I would have been delighted with this discussion 2000 posts ago. Now, not so much.
Well, given that you've had to weather a firestorm of folks who took what you said personally (i.e. they took the attack of an "idea" as an attack on them personally), I'm not surprised you feel this way. To be honest, I've stayed out of this thread for the most part, not only because I was hobbled to begin with (i.e. that whole "working man" thing), but also because of some of the personalities that were initially involved. And, to be honest, your attack on the "idea" was pretty withering, to say the least, so I saw those dark foreboding thunderheads in the distance.
You have not carefully studied and thought about the information I provide in the first post,which shows that NO SHOT analyzed actually requires accuracy to within a "hair's breadth"--but that the most accurate shot discussed, a shot that requires a cut of EIGHTY DEGREES to send the OB EIGHT FEET to the pocket, does require accuracy within TWO hair's breadths...and that shot is one that NO PRO would attempt--without at least a "2-way purpose."
Now see? This is where you "assume." You "assume" I have not carefully studied and thought about the information you provided in the first post. You "assume" that if I had, oh my gosh, I would've seen the brilliance in its content, and agreed automatically. I didn't. And before you go there with insults as to my intellect for "not seeing it" (forgive me for making an "assumption" myself -- but I do see it coming based on what I witnessed in this thread), I deal with math all day long in my job. And I consider myself to be a pretty stout player, considering that I do not get to play as much as I'd like. Your numbers look good, but are an altruistic view. There are many more variables to consider when you're "on the cloth" of a real pool table.
And oh, by the way? That shot that you say "no pro would attempt" -- that 8-foot 80-degree cut shot? Here again, you seem to be making an "assumption" -- presumably 9-ball or whatever. That shot, depending on table layout, of course, is taken on by One Pocket players all the time. You'll see Efren and Alex (Pagulayan) slicing and dicing shots like this all the time, again, depending on table layout. You leave a shot like that for a good One Pocket player to his/her pocket (assuming there's not a "juicier" shot on the table), and you watch how fast they take it.
I'll repeat that those like you who are saying that some shots can be made as though through a "7 inch" window are not really accurately thinking through what they're saying (I'm excluding very UNUSUAL situations--what's the point in discussing anomalies when we're trying to find general PRINCIPLES?):
On shots that hit the rail before getting to the pocket, if you extend the LINE on which the OB was traveling out to the pocket area, and then measure ACROSS to the other pocket point, I doubt very much that you will discover instances of 7" spans**. IMO the spans you will discover will be roughly about the size of a "full" pocket-- 4-5 inches. I think you're not considering where the confusion arises: when you have a shot down the rail, much LESS than a full pocket is actually presenting itself--giving the illusion that the pocket can be "widened" when the rail is hit. It IS widened from the perspective of an already severely NARROWED hole that is available down the rail--but it isn't markedly widened from the full pocket width of 4-5 inches.
** An imaginary line along the path of an OB, that would delineate a pocket with of 7" from the inside point of the pocket would have the other, imaginary, point of the pocket OUTSIDE THE TABLE (if, let's say, the rail point to outside of table distance is about 6 inches). I'm not near a table now, but I don't think such shots would pocket.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. While your math would hold up in an altruistic situation, the fact is there are variables on the table that kill it. For one thing, you assume that the object ball, as it contacts the cushion on its way to the pocket, will return off the cushion in PRECISELY the expected geometric angle away from the original direction of travel (i.e. if the object ball goes into the cushion at a 10-degree angle, it will return off the cushion at precisely a 10-degree angle). It doesn't. Any good Bank pool or One Pocket player will tell you that. If it did, your argument would hold up in that if you go into the cushion at a gentle angle towards a severely narrowed pocket opening, the combination of that angle plus the object ball's original line of travel would correspond to the original pocket aperture if it were approached head-on. The fact is, this altruistic view doesn't hold up in real life. You can actually hit that cushion at a pretty steeper angle than the gentle angle you infer, and, assuming you get the speed right, that ball will still score! (You can also consider ball "traction" anomalies as it interacts with the cloth from the spin it picks up from the cushion that alters its path -- something your altruistic calculations didn't take into consideration.) When you consider these real-life variables, sometimes that pocket *is* 7 inches across as measured from the object ball's original line of travel into the cushion!
If you wish to keep arguing, please supply DIAGRAMS, with SPECIFICATIONS, that show otherwise. (and again, my original post SPECIFIES: "It’s not PERFECT, however—but a good estimate for the purposes of the discussion.")
Unfortunately, inasmuch as I'd like to, I can't do that. I'm not in the position you're in, to spend as much time defending your position. I wish I didn't have to work, and could spend all day playing and contemplating pool. Fact is, I do this on 5 minute breaks at work. And I have to type fast to get these posts/responses out. If the burden gets to be too much (I can't keep up with you), I'll simply bow-out and you can make your assumptions about the existence or non-existence of things based on the feedback you get from people who do have the time, whether they have the experience to or not.
You want me to provide you charts and graphs and diagrams and specifications and videos and... and... nope, sorry, I can't do that. I don't have time. You can either take the leads I give you, research them, and find out for yourself, or you can take the haughty "convenient" path of sitting back and request I do it. I'm telling you here and now that I don't have the time. You now do with this as you wish. If you dismiss, that would be your loss, not mine.
FRIENDLY TIP: research
Freddy the Beard's [great] works,
Banking with the Beard,
The GosPool of Bank Pool, and
Banks that Don't Go, But Do! You'll then see some of the "variables" that come into play when a ball hits the cushion, and you'll have some big-time revelations.
Respectfully,
-Sean
)
