three rail kick shot using fixed point
- Thread starter Gregg
- Start date
I think it's important to note that the system as described in the first post in the referenced thread is unlikely to work on new cloth and the exact distance of the distant object has to be correct or the system has no chance of working well.Gregg said:
Got to admit to being a general sceptic about the value of kicking systems against my personal preference of 'instinctive feel' but have always been a fan of each player following their own preference and/or whatever works for them. This system has come up in various conversations I've had in person with other players and have never yet got all the answers I've wanted so will take this opportunity of picking the brains of AZb'ers
1. Can someone explain how that system in the table diagram in the first post of the original thread would result in a succesful hit if everything remained the same except for the cue ball being moved much further to the right e.g. let's say 6 inches behind the baulk line? Maybe I'm being very dumb but I just can't see it working under those circumstances. Tokyo-dave asked a similar question in the original thread and no-one seemed to answer it.
2. How is the "6-9 ft away from the table" measured? Is it measured in a direction 'along' a projected line drawn from the starting point on the opposite cushion passing through the second diamond and is the 6-9 ft measured starting from the cushion opposite to the target object ball or starting from the middle of the table or starting from the second diamond on the 'aiming' side of the table? Or are we supposed to visualise the point on that projected diagonal line and the corresponding point on the side cushion which would be a distance of 6-9 ft apart if measured at 90 degrees to the side cushion? Entirely different aiming point results would transpire for each of these choices.
3. Isn't 6-9 ft far too big a range to give the kind of consistent potting accuracy alleged? In fact whatever the actual distance should be isn't it the case that geometrically speaking the correct distance of the aiming point "away from the table" cannot possibly always be the same for all the different possible starting positions of the cue ball in instances similar to the example given?
1. Can someone explain how that system in the table diagram in the first post of the original thread would result in a succesful hit if everything remained the same except for the cue ball being moved much further to the right e.g. let's say 6 inches behind the baulk line? Maybe I'm being very dumb but I just can't see it working under those circumstances. Tokyo-dave asked a similar question in the original thread and no-one seemed to answer it.
2. How is the "6-9 ft away from the table" measured? Is it measured in a direction 'along' a projected line drawn from the starting point on the opposite cushion passing through the second diamond and is the 6-9 ft measured starting from the cushion opposite to the target object ball or starting from the middle of the table or starting from the second diamond on the 'aiming' side of the table? Or are we supposed to visualise the point on that projected diagonal line and the corresponding point on the side cushion which would be a distance of 6-9 ft apart if measured at 90 degrees to the side cushion? Entirely different aiming point results would transpire for each of these choices.
3. Isn't 6-9 ft far too big a range to give the kind of consistent potting accuracy alleged? In fact whatever the actual distance should be isn't it the case that geometrically speaking the correct distance of the aiming point "away from the table" cannot possibly always be the same for all the different possible starting positions of the cue ball in instances similar to the example given?
Last edited:
It doesn't work. There is a "spot on the wall" system that shows "geometric" multi-rail tracks, but that isn't it. Even the correct one isn't completely accurate - it takes some knowledge of its shortcomings to make it useful. I don't think the one shown in the earlier thread is correct or useful.
pj
chgo
Bob's comments from the past.....
I thought it would be interesting to post Bobs comments from the past on this system. I've used it for a few years now and it does work. Yes, you do need to know the speed of the table you're playing on and make adjustments for it. Once that's done, it's deadly accurate.
SGM
Bob Jewett said:
I thought it would be interesting to post Bobs comments from the past on this system. I've used it for a few years now and it does work. Yes, you do need to know the speed of the table you're playing on and make adjustments for it. Once that's done, it's deadly accurate.
SGM
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't want to go on and on, and nothing is 100% correct when comes to systems, but I've set this up during league night on a 9'er for a shooter, and he made the eight ball for a hill/hill match win.
I'd say that's at the very least one case where this system was both correct and useful.
And trust me, there are many more, even if you miss. I mean, come on; your going three rails to kick at a ball. All of the easy, reasonable, high percentage kicks are not available. Nobody goes three rails for anything unless they have to. It at least gives you a reference point for judgment, where a shooter my have none.
Last edited:
The spot on the wall system mentioned earlier can be studied in the same way as the opposite-3 as also mentioned earlier. In general, you will arrive at a distant spot for each particular target. The claim of the system referenced in this thread -- as I understand it -- is that a single point on the table can give a lot of distant points that cover all usual 3-cushion kicks (side-end-side). If that were true, it would be quite useful, especially if I could arrange to have walls at the right distances from the table with suitable murals on them. The problem, as mentioned earlier, is figuring out the required adjustments.memikey said:Got to admit to being a general sceptic about the value of kicking systems against my personal preference of 'instinctive feel' but have always been a fan of each player following their own preference and/or whatever works for them. This system has come up in various conversations I've had in person with other players and have never yet got all the answers I've wanted so will take this opportunity of picking the brains of AZb'ers
...
In the original thread, there was one person claiming something like pocketing 3 of 5 balls that were 2 diamonds from the pocket. I'm willing to bet they can't do 10% on average, no matter which system they use.
Last edited:
What shot did you set up and how did you aim and hit it?
pj
chgo
Three rail system
PJ or Bob,
what is this system whereas you shoot through the 3rd diamond and the cue ball will travel to the other side of the spot the same distance that it is from the spot when you shoot it? See diagram. Hope this makes sense.
Supposedly, it doesn't matter where the cue ball is, if you shoot into the 3rd diamond, it will always travel to the exact location on the other side of the spot.
I think there are adjustments for this if the ball is to the left or right of this line.
Of course, you can't go up too far. I guess the object ball would have to be at the spot or below it.
PJ or Bob,
what is this system whereas you shoot through the 3rd diamond and the cue ball will travel to the other side of the spot the same distance that it is from the spot when you shoot it? See diagram. Hope this makes sense.
Supposedly, it doesn't matter where the cue ball is, if you shoot into the 3rd diamond, it will always travel to the exact location on the other side of the spot.
I think there are adjustments for this if the ball is to the left or right of this line.
Of course, you can't go up too far. I guess the object ball would have to be at the spot or below it.
Gregg said:
Don't doubt that at all Gregg.....but my points/questions, in another way would be....
1. Did you/the shooter use an object 6ft, 7ft, 8ft or 9ft away in order to establish an aiming point on the rail and "how" does the system tell you which out of that specified range of distances to use in order to generate the angles to pot an object ball in that particular position with a white at that particular starting point?
2. Changing absolutely nothing in the set up other than the starting position of the white, for example moving it to the right by about a foot, would by this system give you exactly the same aiming point on the first rail. However not only would you then clearly not make the object ball you in fact wouldn't even hit it. There are obviously dozens of other starting positions of the white throughout the table which would similarly result in a miss of the object ball if you cued towards this same specified aiming point without any running side. "How" does the system indicate to you which starting positions of the white will "work" and which won't?
3. I suspect the answer to the questions above is that the system doesn't and the system can't, you just have to 'know'.......which you can only achieve by trial and error, experience and your feel for the shots. Seems to me to be a system only useful for an extremely limited number of given circumstances and even then only when you have the knowledge and experience to realise when those favourable circumstances exist in the first place. Unfortunately this would beg the observation that if you have that knowledge and experience to know when the system is useful to a particular spread of balls and when it isn't........you probably don't need a system in the first place
Last edited:
This is the "opposite 3" system that was described by Bob Byrne in his "Wonderful World of Pool and Billiards" book. That's the system I describe how to calibrate in one of my articles. Just going with the simple rule will get you within 6 inches of your target, probably on most tables. If you want more accuracy than that, you need to test and adjust. According to the system as described by Byrne, you don't aim at the third diamond; you aim to land the cue ball even with the third diamond. ("Even with the diamond" is also called "opposite" the diamond, hence the name of the system.)klockdoc said:
A problem with a lot of systems is that they might seem to work on one day under one set of conditions for the right shot, but they don't come all that close in general. The corner-5 system changes a lot over the first week of a new cloth, and corrections must be applied to make it accurate to half a ball at the fourth cushion on all tables, but most people seem to ignore those details. Some blame their strokes when it is the system (or their lack of full understanding of the system) that is at fault.
The fly on the wall works if you know the table well enough to judge how long or short the ball comes off the third rail. New cloth, usually long, old cloth short. And if you're using a consistent amount of english, figure that out as well. Sometimes, with extreme running english and older cloth the cue ball can be played through the second diamond.
Also, You can judge where the ball will come by placing the cue ball in the center of one corner pocket and then stroke it through the point where the ball goes three rails into the adjacent corner.
Danny
Also, You can judge where the ball will come by placing the cue ball in the center of one corner pocket and then stroke it through the point where the ball goes three rails into the adjacent corner.
Danny