*** Thin Ball Aiming System-inside of object ball ***

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
Do you recommend any conscious compensation for higher speed or longer distance?

Bob; The longer the distance, the shorter the stroke.
At maximum speed and short stroke, the cue ball will not bend 3% off course.

Medium to medium-slow speed will give the cue ball the most curve with maximum English, but, if you give EXTRA penatration thru the cue ball it will even curve more.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 

nikkatine

Registered
Thin ball shots can be tough even in straight rail. I laugh at myself sometimes because I will be shooting one rail thin and miss so bad that it catches running english and hits 3 rails the opposite way.
 

framedglasshadd

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Very nice diagram, thanks. Hopefully I'll have the control one day to really be able to hit 10%, 20%, 30% etc... and distinguish one from the other. Now if I am told to hit 1/8th, I cannot be so accurate as to really hit 1/8. it's a good thing practicing is very satisfying.
 

Slh

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Bob; The longer the distance, the shorter the stroke.
At maximum speed and short stroke, the cue ball will not bend 3% off course.

Medium to medium-slow speed will give the cue ball the most curve with maximum English, but, if you give EXTRA penatration thru the cue ball it will even curve more.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

Hi
I read somewhere that the tip of the cue and the cueball are in contact for only 0,001sec so you can't change the cb reaction by using a shorter/longer stroke or by increasing/decreasing your followthrough. Not saying you are wrong, just want to know your thoughts on this subject.
Thank you
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
hi
i read somewhere that the tip of the cue and the cueball are in contact for only 0,001sec so you can't change the cb reaction by using a shorter/longer stroke or by increasing/decreasing your followthrough. Not saying you are wrong, just want to know your thoughts on this subject.
Thank you
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 
Last edited:

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

Do you have a good demo to convince the skeptics? I think it needs to be bullet proof so that a shot can only be made with a particular special technique of hitting the ball.

The simple physics approach says that the only thing you can control on the cue ball is the spin, speed and direction and that the simple way of hitting the cue ball can control those as well as any other.
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
Do you have a good demo to convince the skeptics? I think it needs to be bullet proof so that a shot can only be made with a particular special technique of hitting the ball.

The simple physics approach says that the only thing you can control on the cue ball is the spin, speed and direction and that the simple way of hitting the cue ball can control those as well as any other.

Bob; Are you really serious, you are going to sit there and tell me you have never seen "Professional" players use different strokes to score points in 3 cushion billiards!

So in other words the "Greatest" billiard player, Raymond Ceulemans, of the past 40 yrs. has been playing the game incorrectly!

In his book "Mister 100", published over 25 yrs. ago he explains the "5 Basic Strokes", Normal Stroke, Short Stroke, Rapid Stroke, Slow Stroke and Dead-ball stroke. He shows with photos the length and follow-thru for diiferent strokes

There are over 100 diagrams showing when and how to use these various strokes to score points.

I think Mr. Ceulemans book and his record will suffice for evidence to the contrary of the so called, "scientific" pool and billiard community!


Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 
Last edited:

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member


Bob; Are you really serious, you are going to sit there and tell me you have never seen "Professional" players use different strokes to score points in 3 cushion billiards! ...

I made a statement about what the simple physics has to say about the situation. I'm pretty sure I got that right. Can you find any fault with my statement?

I also asked a question. Can you answer it? Can you describe a good, simple convincing demo of your idea?
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
I made a statement about what the simple physics has to say about the situation. I'm pretty sure I got that right. Can you find any fault with my statement?

I also asked a question. Can you answer it? Can you describe a good, simple convincing demo of your idea?

Bob; Here are your simple convincing demos!
[Repeat] There are over 100 diagrams showing when and how to use these various strokes to score points.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Bob; Here are your simple convincing demos!
[Repeat] There are over 100 diagrams showing when and how to use these various strokes to score points.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
I had asked: Can you describe a good, simple convincing demo of your idea?
From your response, I take your answer to be, "No." To be convincing to a skeptic, the shot has to be either impossible without the technique or obviously easier with the technique.

Let me ask it a different way: Among the shots is there a best one to demonstrate the concept of "special strokes" and can you post a diagram here?
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
I had asked: Can you describe a good, simple convincing demo of your idea?
From your response, I take your answer to be, "No." To be convincing to a skeptic, the shot has to be either impossible without the technique or obviously easier with the technique.

Let me ask it a different way: Among the shots is there a best one to demonstrate the concept of "special strokes" and can you post a diagram here?

Bob; you are the all inclusive skeptic, but, I do have an example of 2 shots I demonstrate in clinics and exhibitions.

Short Stroke Cut Shots.jpg

The 2 shots demonstrate the use of a "short stroke", meaning the follow-thru is less than the length of the player’s bridge!

The 2 shots are hit with med-soft speed, the 1st shot off the outside of the white ball (solid Line) needs minimum 4 O'clock English. I idea here is to play position by using a short stroke along with med-soft speed to bring the 2nd ball across the table.

The 2nd example (dashed line) is EXTREMELY difficult; it requires perfect timing and tempo. Hitting the white very thin with extreme 8 O'clock English and short stoke, (note) I AM HITTING THE BALL FIRST ON THIS SHOT, this is the difficulty. If you don't apply a short stroke on this shot it's impossible to make, when hit correctly the white ball travel along the long cushion!

I've demonstrated these techniques all over the country to billiard and pool players, helping them to learn how to cut balls thinly, NO English, Inside English or Outside English, many are amazed how easy this technique works, once they get the feel for it.

I'm almost sure this explanation and diagram will not suffice for Mr. Jewett, it rarely does!


Respectfully;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

P.S. I invite players to attempt to make the 2 shots diagramed using a long follow-thru and 12 O'clock English, "good luck"!
:banghead::banghead:

P.S.S. BTW, I showed these shots to Bob Byrne about 30 yrs. ago at the Denver Athletic Club, before he came out with his book, " Byrne's Standard Pool and Billiard Trick Shots"!
 
Last edited:

Hector3cushion

Hector
Silver Member
i think both Bob and Bill are right. While the physics are what they are, the difference in strokes generally help achieve certain combinations of speed, spin and directions (the physics stuff).

For example, there are short angles where I hold the cue closer to the middle with my back hand in order to hit a bit fuller and with more confidence. My guess is that this helps me achieve a "physics" outcome through a different stroke.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think the example with right english is fairly easy with a normal follow through so it clearly is not a good example. The other shot, with left english is a little harder. I'll see if the length of follow through makes any difference for me. I think some players would tend to use a half-masse shot for it and take more ball.
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
I think the example with right english is fairly easy with a normal follow through so it clearly is not a good example. The other shot, with left english is a little harder. I'll see if the length of follow through makes any difference for me. I think some players would tend to use a half-masse shot for it and take more ball.

I would of been highly disappointed with any lesser of an answer from you, Bob.

Man, I've heard of concrete that was softer, what a waste of time! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

framedglasshadd

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Of course it matters...
If you want a basic explanation:

Impulse is the integral of force with respect to time from the 'initial' time to 'final' time. Conceptually, it is the change in momentum. Thus if the tip is in contact with the for a longer time, the more impulse (change in momentum) is created. In a long stroke, the tip is in contact for a longer time. Think of it as pushing the ball...

When a ball is at rest, the forces acting on it are gravity and the normal force from the table. When the cue strikes the ball, we have added the force from the cue and the friction acting against the motion of the ball. The longer we apply this force, the more time is it accelerating.

As for the spin of the ball, think about torque. A most basic example is the wrench example. When using a wrench to turn a screw it is much easier to turn it when holding it at the end the the wrench, away from the jaw. This is how english works. The farther your cue is from the "center of mass" the more english. Mathematically, Torque = force x radius, with the force being perpendicular to the wrench at the point of its application.
Torque vector = (radius vector * force vector * sine theta) * normal vector To find the magnitude of torque, we just don't multiply by the normal vector. Angular acceleration for a rotating object is proportional to the net torque applied.

Thus the greater the radius (from the center of the ball and assuming the same force), the greater the torque. The more force, the more spin as well.

And more directly concerning long/short stroke, work = force * distance. It is directly proportional... the more in contact (distance the tip is pushing the cue ball) the more work.

This is even relevant prior to contacting the cue ball. It does not matter if you start 10 cm away from the cue ball or 10 feet away, if you hit it with the same amount of force and angle the result will be the same. However, since we are human we need time to attain that acceleration. So we pull back farther. The more you pull back, the longer time you have to accelerate the stick so that you will have a greater final velocity when you actually hit the cue ball.
To put it simply:
1. "The rate of change of momentum of an object is equal to the net force applied to it".
2. Momentum = mass * velocity
3. More acceleration, greater final velocity (vf=v0+at)
4. To attain the greater final velocity, we pull back more so we have more time!

If you would like additional information... I suggest reading about rotational motion. There is a topic called "moment of inertia" you can google. It is very much related to its kinetic energy... which all has to do with the result of the cue ball.

I hope this is sufficient explanation, I know it was all over the place. I am using only my petty knowledge of math and even pettier knowledge of mechanics but used a calc textbook and physics textbook for reference.

Also, you can test this out with other things using just common sense, I think... I mean, try kicking a ball and only allowing your foot to move 10 cm forward. Then try to kick it, allowing your foot to move 30 cm forward. Of course, you can kick it with more force when you're allowed more time to accelerate your foot. If you flick an object, allowing your index finger to extend fully allows for a better flick. Same with the cue... and when you have a longer follow-through the force is being applied for a longer amount of time and distance, thus, accelerating as such.
 

Fox

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
it works .

Since this topic is one of the most interesting one created while ago!!!
I have to answer it.

I just came back from the ELKS lodge in Burbank. tried the Smith techique!
It works very well , the first diagram took me 2 tries and the second diagram took me 5 to 6 tries and after that , I was able to make it 80 % (very good for me ).

I did learn the game in Europe at a younger age and I learned it the same way as Rogi conti Taught the rest of the world how to implement 5 strokes ....
But since I came to the state , I decided to learn the techinque from a pool instructor (scott lee) he is truly gentleman and a great instructor! I tried the techique for a month (3 cushion ) playing with the same stroke (follow though) , unfortunately it dosen't work for 3 cushion all the time , specially in cases like Bill showed .

I tried both ways and believe the 5 stroke technique is the ONLY and The most EFFECTIVE way in 3 cushion to achieve a higher average and better game .

enjoy the Roger Conti and straight rail billiards film

http://www.poolchat.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8418
 

3kushn

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
framedglasshadd, It was difficult to follow the math since I'm not a math wizard but it appears your reference material isn't exactly appropriate for this discussion. I say that with all due respect. Although not the math wizard I am well versed in Torque. It’s my business profession. The formula stated Torque = Force * Radius is what leads me to the conclusion. Torque = Force * Length. Its a fine point for argument but there's only one radius to a circle and we can never cue at THE radius. Your response can be, we can define several circles from center, each with a radius. That's fine, but not mentioned.

The main argument that’s not addressed is the belief that no matter what, the ball is gone within approx 1/10,000 second after cueing. Therefore pushing is not possible. Soft tip vs Hard tip has been studied too and some increased time but little. Now we have to argue, is there a significant difference if tip contact time makes a difference if its 1/10,000 second vs 1/9,000 second. Maybe. Not aware of any study on this.

Lastly a surprise. FOR ME IT SEEMS. If I choke up on the cue with a short stroke I definitely produce more English, period. Don't know why but I can and use this a few times per game.
 
Top