50 on one rail kick shot. Note: When shooting two rail kick shots, going to a SIDE rail first, we Subtract. When we go to an END rail first, we ADD.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thanks Patrick. You made it very easy to understand with that last post.

Glad to help.

However, both Neil and I (and Reid) have left out an important point. The "width" distance between CB and OB should be measured as if the CB is against the near rail, but projected along its kick path to the far rail. Here's what I mean:



All three of the cue balls in this diagram are 8 diamonds from the OB. You can see this is true because they all obviously must hit the same 2nd-rail target (they all hit the same 1st-rail target using Reid's "mirror" method). But if you measure from the CB's actual position in the middle of the table you'll get a smaller "width" (6 or 7 diamonds) and a different 2nd rail target, and the shot will go long.

pj
chgo

 

[bbb]

Glad to help.

However, both Neil and I (and Reid) have left out an important point. The "width" distance between CB and OB should be measured as if the CB is against the near rail, but projected along its kick path to the far rail. Here's what I mean:

View attachment 226426

All three of the cue balls in this diagram are 8 diamonds from the OB. You can see this is true because they all obviously must hit the same 2nd-rail target (they all hit the same 1st-rail target using Reid's "mirror" method). But if you measure from the CB's actual position in the middle of the table you'll get a smaller "width" (6 or 7 diamonds) and a different 2nd rail target, and the shot will go long.

pj
chgo

thanks
i wondered about that if the cue ball was on a "track"

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Bob Jewett]

Pat, what you are talking about is totally different than what Jimmy and I are talking about. Your system might work, but it is not what Jimmy is showing for his way to do it. For Jimmys system, the cb ARE 8,7,and 6 diamonds away respectively.

Would Jimmy's system have you shoot to the same point on the first cushion for those three cue ball positions?

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Bob:
Would Jimmy's system have you shoot to the same point on the first cushion for those three cue ball positions?

Neil:
Yes, it does

How could all three cue balls follow the same path into the first rail yet hit three different points on the 2nd rail?

but it is not the point that Pat shows in his diagram.

We disagree about that too, but it doesn't matter. Wherever the 1st rail contact point is, if all three cue balls hit it at the same angle, then all three cue balls must also hit the same contact point on the second rail. This means the step-back calculation must be the same for all three, which means they must all be the same distance from the object ball.

pj
chgo

 

[Banks]

How could all three cue balls follow the same path into the first rail yet hit three different points on the 2nd rail?

English.

I saw a couple of people mention it, and, to me, it is the biggest factor determining a Z. The standard Z should be done using top. To cut the angle on the last bank the most, use draw.

Other things change it up a bit, too, but think of it like a bank shot.. many people will try to slam a bank using draw, then they see it hit short and will do a few things.. medium/softer speed will Z into the other pocket, hard usually goes straight back up/down after coming up short, and then very hard with usually reverse the angle a little bit(and people will complain about "bad rails" and so on).

In APA, or any other game that allows slop(9b, etc), I use this technique to get a much higher percentage of balls when banking. It may be sloppy, but there's a method to the madness. Of course, rails and felt must also be taken into account. That's how I see it at least, hopefully it helps somebody.

Edit: The shot must still be hit hard enough to carry the english if trying to alter the path, like with shortening up on the second rail using draw. Tables differ considerably.. I play mostly on barboxes, so there's not as much room for the english to wear off.

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
How could all three cue balls follow the same path into the first rail yet hit three different points on the 2nd rail?

Banks:
English.

Well, sure, but that misses the point of the question.

Let's assume the cue ball is against the far rail at the 1st rail contact point (same for all three shots). From there, why would you want to hit three different 2nd-rail points to hit the same 1 ball?

pj

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Neil]

..........

 

[Banks]

Well, sure, but that misses the point of the question.

Let's assume the cue ball is against the far rail at the 1st rail contact point (same for all three shots). From there, why would you want to hit three different 2nd-rail points to hit the same 1 ball?

pj

Traffic, or a possible leave or something. If you need to stay close to the end rail, it may be better not to come in at such an angle, etc. At first I thought the question was about kick-banks, then I read it was Z kicks, but my response was tailored more for Z banks, I suppose, as the english would be opposite if you're not hitting the object ball before the rails. :embarrassed2:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Take your middle ball, 2 1/2 diamonds off the rail gives you 5/32. 5/32 times 7 ( diamonds from the ob) gives you about 1 1/16 diamonds you move over from the ob. Check it out with a piece of paper on your diagram. It comes out to 3 1/4 diamonds.

I will say, you do have to use the right speed, which for my table is medium speed.

Neil, let me first say that I have lots of respect for your posts about game strategies, shot selection/execution, etc. You have a wealth of expertise and I've learned a lot from you.

But you're just not seeing the basic geometry here. And you didn't answer the question: how do all three cue balls hit the 1st rail at the same angle and on the same point, but end up hitting different points on the 2nd-rail? And if they could do that, how would they all hit the same 1 ball?

To see what I'm driving at, forget the calculation and even forget the first leg of the two-rail kick. Just try visualizing this as if you're shooting all three shots from the other side of the table with the cue ball at the 1st rail contact point.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, for your diagram, if you hit where you show to hit, and not where Jimmys system tells you to hit, then yes, it's rather obvious that you hit the exact same point each time.

As you must in order to hit the 1 ball from those positions.

Imagine the two added cue balls are just time lapse images of the first cue ball traveling on its path to the first rail. Should its path change when it reaches those points?

If it shouldn't, then why should different cue balls starting from those same positions take different paths?

pj
chgo