*** So Here WE Go Again ***

[tylerdurden]

nice work blake
interesting to me that especially on shot #1 at about 1:30 shows the cue ball coming backwards to the short rail and seams clear (to me)that it was a rail first hit
that would suggest that where the cue ball goes cant be used as proof for rail first or not
before seeing your video i would not have thought a rail first hit would allow the cue ball to angle off the rail so sharply

That is a good point Larry. I think you could in fact use where the cb goes to a certain extent if the ob was further from the pocket, and if it was pocketed.

This great video answers the questions addressed in the other thread. Blake was asking how the cb can come off like that on a rail first hit. It is clear from the video that the ob can be caught a LOT "thinner" than I thought personally, which would account for that directions of travel. I think my (or our?) mistake was assuming the ob had to be hit somewhere near the ghost ball position. I mean my god, he cut that ball quite a few degrees right into the rail and it went in no problem.

 

[NH Steve]

Here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQyhSxIHvw

Thanks,

-Blake

Blake, your videos are really well done!!

 

[lll]

That is a good point Larry. I think you could in fact use where the cb goes to a certain extent if the ob was further from the pocket, and if it was pocketed.

This great video answers the questions addressed in the other thread. Blake was asking how the cb can come off like that on a rail first hit. It is clear from the video that the ob can be caught a LOT "thinner" than I thought personally, which would account for that directions of travel. I think my (or our?) mistake was assuming the ob had to be hit somewhere near the ghost ball position. I mean my god, he cut that ball quite a few degrees right into the rail and it went in no problem.

yes tyler my thoughts too

 

[mr3cushion]

That is a good point Larry. I think you could in fact use where the cb goes to a certain extent if the ob was further from the pocket, and if it was pocketed.

This great video answers the questions addressed in the other thread. Blake was asking how the cb can come off like that on a rail first hit. It is clear from the video that the ob can be caught a LOT "thinner" than I thought personally, which would account for that directions of travel. I think my (or our?) mistake was assuming the ob had to be hit somewhere near the ghost ball position. I mean my god, he cut that ball quite a few degrees right into the rail and it went in no problem.

Hi Tyler; I just want to ask one question, "How do YOU think I made those shots?"

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[piggybank04]

i love those backward cuts and i shoot them all the time--they dont even seem that hard anymore, ive shot them a million times,plus i have a very good idea of where the rock will end up.....

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQyhSxIHvw

Thanks,

-Blake

SloMo,

Great views and great work on your part. I didn't think the cueball could land that far from the ball and still cut it in. These shots seen in slo-mo sure do show a lot.

Thank you for your time.

Dennis

 

[Cory in dc]

SloMo,

Great views and great work on your part. I didn't think the cueball could land that far from the ball and still cut it in. These shots seen in slo-mo sure do show a lot.

Thank you for your time.

Dennis

I'll join the choire. In fact, I think seeing your videos will make me better at these shots, as it shows me that I haven't been aiming them where the margin of error is greatest. Thanks!

Cory

 

[onepocket926]

I have followed the previous thread and held my opinion to myself, after this video I feel I must comment.

While this current video is an impressive cut shot it is by no means even remotely similar to your previous shots. It baffles me that you are obviously an experienced player and cannot see the difference.

If you wish to "Prove" your pure stroke can accomplish feats which defy the laws of physics. Please provide video of the following:

You, using your god gifted pure stroke, shooting "shot #3" from the previous thread with the object ball off the rail by an inch (verified by an overhead camera angle).

Sir I do not know you, I am sure you are a fine human being - but that shot just don't go.

I will gladly apologize when the above video is posted.

Mark Nanashee

...oh !!!! damn !!!!!!......

....thanks, ....I've been saying that from the start...it was a "great shot" (wish I could make it)....but, if He can't do it while the ball is off of the rail...then the rail...becomes an integral part of the shot...and makes you suspicious as to it's...relevance.....and voids the "cut shot".....:frus

 

[mr3cushion]

Blake; Is it possible to post ALL the RAW footage, (normal and slomo speed) of this video. The ONLY editing I did was ADD some TEXT!
The video portion of the post I presented is EXACTLY the footage on the camera!

I think it would REALLY explain a lot!

Respectfully;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

Blake; Very nice work! But, I do have some questions. I have watched the video a few times and noticed that all the slomo videos don't seem to have the same speed, and in the #3 slomo the CB seems to speed up a little at contact.

The opening shot of the video slomo appears to be the best example of you contacting the rail first. IMO, the speed is perfect to tell whether the ball or rail is contacted first, of course we can't tell what angle on the shot you started from. It seems from the way the CB came across into the frame it was form the left side of the OB a little.

I have more Questions, but I want to look at the vid, frame by frame first.

Thanks for taking time out to do this.

Regards;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

You are right on. I sped up the video after the CB left the frame in all but the first clip. It just takes too long if I let the whole thing play out in SloMo.

All shots were filmed in both 720P (HD) and 240 frames per second, using two cameras. I was hoping I slowed it down enough to see that all "makes" were rail-first.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. I'm certainly not a player of your caliber, but I just haven't been able to make these shots ball-first yet.

Thanks, Bill,

-Blake

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

I mean my god, he cut that ball quite a few degrees right into the rail and it went in no problem.

That's what surprised me the most about these shots. It looks like I cut the ball 30 degrees into the rail, but the OB comes out "maybe" 10 degrees, and into the pocket. Amazing.

The only explanations I can come up with is collision-induced throw (which would seem to work against this) or collision-induced spin.

Maybe spin-induced throw?

Still, I don't know what to say. I don't know exactly how that ball made it to the hole!!!

-Blake

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

Blake, your videos are really well done!!

Thanks Steve, I like to play some good music and align the impacts with the beats...

-Blake

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

SloMo,

Great views and great work on your part. I didn't think the cueball could land that far from the ball and still cut it in. These shots seen in slo-mo sure do show a lot.

Thank you for your time.

Dennis

Thanks for the compliments. I am also a bit flabbergasted at how some of those object balls took off in the direction they did.

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

I'll join the choire. In fact, I think seeing your videos will make me better at these shots, as it shows me that I haven't been aiming them where the margin of error is greatest. Thanks!

Cory

It's crazy, but I had almost had to aim to thin the ball from that third position. I must have missed that ball cleanly about 10 times in a row!

I finally just aimed into the ball a bit, and sure enough, it dropped right in.

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

Blake; Is it possible to post ALL the RAW footage, (normal and slomo speed) of this video. The ONLY editing I did was ADD some TEXT!
The video portion of the post I presented is EXACTLY the footage on the camera!

I think it would REALLY explain a lot!

Respectfully;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

Yes, for sure!

I'll get it all uploaded later today or tonight, no problem.

 

[mr3cushion]

Yes, for sure!

I'll get it all uploaded later today or tonight, no problem.

Thanks; Blake

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[SloMoHolic]

*** So Here WE Go Again ***

Yes, for sure!

I'll get it all uploaded later today or tonight, no problem.

I spoke too soon. The raw footage is about 7 GB. That's too much for me to upload (and probably too much for you to download).

I can assure you, without a doubt, all the shots in this video went rail-first.

How about it I shoot the shots again and record at 1000 frames per second, along with the HD video in real time? (No fancy editing or music this time )

At 1000 fps, you will be able to see everything you could possibly want to see.

Sorry for the confusion...

-Blake

 

[mr3cushion]

I spoke too soon. The raw footage is about 7 GB. That's too much for me to upload (and probably too much for you to download).

I can assure you, without a doubt, all the shots in this video went rail-first.

How about it I shoot the shots again and record at 1000 frames per second, along with the HD video in real time? (No fancy editing or music this time )

At 1000 fps, you will be able to see everything you could possibly want to see.

Sorry for the confusion...

-Blake

Blake; I really appreciate all your efforts in unwrapping this enigma, what you suggest will do just fine, I hope!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

P.S. I edited my post #1 to include a diagram to show how I measured the angle of the cut shot!!

 

[tylerdurden]

Not that I am pointing out anything people haven't noticed already, but I still find it amazing that ob stays on the rail that long. I took a couple of screen shots. You can see the cb in contact with the ob a such a severe angle relative to that rail. That still amazes me. Then, the ob hugs the rail for quite a while. Who would have thought?

My guess: the gutter probably helps. We could actually see if the gutter helped this effect by trying the shot on a new table without a prominent gutter (not a request, just a note ).

At this point though, I am thinking the major contributor is the length of the contact between the ob and cb in this special case. Think about it, if 2 balls collide out in the middle of the table, it is going to be a relatively short collision. Here, the cb hits the rail, then hits the ob, THE OB THEN WANTS TO GO OUT AWAY FROM THE CUSHION, but it can't because the cb is sitting there on top of it, so it has a tendency to stick to the rail more than it should. Look at the forces as "vectors" if you will in the below image. There will be a certain amount of energy that the ob wants to go straight away from that rail, at a perpendicular angle to the rail, but the cb would have it "trapped" there, impeding that force. This would affect cb direction too, but I don't even want to think about that to be honest lol. Ok, I admit maybe all that is wrong, but it was my best shot

Edit: how do I make it so both pics show up? I'll just post the second one in a new post for now.....

 

[tylerdurden]

Companion image to above. How does it stay on the rail like that??