"Tony", maybe inadvertently, at least got one thing right about Hal Houle's 3-angle aiming "system": it defies description. It seems to help some players, but the *way* it does this is not the way it's advertised to work: by actually reducing the number of cut angles necessary to make any shot to 3. That's the mythical part. If it works, it works for other reasons.
My purpose in this post isn't to prove the 3-angle aiming system is mythical (although that's trivial to do), but to use it as an example of mythical pool techniques and to nominate it for inclusion in the Top Ten List of Mythical Pool Techniques and Principles.
There are many mythical pool techniques and principles, some of them much better known than Houle's aiming system. For instance, the idea that you can alter your stroke to keep the tip in contact with the cue ball a little longer and thereby do something "extra" to the cue ball like give it more spin. Some players swear it's true, but as with 3 angles for aiming it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I hereby nominate this as my second addition to the Top Ten Myths List.
I'm sure there are more than ten well known pool myths out there, and we'll have to winnow them down to get the ten most famous, so these two aren't intended to be #1 and #2, or even to necessarily survive in the top ten. They're just nominations. We can decide later whether nominees are really mythical or deserving of a place on the top ten list. For now, let's just get the list of nominees started.
So here's the list of nominees so far:
NOMINEES FOR TOP TEN MYTHICAL POOL TECHNIQUES AND PRINCIPLES
well, I know this is going to seem heretical, but I do use the twist technique on certain shots, and it works, primarily on drag draw shots where I also want a touch of english. For me it's a special situation thing but I can see how it could work for some on a wider basis.
Lou Figueroa
Patrick Johnson wrote:
On 10 May 2007 09:31:40 -0700, Alex Kanapilly <alexk@redrobin.com>
wrote:
NOMINEES FOR TOP TEN MYTHICAL POOL TECHNIQUES AND PRINCIPLES
Not sure if this would make the top 10 but "twist the cue as you
stroke, left for one effect and right for another" I forget the
details but when I first started playing, someone told me that all the
good players did this, of course I believed him.
I like it, and I've unfortunately seen it more than once.
Good to see you back Pat.
Thanks, Alex. Coming to Chicago any time soon? I could use another
The problem there Lou is I've played with probably hundreds of red circle cue balls and they are not all the same. Mostly the same but still, not all. I figure some are fakes, some are just different due to age, year created and whathaveyou. Like I played with ONE blue triangle, or circle or dot, can't recall, and really can't recall if it seemed light, heavy or the same, but regardless, it could have been the only blue whatever to play that way, could have been made by cavemen with a stone chisel for all I know... In other words, a sample of ONE in a world of screwed up CB tolerances and sources is not enough.
Additionally, according to Tom Simpsons reply form Saluc, it seems the red circle is/was made of different material than the Centennial and Arimeth CB's. If that is the case, then the Red Circle is the WORST CB of the 3 if you are using Centennial or Arimeth balls. The CB should be made to the same specs as the OB balls, and seems obvious the Red Circle is not if it is not even made of the same material?
Even so, my red circle seems to play exactly the same as the ball that came with my set, and I have no problem playing with most of the red circles, so I don't mean to bad mouth red circles, but wonder about the different material aspect of Saluc's email to Tom. -- Jack http://jbstein.com
lfigueroa wrote:
I've played with a red triangle and it's heavier and just a (warning:
official RSB technical term follows) "a tad" bigger than a red circle.
Will really throw you 1pocket game off if you're not paying attention.
Lou Figueroa
Bambu wrote:
On May 17, 9:36 am, thesquire...@hotmail.com wrote:
On May 11, 1:48 pm, Bambu <dmanass...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
On May 11, 11:51 am, biglouie...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 11, 11:10 am, Fast Larry <fastla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 11, 10:55 am, Ed McCune <mcc...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
OK. I know i do some odd things (to others) that work for me in
the same
manner. Putting spin on some shots that don't really need it for
instance. I can visualize the shot better. Certain other aiming
techniques that are not really scientific. ETC. If it is reliable
for
you then that's what counts for me.
Ed
lfigueroa wrote:
For moi, it's just a reliable repeatable motion I can do that
gives me a
consistent outcome. I doubt I get a much different outcome than
if I
were to set up up for a drag draw with some english and use a more
conventional stroke. I don't use it often, but when it comes
up, I know
what's going to happen.
--
mcc...@standardab.ca
Ed, advanced players after they have been usually playing 10 to 15
years pick up a bunch of what I call funky shots, again monkey see
monkey do. They are dinks, bunts, stuns, slides, pokes, punches,
nips, kill shots, drags, drag reverses, all the crap you tell the
beginner not to do. I teach all these shots and when I am done I
have
my students where they can set up a straight in shot in the side
pocket and then pot and hit any square inch of the table using no
English, hitting center ball. This is the most advanced thing I have
and it's only offered in all day classes. The course takes l l/2 hrs
and its called the drill of doom. Once you have it, all you play are
In article <JIudnWJsbI2kmM7bnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Jack Stein <jbstein2@comcast.net> wrote:
Even so, my red circle seems to play exactly the same as the ball that
came with my set, and I have no problem playing with most of the red
circles, so I don't mean to bad mouth red circles, but wonder about the
different material aspect of Saluc's email to Tom.
An object ball is not made all at one time. The numbers and circles and colored stripes and other design features are made separately, and then the rest of the phenolic resin ball material is poured around those design pieces and this material then polymerizes and hardens. All of the Saluc balls are made of phenolic resin, the "different material" they are talking about are different kinds of resins that are polymerized at different rates and at different temperatures. The simpler the design in the ball, the fewer of these steps are required to make the ball. A plain white cue ball or a plain colored snooker ball for example is made in a single step. A cue ball with a red circle or blue dot or whatever is made in two or three of these steps. A simple object ball design requires fewer steps than a complicated object ball design (such as the Centennial design).
As far as consistency and durability, I think simpler is better. If you look at an old set of Centennial balls you can see that many of the chips and surface imperfections are at the boundaries between two different pieces of this phenolic material. For example, between the white area of a striped ball and the black circle around the number, or between the number and the circle. It seems that large features are easier to do, and have no durability problems, while small detailed features do seem to result in defect and durability problems. For example, I don't notice chips between the white and colored parts of striped balls very often, but I do notice chips and bubbles near the boundaries of the small numbers and the surrounding material.
After this casting and polymerization process, there is also the machining step, where the rough round balls are cut down to smooth round balls with various precisions and tolerances.
For cue balls, I think the differences include the material itself which affects the color, hardness, and durability, and also the machining and polishing process. Even though all of the balls are made of phenolic resin, it is easy to imagine that there are tradeoffs in this manufacturing process that might result in different end products. Some combinations might result in fewer manufacturing defects but in a less durable end result, while others might result in higher defect rate but in a more highly polished surface.
I don't have any inside information about Saluc's manufacturing process. I have made phenolic polymers (bakelite in particular, which is made from phenol and formaldehyde) in laboratory conditions, so I have a rough idea about what a factory process might be like, but the above comments are just from my own very limited experience.
In article <JIudnWJsbI2kmM7bnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jack Stein <jbstein2@comcast.net> wrote:
Even so, my red circle seems to play exactly the same as the ball that
came with my set, and I have no problem playing with most of the red
circles, so I don't mean to bad mouth red circles, but wonder about the
different material aspect of Saluc's email to Tom.
I appreciate every thing you say on this and it makes sense. The issue though is not the difference between OB's and CB's so much as the difference between red triangles, blue circles and the red circles. Saluc wrote that the red triangle and blue circle were EXACTLY the same, but the red circle was a "different kind of cast phenolic resin"
When I cited the response from Saluc, it was at the very end of a long, long post, so perhaps many didn't see what was said. Here it is again:
Saluc said to Tom Simson in response to an email regarding the different cue balls in the Arimeth, Centennial and red circle balls.
************* 1. In our top line of American Pool balls 2" 1/4 we are manufacturing two sets :
a) "SUPER ARIMETH PRO" set (blue box) with a red triangle cue ball b) "BRUNSWICK CENTENNIAL" set (Brunswick box) with a blue circle cue ball
For your information, the above 2 products are exactly the same : the only difference is their design.
2. The "red circle" cue balls are produced with a different kind of cast phenolic resin. This is the only difference with the above 2 cue balls. ************
Now, if the red triangle and the blue circle were exactly the same, why would the red circle be a different resin? The red circle and red triangle are the same color, white with a touch of red. You would think the red circle would be exactly the same as at least the red triangle, but according to this email from Tom, it is not. Perhaps they deliberately make the red circle out of a bouncier lighter material so it makes players think they are better than they are? There has to be a reason for the difference, I doubt they just arbitrarily picked a resin different from the red triangle ball?
I also know we have beaten this subject all over the place over the years, and still it seems no one really knows what the real story is..
You would think it would be simple to get to the root of the matter...
well, I tried em both out yesterday and can't honestly say I could tell the difference, in the short while I shot with the blue circle, which was a real one -- original equipment with a new set of Centennials.
Lou Figueroa
Jack Stein wrote:
The problem there Lou is I've played with probably hundreds of red
circle cue balls and they are not all the same. Mostly the same but
still, not all. I figure some are fakes, some are just different due to
age, year created and whathaveyou. Like I played with ONE blue
triangle, or circle or dot, can't recall, and really can't recall if it
seemed light, heavy or the same, but regardless, it could have been the
only blue whatever to play that way, could have been made by cavemen
with a stone chisel for all I know... In other words, a sample of ONE
in a world of screwed up CB tolerances and sources is not enough.
Additionally, according to Tom Simpsons reply form Saluc, it seems the
red circle is/was made of different material than the Centennial and
Arimeth CB's. If that is the case, then the Red Circle is the WORST CB
of the 3 if you are using Centennial or Arimeth balls. The CB should be
made to the same specs as the OB balls, and seems obvious the Red Circle
is not if it is not even made of the same material?
Even so, my red circle seems to play exactly the same as the ball that
came with my set, and I have no problem playing with most of the red
circles, so I don't mean to bad mouth red circles, but wonder about the
different material aspect of Saluc's email to Tom.
In article <yfmdnUZ0RPLdx87bnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Jack Stein <jbstein2@comcast.net> wrote:
Now, if the red triangle and the blue circle were exactly the same, why
would the red circle be a different resin?
I think the red circle balls are made of a harder material, and they seem to be polished more than the other cue balls. You can see your reflection in a red circle cue ball (at least if it is fairly new), whereas you cannot see your reflection in a red triangle or a blue circle cue ball.
The red circle and red
triangle are the same color, white with a touch of red.
It is not the same white. The red circle balls are a creamier white color. I would guess that this is mostly cosmetic, to make it look more like ivory, but who knows, maybe it has different physical characteristics too (such as being harder and more durable). It seems to me like the white in the red triangle ball is about the same as the white in the striped object balls.
There has to be a
reason for the difference, I doubt they just arbitrarily picked a resin
different from the red triangle ball?
I also know we have beaten this subject all over the place over the
years, and still it seems no one really knows what the real story is..
You would think it would be simple to get to the root of the matter...
The problem is that these things are all trade secrets. The exact resin they use is a secret, the exact colors they are are secret, the exact polymerization conditions they use are secret, and the mechanical manufacturing process is a secret. Most of these things are probably known to some extent by the public, but the kind of details we are talking about now are not published openly by sulac because a competitor could use that knowledge to make counterfeit products.
You would think it would be simple to get to the root of the matter...
The problem is that these things are all trade secrets. The exact
resin they use is a secret, the exact colors they are are secret,
the exact polymerization conditions they use are secret, and the
mechanical manufacturing process is a secret. Most of these things
are probably known to some extent by the public, but the kind of
details we are talking about now are not published openly by sulac
because a competitor could use that knowledge to make counterfeit
products.
I'm not interested in all that secret stuff. Just want to know why the red circle is different than the CB that comes with the Arimeth super pro set, and the Centennial set? These are the two top of the line Sulac balls, and Sulac said the cue balls from these two sets are exactly the same. Then they said the Red circle is made of a different resin. I don't care what the resin is thats different, I want to know why it is different than the two top of the line CB's. My first thought is if it is different, then it is inferior because:
1) The originals are, after all, the top of the line and 2) CB's, imo, should be as close to the same exact specs as OB's in any given set.
This is the main issue with pay tables, the CB's are all different from the rest of the balls unless you get the diamond super table that goes by color.
I've always said the the red circle cannot be better than the original CB that came with the (top of the line) Sulac balls because the best it could do is exactly match the set. Any differences would deem it inferior. Even if you have a cheap set of balls that are just under the specs of pool balls, the cb in that set should match the weight and size of the rest of the balls.
On May 23, 1:19 am, Ron Shepard <ron-shep...@NOSPAM.comcast.net>
wrote:
In article <yfmdnUZ0RPLdx87bnZ2dnUVZ_r6vn...@comcast.com>,
Jack Stein <jbste...@comcast.net> wrote:
Now, if the red triangle and the blue circle were exactly the same, why
would the red circle be a different resin?
I think the red circle balls are made of a harder material, and they
seem to be polished more than the other cue balls. You can see your
reflection in a red circle cue ball (at least if it is fairly new),
whereas you cannot see your reflection in a red triangle or a blue
circle cue ball.
The red circle and red
triangle are the same color, white with a touch of red.
It is not the same white. The red circle balls are a creamier white
color. I would guess that this is mostly cosmetic, to make it look
more like ivory, but who knows, maybe it has different physical
characteristics too (such as being harder and more durable). It
seems to me like the white in the red triangle ball is about the
same as the white in the striped object balls.
There has to be a
reason for the difference, I doubt they just arbitrarily picked a resin
different from the red triangle ball?
I also know we have beaten this subject all over the place over the
years, and still it seems no one really knows what the real story is..
You would think it would be simple to get to the root of the matter...
The problem is that these things are all trade secrets. The exact
resin they use is a secret, the exact colors they are are secret,
the exact polymerization conditions they use are secret, and the
mechanical manufacturing process is a secret. Most of these things
are probably known to some extent by the public, but the kind of
details we are talking about now are not published openly by sulac
because a competitor could use that knowledge to make counterfeit
products.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
What and how the balls are made might be a trade secret. But the fact
that different brands and makes of cueballs play
differently.....should not be an issue.
Trade secrets don't matter but the fact people think 3 different cue balls made by the same company all play differently, then the maker says two are the same exact balls and one is a different material is an issue. Just as top posting, bottom posting and editing are an issue. In this case, editing is the bigger issue...
The best tool to raise the bar on your billiard game is definitely the Aramith pro cup {censored}. I bought one of these and have been practicing with it for 6 months. At first its a little hard to get used too, but within a week you will be seeing the error of your ways before the object ball is even hit. Just IMO. I bought mine here http://www.billiardbuyer.com/view_product.php?pddb=1422 they are all over the web though!
