Engineer that you are, jsp, I wonder if you've introduced an experimental control on "pocket-cheat" into your observations? There is definitely a potential for correlation without causation (or even correlation despite negative causation), if you tend to hit the pocket on the full side when you use inside english on thinner cuts.
Good point on the pocket-cheat variable. But even if this variable gets controlled out (the OB always hits the same part of the pocket), my gut feeling is that for non small-angled shots (cut angle > 20 degrees) ,the CB would generally travel a lesser distance with inside english compared to center ball or outside.
I haven't spent too much time thinking about it, but I think much of it has to do with the greater spin component associated with inside that counteracts the linear momentum of the CB post-impact (similar to how draw spin counteracts the forward momentum of the CB after CB-tip impact).
Maybe I'll try out some experiments tonight. I might change my opinions when I'm actually standing over a shot.
JSP, I think I know what your gut is telling you. Tell me if I'm off base.
You're imagining the cue ball hitting the object ball, more or less stopping (let's say sliding to the right just a bit), and for a split second it's spinning in place. That left spin (as it's spinning in place) is grabbing the cloth a little, and carrying it a tiny bit sideways with each revolution, right? Or, the cue ball is moving to the right, but each revolution grabs into the cloth and acts as a brake, carrying it a hair left even as it's sliding to the right.
Is that sort of what you're mentally picturing?
If so, the reason that doesn't work is... the ball isn't truly spinning "left", it's spinning clockwise. A dot on the face of the cue ball would appear to be travelling from right to left from the shooter's perspective... but if you could see THROUGH the ball, the same dot would then swing from left to right on the backside of the cue ball. For every millimeter the spin is carrying the ball to your left... it is equally carrying the ball to the right on the other side. The two cancel each other out and the ball ends up travelling the same amount as if you'd just cut it with centerball (assuming you cut it exactly as thick in both cases).
So why would an outside english shot travel less than an inside shot, if the above is true? Well, it doesn't... if you're cutting exactly as thick in both cases. What makes the outside useful is that you don't have to cut as thin as before. You can hit a little fatter. But that fat spinning hit will travel the cue ball the same amount as an equally fat center ball hit.
The difference is... one sends the object ball into the pocket and the other sends the OB into the rail.
Any advantage you can get from that jacked up sidespin shot is ruined by the fact that you must cut the ball thinner to avoid having your inside spin throw it out of the pocket. You'd be better off throwing it with outside or even just center.
Dr. Dave has something that may or may not be considered proof.
You all know the shot where if you cut a ball into the corner, the cue ball is gonna scratch in the side. Sometimes it can be beat with follow and sometimes with draw. Sometimes it's a bit hairy and you must hit with good quick draw. Players have argued whether the best way to "hold" this shot and avoid the scratch is to use center draw, outside draw, or inside draw. So dave has filmed all three.
His findings in a nutshell: Low center works okay.
Low outside works too, and you can hit the ball a little fuller and throw it in, "making it easy to avoid the pocket".
The value of low inside is "questionable".
So dave, to settle the debate... is there any situation where you can hold a ball with inside english? Where it might be preferable to throwing with outside?
I've heard people claim they can hold a ball that has a little too much angle using inside but I can't get my head around it. I'm not sure there's even some weird obscure rare situation where it's possible (much less preferable to holding with outside spin).
So dave, to settle the debate... is there any situation where you can hold a ball with inside english? Where it might be preferable to throwing with outside?
I've heard people claim they can hold a ball that has a little too much angle using inside but I can't get my head around it. I'm not sure there's even some weird obscure rare situation where it's possible (much less preferable to holding with outside spin).
Looking at the typically excellent material Dr D has provided, I don't think that it supports my 'holding with inside english' claim (although I have not looked through everything on Dave's site - that is a treat that will probably have to wait until I retire!).
However - and subject to correction by the Dr - it might not refute it absolutely. The issue, as you have pointed out, CreeDo, is that spin induced throw tends to give the opposite effect to the one that I habitually miss balls with. But as Dave's articles point out, spin induced throw has its maximum effect with stun shots and medium (50%) side spin. The shot that I think I play - I haven't yet got to a table to check - is to aim thick and use drag/draw with MAXIMUM side spin.
It may be that a shot played in this way, the spin induced throw effect is negligable, and that it is swamped by an effect acting in the opposite direction. The latter effect is presumably caused by the cb describing a curved path before hitting the ob (so the ob sees it arriving from a narrower angle).
I think you need to be nominated for this. Why don't you suggest it to the Nobel Prize committee. If I'm selected, I'll split the money with you ... but I get to keep that cool medal. :grin-square:
I haven't spent too much time thinking about it, but I think much of it has to do with the greater spin component associated with inside that counteracts the linear momentum of the CB post-impact (similar to how draw spin counteracts the forward momentum of the CB after CB-tip impact).
The trouble is that to affect linear momentum, there has to be a non-zero component to the spin vector orthogonal to the plane of the cloth. The independent variable in this discussion is a component to the spin vector parallel to the cloth. Thus there should be no direct effect on the "english" (defined for my purposes as the component of spin parallel to the cloth) on linear momentum of the ball. The only effects should be indirect, such as the idea that the english affects the fullness of the CB-OB collision, which has obvious effect on the CB momentum.
Siz: ah, I get it now. You're doing a mini masse to 'hold' the ball.
This shot is in Grady's Break shots and key balls. On the key ball, he falls with too much angle for an under the rack break shot. So he jacks up, masses, and and sends the CB straighter into the key ball shot. The CB dies and he gets his break angle.
If that's what you're talking about, I don't think of that as holding the ball so much as an actual masse trick shot. You did say something about aiming for a fuller hit... honestly I think all the times you're using 'inside' hold, I think you're just hitting the ball with maximum fullness. Try setting up a few and see how much you can hold with soft quick draw and a very fat (almost missing the shot) hit.
The trouble is that to affect linear momentum, there has to be a non-zero component to the spin vector orthogonal to the plane of the cloth. The independent variable in this discussion is a component to the spin vector parallel to the cloth. Thus there should be no direct effect on the "english" (defined for my purposes as the component of spin parallel to the cloth) on linear momentum of the ball. The only effects should be indirect, such as the idea that the english affects the fullness of the CB-OB collision, which has obvious effect on the CB momentum.
You're right (same with Creedo). I'm not satisfied at all with the off-the-cuff explanation I gave yesterday. I don't know what I was drinking yesterday.
You might well be right. After you started putting doubt in my mind, it occured to me as well. It was something that I was going to check.
While I was trying to remember how the balls are set up when I play this kind of shot (as has been said earlier, it is difficult when the balls are not in front of you) I remembered another cut shot using inside english:
Ball on / very close to a rail; cue ball at an angle of greater than 90 degrees. You can still cut it in, if you use strong inside english. Nice when it works, but not a shot I would rush to play in a competition.
However bringing this shot into it would probably just confuse the issue - I have not seen a high speed video proving it, but the consensus seems to be that the cb hits the rail first.
I recommend what i learned-and even so think also still a good choice:
Keep the game as simple as possible. If no english needed, i ll shoot without english- if english is needed.........i ll use english...
An industry insider I spoke to recently told me that some of the top billiards pros are seeking to minimize the use of English in their game, perhaps eradicating it completely. He said such a goal was possible if they were able to play position with a very high degree of accuracy.
I believe he was talking about pool, rather than snooker, the latter which I believe tends to require greater use of English (side) to play at the high level?
Since most of the players are foreign to the US I am sure that they would prefer to speak their native language. :shrug: :killingme: Even it the US now Spanish seems to be taking over.:rotflmao:
I'm nowhere close to a pro, but I want to thank this thread for making me realize that I'm over-using English.
Last night I ran a few drills that involve going to the rails for position play, and then I tried them without any English. I was amazed at how accurate my position play was without English, and also amazed to realize how often I rely on some degree of sidespin (even only a little bit) to change the angle off the rail.
No English also made me focus on stroking the ball better. I had to keep the right amount of follow or draw when the cue ball hit the rail, so I found myself delivering a crisper and more deliberate stroke. Sometimes I have a habit of rolling the cue ball with sidespin and letting the spin do the work.
I know this stuff seems obvious. I'm kicking myself for developing bad habits. But I think it's not uncommon among intermediate players...
I'm nowhere close to a pro, but I want to thank this thread for making me realize that I'm over-using English.
No English also made me focus on stroking the ball better.
This statement above is key. Your actually swinging the cue straighter by staying in the middle more, key element for improvement. Swinging the cue straight is the holy grail/Rempe was a master at that movement.
Siz - yeah that's a cute trick shot, the railfirst spin-'er-in. Can be done at 90 degrees (though more than 90 degrees? Ooof. I'd have to see it. I know it works in theory).
Ever use some of these other holding tricks? Your mention of railfirst reminded me of them.
I'm feeling pedantic, brace yourself.
This one I first learned in the 99 critical shots but I thought it was a mistake in the diagram. Ray showed how center left, high left, and finally low left would cause the cue ball to increasingly spin further sideways off the short rail. I was like "why would low left spin further than high left? The draw is bringing it backwards. There's no reason drawing the ball would make it travel more forward."
What I realized years later is he's doing a soft low left shot. It's a draw-drag shot, so the draw totally dies before it even touches the ball. But the left spin you put on it stays. So the cue ball arrives with no topspin, just pure sidespin, which gets bigtime action off the rail. A little known aspect of inside english shots like this is that often pure center sidespin will get better action than high+sidespin. You'd think that if high makes it travel more 'forward' after contact, and if left does too, then high+left would have a really strong effect. But the effect, while good, is not as good as pure heavy left.
In the diagram, "A" is where you go with the draw-drag left, and "B" is where you go with with plain high left, or a center left shot that has been allowed to pick up forward roll since it was hit softly. Holding to "A" makes the 2 a lot easier.
The railfirst shot I was reminded of is sort of like the one below. It's hard to diagram the exact situation but I know it when I see it. Basically if you hit the ball first, you're ending up at B or worse. Holding with outside, which I usually want to do here, may not be good because you can bump the 3 or get stuck behind it or jacked up over it. But if you load up with tons of soft inside, you can hit the rail way before the ball and then spin sharply into it. If you hit the 1 fat enough after the rebound, the cue ball won't travel much... or at least not as much as it would hitting directly.
For those who are spin addicts.....
Occam's Razor...
It is vain to do with more what you can do with less.
For those who insist on center ball......
Nothing in excess...including moderation.
...A little known aspect of inside english shots like this is that often pure center sidespin will get better action than high+sidespin. You'd think that if high makes it travel more 'forward' after contact, and if left does too, then high+left would have a really strong effect. But the effect, while good, is not as good as pure heavy left...
Yup. That was me! I don't think that there was a conscious thought process along the lines you suggested; but subconsciously this is probably what was happening. For years I would put top and bottom to 'help' the side, when it was unnecessary (and as you say, even counter productive).
There are probably two effects that can be relevant here. One is that the side 'takes' better off the rail if the ball contacts it with stun (ie is sliding). But the other BIG effect, which many players do not seem to factor in, is that the side takes much better when the cb hits the rail SLOWLY.
You often see people over-hit the shot when they are having difficulty getting the cb moving where they want, not realising that as a result the ball is coming onto the first rail too fast for the spin to be really effective. (That was me as well by the way! )
Fonz: sounds like the old guard grousing about the new guard. Almost like you're saying there's no way today's players could be as skilled as the old guys, that's just impossible. They only can move the cue ball because of their fancy shafts and fast cloth. You figure they use all that sidespin as a crutch because they can't truly stroke a ball?
i'm not talking about old greats vs the new ones. great players from any era have great ability. i'm talking about the majority of people who play pool (90%+? i don't know what the percentage actually is) who buy into all this equipment, but can't bring their game to the next level. it's like all the advances in golf (lawnmower, ball, clubs, teaching aids, etc) but the same percentage of players can't break 100. it comes down to the mechanics, take a particular shot, and have it played the same way by a mediocre player and a pro, i can almost guarantee that the pro will play the shot with a lot less effort. the same reason why great players can pick up any old cue and still play, as opposed to joe schmuck who falls to pieces if his shoes aren't tied right. i like a saying that was used in this forum, and I hope i don't offend anyone but "it's not the arrow, it's the indian". One measure of mechanics would be to play snooker, and try to run a century. it's not something that you can fluke off, and you will never do it without solid mechanics.
I gotcha fonz, and for the record I have been a big fan of indian-not-the-arrow. For a long time I refused to buy my own stick because I was beating everyone with a house cue. Eventually someone had to give me one just because it was so pathetic to play like a B using a D- cue.
So I do agree on that part of it.
I guess the argument is that the 99% of us who aren't pro don't need to learn a really solid stroke to get action out of the cue ball, since the old nappy cloth really required a firm hit right at the cue ball's sweet spot.
But, to reach a higher level you still need to learn that stroke, and those who fail to learn it... well they're not really trying for that higher level. If they're having fun getting 2 feet of draw with a crappy stroke on 860 cloth, good for them. Maybe it helps get them deeper into pool when they can immediately get easy results and start using english early.
I don't think that there was a conscious thought process along the lines you suggested; but subconsciously this is probably what was happening. For years I would put top and bottom to 'help' the side, when it was unnecessary (and as you say, even counter productive).