Is inside english harder for you to use?

[Patrick Johnson]

I actually disagree with not one, but both of those reasons. The first one seems easy.... given the random nature of the next ball you are playing position for, i'm not sure how one could ever say we need the cb to go places using outside english more often.

I don't believe it's that random, because as I said, we're most often shooting at a corner pocket with the OB in the general vicinity of that pocket. And we most often want to get the CB to the center area of the table for the next shot (usually so we can be once again shooting toward a corner pocket). This is usually most easily accomplished with outside spin, either going one rail off the side rail or two rails off the end rail. I'll bet if you kept track you'd see that's true for you too.

...is hitting softer always an advantage?

We're not talking about always, and we're not talking about extremes of harder/softer. In most cases, because we use it more often and because it's usually not necessary to hit it as hard, outside english shots are hit closer to our "comfort" speed. Again, if you kept track I'll bet you'd see that this is true. I'd be interested in your results either way.

pj
chgo

 

[bud02]

I actually disagree with not one, but both of those reasons. The first one seems easy.... given the random nature of the next ball you are playing position for, i'm not sure how one could ever say we need the cb to go places using outside english more often.

The second one is more complicated, but is hitting softer always an advantage? No. and some people are more inclined to hit balls firmer as well. Also, hits are fuller using outside, which will normally slow down the cb, at least before it hits a rail.

This is a complex problem that I think is best to solve backwards. Virtually every top player uses outside spin to shoot many 9 ball shots, especially ~30 to 40 or so degree cut angles. Knowing this, there is simply no way you could convince me this doesn't help. But then, it even makes sense..... miss this mentioned cut slightly on the thick side with outside, since thick hits get "spun in" a little more than thin ones, this thick hit can result in a pocketed ball. Hit is a little thin, and it is not spun in as much and takes a more natural path, and you have pocketed it again. I think it especially helps on those slightly thick hits. THEN, as noted previously, there is a "buffer" on your cb hit accuracy, meaning you can be slightly off and the effects will counteract, at least to a greater extent than with center or inside.

Those two aspects in concert with one another leave no doubt in my mind. And the best part is, pool is all about confidence. Even if i'm wrong, i'm still more confident shooting this way because of the listed reasons -- so it is yet an even bigger pocket.

Further, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar, all things being equal, if one guy shot nothing but inside his entire life, and the other guy outside, the guy using outside would pocket more balls. I don't think it is familiarity at all, but this is conjecture. But ask all the top pros this same question/scenario, and i'd bet most of them would think like me.

Can we just say that OS english decreases slip "gearing the OB" and IS english increases slip. By using OS english we minimize the effect of slip.

 

[manwon]

I like to spin balls into the hole with outside english. I have no problem aiming them, but have to think about my alignment when I use inside spin. I have a few different methods that work, but why is inside/reverse spin so much harder to use? Players even buy LD shafts to eliminate this problem.

I hear other people say they only use it when it's absolutely necessary. I use it a lot, but have to stop and think about it before I use it. I guess I could use it all the time and the uncertainty might disappear. Then again, maybe not. Everybody's different. Do you shy away from inside spin?

Best,
Mike

I think many players have the same problem that you have using Inside English, but I also think it depends upon the way you aim and the games you normally play.

If you use any form of edge to edge aiming Inside English only will increase you ability to pocket balls. In addition if you play 3-Cushion Billiards on a regular basis you will also be very familiar with the stroke and hit needed to accurately aim while using Inside English.

I have never had a problem using Inside English, and I suspect it is because before I ever played Pocket Billiards I was already playing 3-Cushion Billiards. I also use a variation of an edge to edge aiming system that I learned and have used for more than Thirty years. When using this type of aiming Insider English seems very natural when lining up and executing shots. I personally think that Inside English is one of the most important forms of spin that any player can add to their arsenal. It will give you cue ball control that you can achieve no other way on touchy position shots that require you to move the cue ball for short or long distances.


JIMO

 

[West Point 1987]

I personally use inside English a lot, especially in games with more than nine balls on the table. The comfortable outside English, spin two rails out to the middle of the table is great for 9 Ball, but in dense traffic you can't survive without being comfortable with inside English.

I generally use BHE, so my adjustments are pretty small...in fact, I tend to cut these shots a little too thin more often than too thick. And to me, it always feels like I'm going to hit it fat when I pull the trigger...but only when I spend too much time thinking about it!:thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Any inside english greater than 1/2 of maximum, or any amount of inside english for cuts of 30 degrees or more actually reduce throw.

bud02:
This rule of thumb is true but speed and english will still have an effect.

These are limits, not rules of thumb. If you mean the limits don't apply with some combinations of spin/cut angle/speed, you're mistaken.

For most cases it's not true that more inside english means more throw.

pj
chgo

 

[Barioni Cues]

I use inside english all the time. If I was using a high deflection shaft I would aim to hit the object ball dead in the face for a cut shot. When the cue ball deflects off the shaft it cuts the object ball in. It takes time to get used to the shaft and cue to be able to judge for the deflection. With LD shafts you have to cut the object ball some. With my cues I just aim like I would center ball. I aim the same wether its center ball, inside or out side english. The reason is because no matter what you put on the cue ball, the cue ball comes off the tip in a straight line with my cues. No cue ball deflection. It is still not fool proof though. It makes a big difference if the balls are polished or not. With my cues and polished balls, every thing is the same as center ball. With dirty or gritty balls you have to figure out how much compensation to use. Just a minor adjustment. Just practice inside english shots at different lengths and you will get a feel for how much compensation you will need with what ever cue you are using. After a while you will not have to think about it. You will just line up and sink balls.

 

[Mikjary]

Aiming cuts down the rail is easiest for me when I visualize the shot as if the rail isn't there (after using the rail to help me visualize the direction to the pocket). Otherwise I tend to be "rail spooked", which affects how I see everything, including the effects of english.

pj
chgo

I will try that and see if it helps me. I can see where the rail could distract your perception of the angle.

Best,
Mike

 

[bud02]

These are limits, not rules of thumb. If you mean the limits don't apply with some combinations of spin/cut angle/speed, you're mistaken.

For most cases it's not true that more inside english means more throw.

pj
chgo

You can call it what you want. The fact is because of the direction of travel by the cue ball inside English increases the speed of the contact surfaces passing one another. Buy using the other two factors 1 ball surface contact area "fatter cut or speed "slow the CB down you still enhance the effect of IS english. In a nut shell inside english acts similar to increasing CB speed. The two surfaces travel past each other faster.

 

[Mikjary]

When I see we and our used like this I'm reminded of when the Lone Ranger said, while surrounded by hostile Indians, " Well, Tonto, looks like we are done for".

To which Tonto replied "What you mean WE white man".

You and some may experiences the things you mentioned, but I sure don't.

Where do you aim at when you shoot down the rail? When I started shooting I was guilty of aiming at the back of the pocket instead of the front of the pocket. Once I realized my mistake, I took into consideration the biggest part of the pocket at various angles. It changed my contact point on the object ball, especially on rail shots.

I'm sure some players naturally figured this out without help over time. I've heard it mentioned many times since, but there was no information highway years ago. It usually cost you money to see it. :grin:

Best,
Mike

 

[The Renfro]

Well then, let me clear....

I do not have a tendency to aim at the short side of the pocket on cut shots. I aim where I need to put the OB and that is center pocket. But you seem to imply by using "we" I do. You can not speak for what I do or anyone else.

I do not use the back of the pocket as any form of reference in aiming and for you to imply that you know how my brain works, by the use of "our", in shot making is far fetched.

I can hit outside, down on the CB and it not curve it one bit to the OB and then again I can. It all in the stroke. One stroke doesn't fit all shots as some would lead to believe.

I often wonder at times after reading about shaft deflection, squirt, swerve and having to adjust for them if we are playing the same game. If you got all that going on, you are hitting way to hard, way harder than you need too.

Somethings that not being considered in all this is the weight of the balls, the fact the one ball is moving and one is not at time of contact, the angle of cut, the cloth, the distance from CB to OB, the distances of the OB to pocket, the various amounts of traction that can be created between the OB and CB.

Me ain't in any we.

I said I don't know what Ducks do and I do not care.... Trust me Duckie when I say "we" from now on I will qualify it with everyone except Duckie.. Duckie/Lone Ranger World has different laws of physics than the world we, everyone but Duckie, live in.. There is no squirt, or throw or deflection unless the cueball is hit hard. I am unsure at this point whether he or the Lone Ranger is World Champ in Duckie/Lone Ranger World... In this world harder eliminates swerve...

All things being equal we, everyone but Duckie, usually tend to excel at aiming balls thick and using outside english as helping english to cut the ball in.... This can be accomplished thru the gear effect or swerving the cueball by hitting down at a soft to medium speed.... If we, everyone but Duckie, get used to using swerve we, everyone but Duckie, tend to have a hard time using inside english because we. everyone but Duckie, have a hard time aiming thin on the object ball because on thin cuts we are not aiming at a contact point on the object ball but at point out in space....

Boy that makes for a hard read... I may have to switch to EBD...

If anyone wants to bust my chops over any information I post being inaccurate I am all for it. Maybe I will rethink and learn something...

Busting my chops because you have some form of keyboard induced self delusion that makes you think I was including you personally in my use of "we" and that everyone reading the thread would assume "you" must be part of my "we" is absurd and pointless....

If I post information It is in an attempt to help someone find their way to playing better...

In this instance I have never seen Mik hit the shots in question... I am simply relaying a possible cause that I am well aware is common place for even some better players I have watched.... Bridging over the rail causes many people to induce an attack angle down into the cloth during their setup... They tend to continue using this angle even when the rail is not in the way. Using outside english and aiming thick is a natural evolution that happened very early in my learning the game because of this. It is a tool I use for making balls with outside english all the time... I aim it thick I use outside and I wish it well as I cinch it into the pocket...... With the same setup I ruin my chances for making the same shot using inside....

Much better.... No we... No EBD... I'll use singular possessive from here on out... Now that I consider who I was apparently including in my "we"s I definitely wouldn't want to taint good information with a questionable source........ k:

 

[broken]

Like when you push a heavy piece of furniture across the floor it takes less energy to keep it going at higher speed - because there's less friction at higher speed.

pj
chgo

If this isn't the worst piece of physics i've ever read on this board...

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

The force of friction depends only on whether the surfaces are sliding or not, and not on how quickly.

Unless the couch is getting hot and changing the coefficient of friction.

Tthe force is independent of the speed, the rate of energy use is actually *higher* for higher speeds.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can call it what you want. The fact is because of the direction of travel by the cue ball inside English increases the speed of the contact surfaces passing one another. Buy using the other two factors 1 ball surface contact area "fatter cut or speed "slow the CB down you still enhance the effect of IS english. In a nut shell inside english acts similar to increasing CB speed. The two surfaces travel past each other faster.

You're saying the same thing I am. Your tone sounds like you want to disagree with me about something, but I can't tell what it is.

pj
chgo

 

[broken]

You're saying the same thing I am. Your tone sounds like you want to disagree with me about something, but I can't tell what it is.

pj
chgo

"Like when you push a heavy piece of furniture across the floor it takes less energy to keep it going at higher speed - because there's less friction at higher speed."

You say

Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 1m/s > Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 10m/s

The truth is

Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 10m/s > Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 1m/s

This is how these bad myths about the basic physics in pool get started.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Like when you push a heavy piece of furniture across the floor it takes less energy to keep it going at higher speed - because there's less friction at higher speed.

broken:
If this isn't the worst piece of physics i've ever read on this board...

LOL. The worst ever on this board? That would be an accomplishment.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

"Like when you push a heavy piece of furniture across the floor it takes less energy to keep it going at higher speed - because there's less friction at higher speed."

You say

Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 1m/s > Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 10m/s

The truth is

Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 10m/s > Energy needed to move a couch across the floor @ 1m/s

This is how these bad myths about the basic physics in pool get started.

Whatever the case with couches, it's well known that higher speed between pool balls reduces throw. Are you disputing that?

pj
chgo

 

[broken]

Whatever the case with couches, it's well known that higher speed between pool balls reduces throw. Are you disputing that?

pj
chgo

I'm not disputing that, but clearly the physics behind what happens is up for debate and experiments.

 

[bud02]

You're saying the same thing I am. Your tone sounds like you want to disagree with me about something, but I can't tell what it is.

pj
chgo

These are limits, not rules of thumb. If you mean the limits don't apply with some combinations of spin/cut angle/speed, you're mistaken.

For most cases it's not true that more inside english means more throw.

pj
chgo

The bonded statement above. Had you read my post you would have realized that we agree in the first place. Rather than commenting on my rule of thumb statement. For you it is a rule of thumb. IS english has no effect. Your statement below.

Originally Posted by desmocourtney View Post
Inside english magnifies collision induced throw.

Patrick's Reply
This is mostly not true. Any inside english greater than 1/2 of maximum, or any amount of inside english for cuts of 30 degrees or more actually reduce throw.

pj
chgo

IS english certainly does induce slip but you reach a point on the outside of the OB that it has a minimal effect where IS english acts like "speed" reducing slip, BUT IT'S AT THE EXTREME EDGE OF THE BALL. My detailed post you gleaned my rule of thumb statement from below. And yes, I think your looking for a disagreement.

This rule of thumb is true but speed and english will still have an effect. As you slice a thinner cut less speed and more english can be applied to enhance the throw. The effect never goes away its reduced by the curvature of the ball. This applies for both IS and OS english.

The effect of the cue ball on the object ball has three main fractures.

1 the amount of object ball contacted.
As you decrees the amount of contact area the effect of 2 and 3 are decreased. Of course on a straight in shot slip "speed" has zero effect. As the contact point moves around the curve of the ball slip increases to the maximum then decreases to the very edge but it never goes away. This is an important point. Slip has zero effect on a straight in shot and increases to a maximum then decreases. English on a dead straight shot has a maximum effect and decreases as you follow the curve around the edge. Slip and english don't follow the same curve.

2 the speed of the cue ball.
A slower ball enhances the effect 1 and 3. A slower ball will slip the OB more and enhance the english.
Faster ball decreases the effect 1 and 3. Slip and the effect of english are both reduced.

3 the amount of english applied.
More english is required or the effect of english is reduced when 1 "the cut" or 2 the "speed" are increased.
Less english is required or english has a greater effect when 1 "the cut" or 2 the "speed" are decreased.

Its true the less the contact point between the CB and OB the less effect 2 and 3 have. But by reducing 2 "speed" and increasing 3 "english" a thin cut can have just as much effect. If this was not so Bob Jewett's impossible cut could not be made. As your CB speed is decreased the effect of english on the OB is increased. If you remove 3 "english" you still have to deal with the combination of 1 and 2 and visa versa.

Look at the amount of english Bob is using on the thinnest cut possible.
This shot could not be made with a center ball stroke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaSKh1PSqok

 

[dr_dave]

... it's well known that higher speed between pool balls reduces throw.

... clearly the physics behind what happens is up for debate and experiments.

A PJ points out, the effect of speed on throw are very well understood. For example, see:

September '06 Billiards Digest article
NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV​

Concerning the physics of friction between pool balls during collisions (which is very different from couch-floor drag friction), here is what I have suggested are possible explanations for the speed dependence (from here):

Possible reasons for why the friction coefficient decreases with higher relative surface speed include: surface asperities might glance over each other (and not intermesh as easily) with a moving surface, and boundary layer effects due to entrapped and displaced air might have a larger effect at higher speeds.​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... clearly the physics behind what happens is up for debate and experiments.

And the pushing furniture analogy could very well be wrong - I probably confused it with the difference between static and kinetic friction. But I believe the limits of throw with and without sidespin are as I said, and that inside spin therefore most often reduces throw.

pj
chgo

 

[scottjen26]

Mike,

I'm guilty, especially until somewhat recently, of spinning the ball far too much. Don't know if it was just a natural thing from other sports, or based on the people I watched and learned from, perceptions I had about shot making, etc. One culprit was reading about CIT in the Science of Pocket Billiards, and figured I had to offset that on every shot. Also heard some pros at the time say that they used outside english on most cut shots. I had a hard time hitting and trusting cut shots with purely center ball, always felt more comfortable aiming slightly thicker and "throwing" them in. But I also felt comfortable hitting with inside english, just really feeling it at that point in time using a normal shaft.

Agree with other posters, I think outside is a bit more forgiving and more "natural", and I think our typical position routes favor using outside to spin back toward center table, spin 1 rail up table, or spin out of the corner 2 rails. Probably why people feel more comfortable with it. Might also be like golf, where putts breaking one way just feel more natural than the opposite way.

For me, one advantage I gained recently with my experimentations with CTE, and having a year off for some bad habits to die (somewhat), was a renewed appreciation for center ball. I really had to focus on that when working with the aiming stuff, and even though I'm very comfortable with it now I still have to force myself to focus on center ball and not always be tweaking every shot with 1/4 - 1/2 tip english for no reason. Obviously you don't need CTE to hit center ball, for me it was just the catalyst to break my old habits. Now I try to align with center ball and adjust for english when needed in a pretty defined and consistent way, only relying on pure feel when elevating or hitting more of a non-standard shot.

Scott