Tips for shooting jacked up off the rail or over a ball

TrumanHW said:
...if you're using draw or deflection, if the ball is BOUNCING from the speed and elevation, you get less drag on the cueball which means it'll hold more draw per distance and speed -- and if it's side spin, you'll get less swerve, so the effect of deflection will be increased. These are HIGHLY speed sensitive functions and require good judgment.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about these things. Each time a bouncing CB hits the cloth it generates more friction than a rolling one would, so although it's not continuous, I believe it's at least as much friction overall.

Also, hitting downward on the CB creates masse spin, which increases swerve. Again, the bouncing CB has some effect, but I'm not sure in which direction (increase or decrease of overall friction).

pj
chgo
 
Poolplaya9 said:
...It is true that sometimes people will rule your opinion invalid simply because it doesn't agree with their opinion, and that often makes them idiots too. But sometimes there are people who don't agree with your opinion because it doesn't agree with the actual facts which can be proven, and that makes you the idiot.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the veil insults. Thank you too, Tim, for your sincere defense attempt, but you are wrong about Tony. I was not referring to him specifically. I was making a general post to Dukie, given the attitude that he receives.

I totally understand how a pilot could think up is actually down & I understand the G forces that could lead to their senses deceiving them in a panic situation, or rather their misinterpretation of them hence the failure of their minds since the senses were correct.

Some on here that think that they 'know' all of the 'science' regarding playing the game would NOT understand that scenario. They only know what they have been told about 'science' in the game.

What some of them call 'proof' is based on flawed & insufficient tests. They will state something as 'fact' with no qualification or they shroud it with 'based on all scientific tests or known 'fact', not knowing the tests were insufficient from which to draw a definitive conclusion, but 'oh know it's a known fact'. Some may even know that the test is flawed & insufficient but, 'it's all we have'.

Science is an ongoing study. If it stops, then it is no longer science. When one closes one's mind they are no longer in the realm of science. Some use science as if it is God & is infallible. That is simply not the case. There has been very very little scientific study of this game & what some consider fact today may one day be scientifically found to be false, but I doubt it, because their is no monetary incentive to do such scientific study as there is in golf, etc.

If a 'scientific' test result came out that said that fire does not 'factually' burn nor consume. It is only a figment of our imagination based on past programming, would you sit down in a fire pit?

Science has been wrong as much as if not more so than it has been correct. It took Thomas Edison a year of ongoing experiments to develop a long lasting (13 hours) light bulb in 1879, when the first light bulb was actually invented in 1802. How many told him it was scientifically impossible?

I am better suited to understanding concepts than the specific numbers relating to those concepts. I did not go into that type of field out of college. In fact I dropped out of college during the Vietnam War, but that is a long story that is neither here nor there.

I am an athlete that knows physics, not all physics, but one year of College Physics & Calculus after 2 years of HS Physics & Calculus, but as I said, that was sort of left behind. BUT since Physics is not man made like math & is true, the concepts & understanding remain.

You know nothing about me nor my intelligence. I've actually tested multiple times at the 98 percentile toward genius. I have a rather High IQ. Do I consider myself a genius? In no way. Only an arrogant ego would do that & there are quite a few of those here on AZB.

You 'seem' to be stuck on my use of the word 'seem' & 'seems'. There are reasons that I choose to use those words over others.

Anyway, thanks for the 'well intended expos'e' but you could NOT be farther from the truth of matters regarding me.

Best Wishes,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Thanks for the veil insults. Thank you too, Tim, for your sincere defense attempt, but you are wrong about Tony. I was not referring to him specifically. I was making a general post to Dukie, given the attitude that he receives.

I totally understand how a pilot could think up is actually down & I understand the G forces that could lead to their senses deceiving them in a panic situation, or rather their misinterpretation of them hence the failure of their minds since the senses were correct.

Some on here that think that they 'know' all of the 'science' regarding playing the game would NOT understand that scenario. They only know what they have been told about 'science' in the game.

What some of them call 'proof' is based on flawed & insufficient tests. They will state something as 'fact' with no qualification or they shroud it with 'based on all scientific tests or known 'fact', not knowing the tests were insufficient from which to draw a definitive conclusion, but 'oh know it's a known fact'. Some may even know that the test is flawed & insufficient but, 'it's all we have'.

Science is an ongoing study. If it stops, then it is no longer science. When one closes one's mind they are no longer in the realm of science. Some use science as if it is God & is infallible. That is simply not the case. There has been very very little scientific study of this game & what some consider fact today may one day be scientifically found to be false, but I doubt it, because their is no monetary incentive to do such scientific study as there is in golf, etc.

If a 'scientific' test result came out that said that fire does not really burn nor consume. It is only a figment of our imagination based on past programming, would you sit down in a fire pit?

Science has been wrong as much as if not more so than it has been correct. It took Thomas Edison a year of ongoing experiments to develop a long lasting (13 hours) light bulb in 1879, when the first light bulb was actually invented in 1802. How many told him it was scientifically impossible?

I am better suited to understanding concepts than the specific numbers relating to these concepts. I did not go into that type of field out of college. In fact I dropped out of college during the Vietnam War, but that is a long story that is neither here nor there.

I am an athlete that knows physics, not all physics, but one year of College Physics & Calculus after 2 years of HS Physics & Calculus, but as I said, that was sort of left behind. BUT since Physics is not man made like math & is true, the concepts & understanding remain.

You know nothing about me nor my intelligence. I've actually tested multiple times at the 98 percentile toward genius. I have a rather High IQ. Do I consider myself a genius? In no way. Only an arrogant ego would do that & there are quite a few of those here on AZB.

You 'seem' to be stuck on my use of the word 'seem' & 'seems'. There are reasons that I choose to use those words over others.

Anyway, thanks for the 'well intended expos'e' but you could NOT be farther form the truth of matters regarding me.

Best Wishes,
Rick
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for informing us all that your unsubstantiated opinion trumps all known science and tests on the subject. You are definitely "special".
 
Neil said:
Well, thank you for informing us all that your unsubstantiated opinion trumps all known science and tests on the subject. You are definitely "special".
Click to expand...

Thanks Neil. You're 'special' too.

You can constantly distort the facts & put words in people's mouths that they did not say.

It must be a special gift given to you from someone...

& that someone is NOT God.
 
If cueball is on air when it hits object ball cut is always too thin.
This is common knowledge. And easy to demonstrate. You only need draw two circles.
 
Who needs to know the science behind shooting jacked up on the rail over a ball...

All you need to do is practice this type of shot until you regularly make them. I don't need to know the forces involved when I fall, all I need to do is practice walking.. Which I do, everyday as it happens.
 
Pidge said:
Who needs to know the science behind shooting jacked up on the rail over a ball...

All you need to do is practice this type of shot until you regularly make them. I don't need to know the forces involved when I fall, all I need to do is practice walking.. Which I do, everyday as it happens.
Click to expand...

Well, let's look at the "science" just a little- If you hit the cb too high, you will miscue. If you hit the cb off center while the cue is elevated, the cb will masse. Yeah, who needs to know that kind of stuff?
 
duckie said:
Here is a simple little drawing that shows some different angle of attacks that are possible with a cue.

Look at the side view and the top most arrow ie cue angle of attack. That arrow is a center ball hit. Now move that arrow forward where it is hitting above the CB center with the same angle.

You are stating that in that configuration that the CB will move out of the way as fast as when using a level cue and hitting just above center.

Because the CB can not move out of the way as fast, this means more contact time. If it did move out of the way fast enough......no nip, as some call it, or raising tip stroke would be needed.

One setup, the CB is being pushed across the table with a level cue therefor the table pushing against the CB does matter, the other the CB is being pushed into the table do the angle of the cue and where the CB is hit and therefore the table pushing back does matter. It seems alot forget about the weight of the ball. The table is pushing back the same amount as the ball weighs.

Just because someone sets up some very limited testing scenarios and tries to imply that the results of those limited test set is valid for all shots does not make it so.

Is there a video test setup like I described somewhere showing the contact time. Oh yeah......what speed is used? Unless there us a real value for the speed used, those test are meaningless. Without knowing the exact speed of the CB, everything else is useless.

I don't just blindly accept the terms slow, med, fast. Those are too subjective to be used in formal type of testing designed to prove something. I don't think rocket scientist use subjective terms in their testing.
Click to expand...

...:thumbup2:...
 
Pidge said:
Who needs to know the science behind shooting jacked up on the rail over a ball...

All you need to do is practice this type of shot until you regularly make them. I don't need to know the forces involved when I fall, all I need to do is practice walking.. Which I do, everyday as it happens.
Click to expand...

...:thumbup2:...
 
ENGLISH! said:
...:thumbup2:...
Click to expand...

So, you are agreeing with him that you also have no clue if the videos and tests even exists, or what they consist of if they do exist, but they must be wrong anyways and therefore are invalid. ooookaaaayyy
 
What was said earlier is simply cause & effect.

No one needs to know the specific science of why they happen.

All they NEED to know is that they happen when one does this or that.

Is it nice to understand the actual why science of it? For some yes, but for some no.

What some call science is not science at all. It's as I said simply everyday cause & effect.

It's the why that is the science.

We are individuals & we all function differently.

Some here on AZB simply SEEM to NOT understand the reality that is the human being...

... nor that of some athletes & how they operate to be able to perform at the level of which they do.

One can not do the seemingly 'impossible' or the very very challenging if one puts up scientific road blocks like that's too complicated, you'll never be able to do that when you want to or need to, etc. etc, etc.

Yet many want to be able to do just what those athletes do. One will never do what they do if one carries a certain mind set. One will need the mind set that those high performing athletes carry.

That mind set is that nothing is impossible & I don't care what 'they' say.

You can't take off from the foul line & dunk the ball. You've never done that before. It's impossible. Good 'Luck' with that.
 
Neil said:
So, you are agreeing with him that you also have no clue if the videos and tests even exists, or what they consist of if they do exist, but they must be wrong anyways and therefore are invalid. ooookaaaayyy
Click to expand...


I will just say again, that you 'constantly' put words into the mouths of others that they never said.

You also 'constantly' assume, misstate, mischaracterize, misquote, slander, etc.

No one wants to have a discussion or a conversation with an individual of such a disingenuous nature.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
Well, let's look at the "science" just a little- If you hit the cb too high, you will miscue. If you hit the cb off center while the cue is elevated, the cb will masse. Yeah, who needs to know that kind of stuff?
Click to expand...
Like I said, you don't need to know the science behind it. I know if I hit too far from centre I will miscue but I don't need an essay or test papers to understand that. Pool is played at its best when it's simplified. It's played on a table, not a professors chalk board.
 
Pidge said:
Like I said, you don't need to know the science behind it. I know if I hit too far from centre I will miscue but I don't need an essay or test papers to understand that. Pool is played at its best when it's simplified. It's played on a table, not a professors chalk board.
Click to expand...

I don't see where anyone other than Rick brought up the science behind the shot anyways. He brought it up just to argue against it. He has 25 posts in this thread alone, and only one is somewhat on topic. As vague as he could make it, but still on topic. You are getting upset at those that do know the science just because some guy that likes to argue keeps bringing up silly things to dismiss all science and anyone that knows some.
 
Neil said:
I don't see where anyone other than Rick brought up the science behind the shot anyways. He brought it up just to argue against it. He has 25 posts in this thread alone, and only one is somewhat on topic. As vague as he could make it, but still on topic. You are getting upset at those that do know the science just because some guy that likes to argue keeps bringing up silly things to dismiss all science and anyone that knows some.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting upset, it just pisses me off when people take the bait and ruin a perfectly good thread.
 
Pidge said:
All you need to do is practice this type of shot until you regularly make them.
...
I don't need an essay or test papers to understand that. Pool is played at its best when it's simplified. It's played on a table, not a professors chalk board.
Click to expand...
Science isn't "essays, test papers or a professor's chalk board" - it's simply relying on factual information rather than your impression of what's real.

Practicing shows you how to make that shot - assuming you eventually stumble onto the right way to shoot it. "The science" tells you exactly how to practice it so you can learn it as quickly as possible without going down dead ends - and how to approach similar-but-different shots to shorten your learning curve on them too.

Getting good instruction of any kind is getting "the science" - do you think all instruction should consist only of "practice it until you can do it"?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would venture if pros were making millions of dollars a year. Science would be part of their game. Meaning someone somewhere would have technology to break down every aspect of their game to make them a more proficient player. Just like what is done in just about every sport. It goes beyond natural talent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Science isn't "essays, test papers or a professor's chalk board" - it's simply relying on factual information rather than your impression of what's real.

Practicing shows you how to make that shot - assuming you eventually stumble onto the right way to shoot it. "The science" tells you exactly how to practice it so you can learn it as quickly as possible without going down dead ends - and how to approach similar-but-different shots to shorten your learning curve on them too.

Getting good instruction of any kind is getting "the science" - do you think all instruction should consist only of "practice it until you can do it"?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I don't believe in instruction of specifics like you suggest. I'm old fashioned and believe if one has the fundamental techniques required to play a sport then all they have to do is play the sport enough and they can be good at that sport. So the only instruction I have ever paid for has been fundamental lessons. If a player understands the science behind a given task, but can't execute the fundamental requirements, what good is their knowledge? Likewise if a player has exceptional fundamentals but knows nothing of the physics behind pool and why their fundamentals are exceptional, could that player play good pool? Ask some of the best players in the world if you are struggling to find the answer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Pidge said:
I'm old fashioned and believe if one has the fundamental techniques required to play a sport then all they have to do is play the sport enough and they can be good at that sport.
Click to expand...
And if they also get good instruction in that sport's "science", they can be better at it in less time.

Suit yourself, but why argue against others having the benefit of knowing what's really happening?

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top