3c aim precise as pool aim?
PJ,
If I may offer my $.02... I hope I can add missing qualifications to many of your points which are generally true.
Before I explain, I should mention that I admire and rely on the good work done by player/scientist/authors such as Coriolis, Raiford, Jewett, Alciatore, Shepard (and others) to inform a 3c playing model that roots its foundation on real laws of physics - before placing my faith on watered-down memory aids, empirically derived numbers, or diamond aiming systems that imply the fictitious notion of a standard reference table.
Personally, I aim and execute to hit an OB the very same way regardless of whether I am playing 3c or pool. I say that the 3-cushion game requires players to make hits on the first object ball at least as precisely as other cue games.
For players that do not aim the same way in both games, my opinion is that they should. If a player specifically decides where to cut the OB before shooting, they have the ability to validate and evaluate the quality of their hit afterwards. In order to properly diagnose the reason for misses, one must be able to trace the mistake to its cause (hit, spin, speed, etc). Ignoring exact hits in 3c is a certain way to drastically delay an already lengthy learning process. In 3c, a player can (and often does) do everything wrong (miss the hit, use the wrong speed, and have unintended sidespin) and despite this, still score the point. This is a dangerous learning pitfall we should want to avoid - unaware, one fails to recognize any mistakes and, worse, walk away from the experience with the wrong impression that everything they did was correct! If a player misses a 3c shot, yet was conscious about where they intended to drive the object ball beforehand, they have the opportunity to distinguish whether their error was conceptual in nature or a mechanical flaw. Having quality feedback enables the proper reinforcement of practice which should lead to more productive playing sessions. Too many players skip the very important post-shot analysis routine and pay by 'spinning their wheels' for years without any significant improvement. I forgot who said, "3-cushion billiards is the only game where you can hit the ball absolutely, positively perfectly and have a damn good chance of scoring." (McGoorty?)
Here are some of my points to detail:
1) While many 3c shots can be achieved using near-half-ball hits, a tremendous proportion of shots require carom angles that are less than 30 degrees. The rolling carom lines for hits less than 1/4 ball and more than 3/4 ball (<27 deg) are markedly sensitive to OB hit (approaching 3x).
2) While it is true that rolling near half-ball hits are "forgiving" in terms of their carom angle, achieving a specific scoring line demands exacting speed, otherwise targets (ball or rail) will still be drastically missed. All caroms paths, with the exception of pure stun, take parabolic trajectories whose curves are dramatically elongated as the speed of the shot increases. Stun-roll and stun-draw curves, which are very touchy (but often necessary), are even more volatile with minute changes in speed and rotation.
3) The quantity of cue ball sidespin after the carom contact is highly variable across the entire range of hits due to the instantaneous removal of cue ball velocity upon contact with an OB at different %s. These effects are especially relevant in a game like 3c where the cue ball regularly travels at the higher speeds and greater distances after OB contact.
4) Varying speeds and hits with the extremities of sidespin that 3c regularly demands creates a much more complicated throw model to learn.
Consciously or not, players must deal with all of these factors within their playing model.
Dr. Dave's "30-deg Rule" simplification is far too coarse to be of practical use for playing 3-cushion shots. I believe that Dr. Dave's offers solid practical advice which is aimed primarily toward helping pool players develop a beginning intuition about rolling caroms. Because of his approach, Dr. Dave consciously generalizes all of the near-1/2 ball rolling carom maximum angles (closer to 34 deg) to a simpler, easier-to-remember, easier-to-eyeball, round number (hence the "30-deg Rule").
Even if we restrict the discussion to 3c shots where "30 deg carom lines" apply literally, approximating all of the near-half ball hits as nearly equivalent (~30 deg) is just too imprecise to be workable in practice. Hitting (slightly more than) 1/2 ball gives us the maximum rolling carom angle which is closer to 34 deg (and decreases for both fuller hits and thinner hits). A 3 or 4 degree error toward the first rail is too much of a discrepancy for most 3-cushion shots, unless the scoring ball sits as a "big ball" in a corner (the pool equivalent of "a hanger"). Speed doesn't alter the angle, but it will severely displace the cue ball path (in parallel) by as much as a full diamond (even more for draws caroms).
Previously in the thread, I think BS was asking about 30 deg caroms. There are many ways to achieve an exact 30 deg carom line - each with a unique combination of hit (OB cut angle) and cue action (roll qualities: pure roll, stun, full draw, and everything in between).
To illustrate, below are 4 distinct hits (out of many more) that most easily produce 30 deg (not 29 or 31) carom lines (sens throw and other minor effects):
- 17 deg cut: Pure-rolling carom leaves tangent at 73 deg and curves fwd into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
- 43 deg cut: Pure-rolling carom leaves tangent at 47 deg and curves fwd into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
- 60 deg cut: Pure stunning carom. Leaves tangent on the 30 deg line.
- 72.5 deg cut: Full-draw carom leaves tangent at 17.5 deg and curves backward into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
Basically, the table shows that there is a wide spectrum of ball hits (OB cut angles) ranging from 17 deg to nearly 73 deg that all have the capacity to achieve a final carom angle of 30 deg. Just because it is physically possible to achieve a 30 deg carom angle with any hit in this range, this should not be interpreted to mean that the entire range represents the margin of error for the hit. The angle critically depends on the cue-ball action upon contact. Each distinct hit demands a different cue ball action at point of contact if it is to achieve the same carom angle. Some cue ball rolling qualities are much, much more reliably stroked than others: pure-rolls are far easier to reproduce than stuns, full-draws, or exact stun-follows and stun-draws. This is due to table-bed friction which persistently acts to cause a moving cue ball to finish in a perfect roll. Getting the perfect carom angle alone is meaningless in terms of scoring since faster speeds (parallel) shift this line away from the contact considerably.
Execution in 3c needs a lot of precision with respect to OB hit, CB roll quality, and speed (especially when solving problems with small targets and/or tricky kisses). Blending all of these aspects with the extremities of sidespin required further complicate one's ability to achieve desired hits.
Sorry for such a long post.
-Ira
PJ,
If I may offer my $.02... I hope I can add missing qualifications to many of your points which are generally true.
Before I explain, I should mention that I admire and rely on the good work done by player/scientist/authors such as Coriolis, Raiford, Jewett, Alciatore, Shepard (and others) to inform a 3c playing model that roots its foundation on real laws of physics - before placing my faith on watered-down memory aids, empirically derived numbers, or diamond aiming systems that imply the fictitious notion of a standard reference table.
Personally, I aim and execute to hit an OB the very same way regardless of whether I am playing 3c or pool. I say that the 3-cushion game requires players to make hits on the first object ball at least as precisely as other cue games.
For players that do not aim the same way in both games, my opinion is that they should. If a player specifically decides where to cut the OB before shooting, they have the ability to validate and evaluate the quality of their hit afterwards. In order to properly diagnose the reason for misses, one must be able to trace the mistake to its cause (hit, spin, speed, etc). Ignoring exact hits in 3c is a certain way to drastically delay an already lengthy learning process. In 3c, a player can (and often does) do everything wrong (miss the hit, use the wrong speed, and have unintended sidespin) and despite this, still score the point. This is a dangerous learning pitfall we should want to avoid - unaware, one fails to recognize any mistakes and, worse, walk away from the experience with the wrong impression that everything they did was correct! If a player misses a 3c shot, yet was conscious about where they intended to drive the object ball beforehand, they have the opportunity to distinguish whether their error was conceptual in nature or a mechanical flaw. Having quality feedback enables the proper reinforcement of practice which should lead to more productive playing sessions. Too many players skip the very important post-shot analysis routine and pay by 'spinning their wheels' for years without any significant improvement. I forgot who said, "3-cushion billiards is the only game where you can hit the ball absolutely, positively perfectly and have a damn good chance of scoring." (McGoorty?)
Here are some of my points to detail:
1) While many 3c shots can be achieved using near-half-ball hits, a tremendous proportion of shots require carom angles that are less than 30 degrees. The rolling carom lines for hits less than 1/4 ball and more than 3/4 ball (<27 deg) are markedly sensitive to OB hit (approaching 3x).
2) While it is true that rolling near half-ball hits are "forgiving" in terms of their carom angle, achieving a specific scoring line demands exacting speed, otherwise targets (ball or rail) will still be drastically missed. All caroms paths, with the exception of pure stun, take parabolic trajectories whose curves are dramatically elongated as the speed of the shot increases. Stun-roll and stun-draw curves, which are very touchy (but often necessary), are even more volatile with minute changes in speed and rotation.
3) The quantity of cue ball sidespin after the carom contact is highly variable across the entire range of hits due to the instantaneous removal of cue ball velocity upon contact with an OB at different %s. These effects are especially relevant in a game like 3c where the cue ball regularly travels at the higher speeds and greater distances after OB contact.
4) Varying speeds and hits with the extremities of sidespin that 3c regularly demands creates a much more complicated throw model to learn.
Consciously or not, players must deal with all of these factors within their playing model.
Dr. Dave's "30-deg Rule" simplification is far too coarse to be of practical use for playing 3-cushion shots. I believe that Dr. Dave's offers solid practical advice which is aimed primarily toward helping pool players develop a beginning intuition about rolling caroms. Because of his approach, Dr. Dave consciously generalizes all of the near-1/2 ball rolling carom maximum angles (closer to 34 deg) to a simpler, easier-to-remember, easier-to-eyeball, round number (hence the "30-deg Rule").
Even if we restrict the discussion to 3c shots where "30 deg carom lines" apply literally, approximating all of the near-half ball hits as nearly equivalent (~30 deg) is just too imprecise to be workable in practice. Hitting (slightly more than) 1/2 ball gives us the maximum rolling carom angle which is closer to 34 deg (and decreases for both fuller hits and thinner hits). A 3 or 4 degree error toward the first rail is too much of a discrepancy for most 3-cushion shots, unless the scoring ball sits as a "big ball" in a corner (the pool equivalent of "a hanger"). Speed doesn't alter the angle, but it will severely displace the cue ball path (in parallel) by as much as a full diamond (even more for draws caroms).
Previously in the thread, I think BS was asking about 30 deg caroms. There are many ways to achieve an exact 30 deg carom line - each with a unique combination of hit (OB cut angle) and cue action (roll qualities: pure roll, stun, full draw, and everything in between).
To illustrate, below are 4 distinct hits (out of many more) that most easily produce 30 deg (not 29 or 31) carom lines (sens throw and other minor effects):
- 17 deg cut: Pure-rolling carom leaves tangent at 73 deg and curves fwd into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
- 43 deg cut: Pure-rolling carom leaves tangent at 47 deg and curves fwd into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
- 60 deg cut: Pure stunning carom. Leaves tangent on the 30 deg line.
- 72.5 deg cut: Full-draw carom leaves tangent at 17.5 deg and curves backward into 30 deg line (parallel shifted by speed)
Basically, the table shows that there is a wide spectrum of ball hits (OB cut angles) ranging from 17 deg to nearly 73 deg that all have the capacity to achieve a final carom angle of 30 deg. Just because it is physically possible to achieve a 30 deg carom angle with any hit in this range, this should not be interpreted to mean that the entire range represents the margin of error for the hit. The angle critically depends on the cue-ball action upon contact. Each distinct hit demands a different cue ball action at point of contact if it is to achieve the same carom angle. Some cue ball rolling qualities are much, much more reliably stroked than others: pure-rolls are far easier to reproduce than stuns, full-draws, or exact stun-follows and stun-draws. This is due to table-bed friction which persistently acts to cause a moving cue ball to finish in a perfect roll. Getting the perfect carom angle alone is meaningless in terms of scoring since faster speeds (parallel) shift this line away from the contact considerably.
Execution in 3c needs a lot of precision with respect to OB hit, CB roll quality, and speed (especially when solving problems with small targets and/or tricky kisses). Blending all of these aspects with the extremities of sidespin required further complicate one's ability to achieve desired hits.
Sorry for such a long post.
-Ira
Last edited:
, after playing Ceulemans in a tournament match - although I can not prove this cause scientifically...
:grin-square:
:grin-square:
