Anyone know what the highest recorded break is on a tournament table without the use of English (side)?
Would be fascinating to know.
Would be fascinating to know.
Highest break without English?
- Thread starter Blackball75
- Start date
I doubt it has ever been recorded but it's an interesting question. I'd love to see a top pro make a substantial break without using side and explain each shot as they go.
Steve Davis has a MySpace page where he answers technical questions, I think he could give a very good answer on what can realistically be achieved without deviating from the middle of the cue ball:
http://www.myspace.com/stevedavissnooker
Steve Davis has a MySpace page where he answers technical questions, I think he could give a very good answer on what can realistically be achieved without deviating from the middle of the cue ball:
http://www.myspace.com/stevedavissnooker
Don't know how much English is used, but here is Willie Thorne explaining the thought process of running the balls. It turns into a 147 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pTXsz8wyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBc0iCmiBlw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pTXsz8wyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBc0iCmiBlw&feature=related
There's also a 147 by Jimmy White out there, in which he commentates himself after the fact. If you listen close, you'll notice that he plays a lot of shots with side "to help the pot".
I guess that's the difference between a pure natural player and us....
I guess that's the difference between a pure natural player and us....
That distinction would probably be held by Steady Eddy Charlton. Apparently he used very little if any side.
Don't know how much English is used, but here is Willie Thorne explaining the thought process of running the balls. It turns into a 147
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pTXsz8wyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBc0iCmiBlw&feature=related
Near as I can tell, going off my own knowledge of the CB's natural angle off the rail (and whether it was influenced by spin on the ball) coupled with the shots where Willie announced out loud that he was using side, he used side on 13 out of 35 strokes, which is 37%.
One thing that's interesting is that by my count, he only used side on 4 out of the first 20 strokes. Out of the final 15, he used side on 9 of them. It only makes sense, to me, that you have to manipulate the CB more and more as there are fewer and fewer reds (i.e. fewer and fewer positional options) on the table.
-Andrew
It really depends on the layout of the reds. You can have all the reds "open" but most of them blocking each other to the pockets, in which case you may need to maneuver the cue ball more.
He used more side at the end of the break because he had to stay on the black. Otherwise he could have just stunned up for the blue or the pink.
In my opinion breaks come easier when there are only 5 or 6 reds left around the pink area (or anywhere in the open really) because you only need to stun the cue ball a little here and there to get position, if you get a bad angle you can play for the blue, black or pink and you have large position zones. (As an aside, with all the colours on their spots, the blue is a break saver. It's an easy ball to play position on, it is pottable into all pockets and if you over run position you have the baulk colours to save you.)
But then of course there times when those last few reds are on cusions or tied up somewhere, in which case you either have to break them up (can be tough) or settle for a scrappy frame (not my cup of tea).
English as a second language
Joe and Fred Davis admired 'Steady Eddie's' game.However they said
his reluctance to use 'side' doomed him to never win the world title.
The paradox of using spin,especially on thick cloth,is that it makes
a shot much more difficult but a clearance far more likely.
Eddie was a great all-round athlete and Australia gave him the honor
of carrying the Olympic torch.
Joe and Fred Davis admired 'Steady Eddie's' game.However they said
his reluctance to use 'side' doomed him to never win the world title.
The paradox of using spin,especially on thick cloth,is that it makes
a shot much more difficult but a clearance far more likely.
Eddie was a great all-round athlete and Australia gave him the honor
of carrying the Olympic torch.
Eddie Charlton also played in a few of the world 14.1 championships in the late 60's. I wonder if he used side when playing pool?
Last edited:
They could quite possibly have been right. Due to the size of the table I find you can get position on most balls playing centre ball only, but you'll find yourself on the rail far more often, especially when playing around the black spot. It also helps when breaking into the pack too.
Bobby - I remember reading in Mike Massy's trick shot book that he rarely used it playing pool.
Didn't stop Walter Donaldson beating Fred to the world title though, and he was pathalogically averse to using side. I don't know what sort of breaks he got mind you, and suspect Eddie played to a consistently higher standard at a time when the standard was consistently higher.
Boro Nut
"He contested many world championships, finally achieving victory in 1947 after Joe Davis had retired from the tournament, and again in 1950. His break of 142 in 1946 was a world record at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Donaldson_(snooker_player)
I forgot about Donaldson, I remember reading somewhere about his plain-ball style of play. He's also from my hometown. Not relevant, just trivia.
I'm not mad about it. I like the 10 days of the year when the sun shines, though.
I <3 your posts in the global warming and religion threads. It's always good to see people called on their nonsense, even if they fail to see the stupidity of their own arguments. Stay cool!
Regarding side - I looked up an old video of Eddie Charlton making a century, commentating on it himself years later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQr4wIycqQI
At around 3 minutes in he talks a little about using side, mentioning that he has "always been a center-ball player" and that if you leave yourself the correct angle on each ball you'll never need to use side. You willl also see a pre-'reptilian conspiracy' David Icke conducting the interview.
My own wretched masochism has, in the past, seen me watch a full hour-long documentary following Icke on YouTube, before arguing with his followers for weeks afterward. Not recommended.
Just want to add my compliments to Boro Nut. As a PhD in the physical sciences (Hence the DR. in drsnooker) I truly appreciates his efforts, even though I usually don't bother. I can in fact calculate the gas-liquid equilibria, the atomic absorption spectra and even the feed forward coupling constants of atmospheric chemistry unlike all "those people"
But let me finish this threadcr@p with two quotes: A wise man who argues with a fool gets no rest.
And the motto of all "those people" which was beautifully articulated by dentist and former (thank goodness) chairman of the board of education of this backward state I live in, Don McLeroy: "I disagree with these experts. Somebody’s gotta stand up to experts "
AHA! So you are part of this global conspiracy! Haven't you seen the snow we've all had in recent months?! I got news for ya, Doc - SNOW IS COLD!
I actually follow a couple of shows that have discussed the issues with education standards in Texas. Sounds like you're not out of the woods yet. If reasonable people don't make their voices heard, it may not be too long before the textbooks are telling a new generation of kids that Jesus authored the U.S. Constitution, and that homosexuality was "invented" by the Nazis to destroy America from within.
I can understand why you don't spend a lot of the time countering the misinformation. Very few of these people will even acknowledge the problems with their arguments when they're broken down simply and the errors highlighted. Wilful ignorance and dishonesty drive me nuts. I don't really read anything the Non Pool Related section anymore. LWW is a big part of this.
Back on topic, (sincere apologies for the tangent) a poster on The Snooker Forum yesterday mentioned in a "Highest Breaks" thread that they had made two 147 breaks. One was with a completely new tip and for that reason they did not use any side at all.
I can't confirm this claim, but if it's true it should pretty much settle this discussion.
Unless...
"Eddie Charlton (Australia) once made a total of 273 in two consecutive games. His first opponent didn't get a shot, and Eddie made 130 or so, after sinking a red off the break then clearing the table. His next opponent (Ray Reardon) didn't get a shot either, and Eddie cleared the table again, for a world record of a total of 273 in 2 consecutive frames."
Potting from the break to keep his run going. Still doesn't really count as a single break, but it was more relevant trivia.
A 147 with no English would be the bees knees. But with a brand new tip, you'd still have to play screw and top. I guess in theory you could play everything with stun only and rely on ball speed. Hats off if it is true!
For me it's the Joe the plumber types that have the arrogance to think they know everything. After reading a few headlines, they understand it better than some scientist who's been researching the topic for decades.
To paraphrase a banner I saw at the LHC: if you can't even solve one differential equation, don't tell me that the answer is wrong.
Common sense perhaps applies when you're playing tic-tac-toe, but it's gonna require some intellectual "elitist" to play out all the different scenarios and figure out which move now will lead to a positive result down the line. May be in this game we have to sac a bishop so that 5 moves from now it's check mate. (*geddit? sac a bishop* rotflmao, was really trying to include snorkeling reference somewhere....)
For me it's the Joe the plumber types that have the arrogance to think they know everything. After reading a few headlines, they understand it better than some scientist who's been researching the topic for decades.
To paraphrase a banner I saw at the LHC: if you can't even solve one differential equation, don't tell me that the answer is wrong.
Common sense perhaps applies when you're playing tic-tac-toe, but it's gonna require some intellectual "elitist" to play out all the different scenarios and figure out which move now will lead to a positive result down the line. May be in this game we have to sac a bishop so that 5 moves from now it's check mate. (*geddit? sac a bishop* rotflmao, was really trying to include snorkeling reference somewhere....)
I say low left and go three rails.