What's the fuss about "back cuts?"

[jsp]

Consider these two cut shots:

View attachment 285964

They both have the same cut angle, so theoretically, they are the same degree of difficulty.

However, realistically, the 2-ball is a tougher shot because your field of vision (as you're looking over the CB towards the 2B) only includes one of the two rails that intersect at the pocket, and there is no other direct visual reference as to which direction the 2B must travel in order to reach the pocket. It is my belief that this is what defines a back cut, and also explains why they are usually more difficult.

When you're shooting the 1-ball, you have the luxury of seeing both the long and short rails in your peripheral vision, as well as having the long rail as a direct reference. Assuming the 1B is frozen, you don't really even need to know where the pocket is. Just move the 1B down the rail and it will reach the pocket.

-Blake

This is a good description. Just want to add a few things (or mostly reiterate/paraphrase what you said above)...

For most shots that aren't difficult back cuts, when down on the shot you usually have one or two things in your field of vision that you could use as reference to help you locate the contact point on the OB. This could be the view of the pocketing opening, or a rail closest to the OB (as in the one ball in your above example).

But for difficult back cuts, you don't have those frame of references in your field of vision. You have to locate the OB contact point while up on the shot and remember that exact location as you go down on the shot. Once down on the shot, there is no guess and check of the contact point without significant eye movements, simply because you don't have those reference points in your field of vision. That is what makes back shots difficult. You have to locate the OB contact point while up on the shot, maintain it when going down on the shot, and trust that you still have the correct contact point when pulling the trigger.

 

[CantEverWin]

Sir,

How do you figure that there is less room for error if the ball isn't frozen?

I'm not sure that I understand your new placement for the 1 ball that makes the pocket opening the same, but I am not one that buys into different success rates right vs left at least not for an experienced or proficient player. If so it is a minimal difference, at least for me.

Can you clarify the 1 ball thing?

Regards,
Rick

Because if the ball is off the rail there's more area on the object ball that you can make contact with and still pocket the ball. Depending on the table and pocket a ball an inch off the rail could nearly hit the rail at the 2nd diamond and perhaps still fall. When the ball is frozen you don't have the same margin for error.

 

[CreeDo]

In my experience, a frozen ball makes it easier if you just need to make the ball.
It makes it harder if you need to play shape,
as railfirst shape takes a much different path than ball first shape.
You cannot aim lazily and figure "I'm good even if I catch the rail just before the ball".
And you have to worry about throwing it into the rail and therefore away from the hole.
Obviously being frozen to the rail sucks if the frozen ball must pass a side pocket nipple.

 

[Fatboy]

Hi everyone,

it s really interesting that kind of shots are called harder than other shots- and how it is varying from player to player. How we all (usually ) know, the game of pool billiards is a game of perception. Perception is everything in this game ( not talking here about fundamentals etc.!).
In the last summer I held a bootcamp with 4 players-- With 3 guys who can play on a very high level, very strong players (1 plays at pro-speed, 2 guys which are able to run big packs in 9b and 8b, and the fourth I would rate as a B player ) /

So I let the guys play a *shotmaking* exersize over 3 hours. With several different shots – but each shot had the same angle-without any exception.
After a longer time I asked if nobody would have *recognized*/*detected* something…….nobody did.
So (of course just for me, don t want to speak for other guys) for me it s clear, that this just is a result caused by perception (or no perception? )
It was kind of funny- after knowing that all would have same angle…………….the percentage of shotmaking increased by 25 to 35 %.
Strange, hm?

Also I don t want to discuss here about what kind of aiming system would have helped- or maybe worked perhaps better. Fact is, that *your brain* is the keyfactor in this game. It is all about how you are able to visuals you are receiving—and how you are able to work with these.
Even if some humans have called me wrong: But I always try to get a student away from rating a shot in easy or difficult. No matter what kind of shot—it has to be executed perfect.

The sentence Stan often uses is one of my all time favourites--
“Let the eyes lead and the body will follow” But you have to give the student the key to follow this super worthful advice 
Best wishes from overseas, and a smooth stroke.

Ingo

im just a C player can you explane this to me again please

see ya soon-i'm sorting out when i can get to Koln again, i'll know more in the next couple weeks.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Because if the ball is off the rail there's more area on the object ball that you can make contact with and still pocket the ball. Depending on the table and pocket a ball an inch off the rail could nearly hit the rail at the 2nd diamond and perhaps still fall. When the ball is frozen you don't have the same margin for error.

Agreed, I think there was a mistype or a misread or both. A ball on the rail has less room for error. It may be easier for some to make but the margin for error is less.

Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[Ratta]

im just a C player can you explane this to me again please

see ya soon-i'm sorting out when i can get to Koln again, i'll know more in the next couple weeks.

Sent pm buddy.
Looking forward for the next time you show up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9100 mit Tapatalk 2

 

[pdcue]

Hi everyone,

it s really interesting that kind of shots are called harder than other shots- and how it is varying from player to player. How we all (usually ) know, the game of pool billiards is a game of perception. Perception is everything in this game ( not talking here about fundamentals etc.!).
In the last summer I held a bootcamp with 4 players-- With 3 guys who can play on a very high level, very strong players (1 plays at pro-speed, 2 guys which are able to run big packs in 9b and 8b, and the fourth I would rate as a B player ) /

So I let the guys play a *shotmaking* exersize over 3 hours. With several different shots – but each shot had the same angle-without any exception.
After a longer time I asked if nobody would have *recognized*/*detected* something…….nobody did.
So (of course just for me, don t want to speak for other guys) for me it s clear, that this just is a result caused by perception (or no perception? )
It was kind of funny- after knowing that all would have same angle…………….the percentage of shotmaking increased by 25 to 35 %.
Strange, hm?

Also I don t want to discuss here about what kind of aiming system would have helped- or maybe worked perhaps better. Fact is, that *your brain* is the keyfactor in this game. It is all about how you are able to visuals you are receiving—and how you are able to work with these.
Even if some humans have called me wrong: But I always try to get a student away from rating a shot in easy or difficult. No matter what kind of shot—it has to be executed perfect.

The sentence Stan often uses is one of my all time favourites--
“Let the eyes lead and the body will follow” But you have to give the student the key to follow this super worthful advice 
Best wishes from overseas, and a smooth stroke.

Ingo

FWIW - the fact that all the shots "had" the same angle does not mean
that they all 'had' the same level of difficulty.

In point of fact, virtually no shot has to be executed perfectly, but the
more perfectly it needs to be exeuted is one way to measure if one shot
is, indeed, more difficult than another.

"The ball doesn't know what you are aiming at".
"The ball doesn't know what you are thinking".

"The ball only cares where you hit it".


Dale(who embraces the philosophy of 'angle shmangle')

 

[Ratta]

Every negative thought is just created by ourselve- that s just a fact.

And caused by this fact, humans/players are rating shots as *Easy* or *difficult*. Even if they are *technically* exactly the same.
And as we also know every humans is an individual- so here the player has to work out something, so that he can handle this better- or with help from a knowledged person.

lg
Ingo

 

[pdcue]

Every negative thought is just created by ourselve- that s just a fact.

And caused by this fact, humans/players are rating shots as *Easy* or *difficult*. Even if they are *technically* exactly the same.
And as we also know every humans is an individual- so here the player has to work out something, so that he can handle this better- or with help from a knowledged person.

lg
Ingo

Well, there is a reason why Shot A is more difficult than shot B and it
involves the 'angle', but there are other factors as well. Factors that have
nothing to do with thoughts, negative, positive or indifferent. Perhaps the
players at your bootcamp understood that.

If one understands WHY shot A is more difficult than shot B, then there
should not be anything negative about making that determination.

As to the point of the OP - IMHO the idea that back cuts are somehow
harder is an indication of lack of understanding.

I have observed that most intermediate players tend to miss considerably
more often when they can not see the pocket when sighting the
Object Ball. Typically, they will routinely make more difficult shots
when they can see the pocket than those they miss when it is not in their view.

Add in the fact that lower skilled players THINK back cuts are harder, and don't
really know how to determine if a shot is difficult or not, and you
come up with an explaination for the fear factor.

Dale(intermediate player on a good day)

 

[(((Satori)))]

Every negative thought is just created by ourselve- that s just a fact.

And caused by this fact, humans/players are rating shots as *Easy* or *difficult*. Even if they are *technically* exactly the same.
And as we also know every humans is an individual- so here the player has to work out something, so that he can handle this better- or with help from a knowledged person.

lg
Ingo

Just because two shots have the same cut angle does not mean they are the same in difficulty.
Ob angle in relation to the pocket, distance from ob to pocket, & distance from cb to ob are all factors that can increase or decrease the actual level of difficulty.



Definition of back cut is when the angle of the rail behind the object ball compared to the shot line is less than 90 degrees when measuring toward the intended pocket.

 

[jsp]

As to the point of the OP - IMHO the idea that back cuts are somehow
harder is an indication of lack of understanding.

Lack of understanding of what?

Are you suggesting that given the exact same cut angle, back cuts have objectively the same amount of difficulty as non-back cuts? I agree that the contact point margin of error on the OB is mathematically equivalent, by definition. But determining/maintaining the contact point while down on the shot is harder when you can't view any reference points.

What you said above is like saying, "The idea that guarded jump shots in basketball are somehow more difficult (than non-guarded jump shots in the same location) is an indication of lack of understanding."

I have observed that most intermediate players tend to miss considerably
more often when they can not see the pocket when sighting the
Object Ball. Typically, they will routinely make more difficult shots
when they can see the pocket than those they miss when it is not in their view.

Well, isn't that empirical evidence that the shot is harder for "most intermediate players" when they cannot see the pocket?

 

[CreeDo]

Ratta and others know that some things beyond our control make a shot harder on paper,
like distance and thinness etc. He's a smart guy and an accomplished player.

I think he's simply stating that by mentally labelling some shots as difficult,
you are actually decreasing your chance to make the ball. There is some strange stuff
happening with your subsconscious when you shoot. It's well known that people shoot better
when confident, and worse when scared. His experiment shows how simply "labelling" a shot
differently in your head can actually help you sink it.

So there is no practical value in thinking "that shot is hard" or "this specific shot always
bothers me and causes problems". It is MUCH more constructive to think "this shot is
basically the same as this other shot I've mastered" or "this shot is no biggie, I did it before."

Insisting that one shot is harder than others might be 'technically correct' on paper,
but for practical purposes it's a useless mindset. Your actual mechanics and approach
is the same every time, and you want to train your mental approach to be as strong
and consistent as the physical one.

 

[Donny Lutz]

Contact point

Back cuts are tough because you can't see the contact point. What I like to do on those is totally whiff on the hit on thin back cuts, it really shows off your skill let me tell you LOL.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

If you're talking about the point on the OB where the CB strikes it, you can always see that point unless the CB and OB are very close together, or you're kicking at the OB.

If you're talking about the point on the CB that touches the OB, you can never see it from the shooting position, unless you're cutting 90% or more with outside spin, or on a kick or some masses.

 

[Matt]

A lot of focus in this thread has been on the lack of reference points available when back cutting a ball. While I agree that the lack of visual cues is a factor in making these shots more difficult, I believe there is more to the story than that.

As compared to shooting a ball down the rail at the same angle, the the back cut will usually have a smaller effective pocket size to work with at slow speeds because the rail shot can graze the rail and still go in.

Comparing a back cut to other shots, there are also some other notable disadvantages. Just the fact that it is a cut means that your accuracy with the cue ball is more important because any cut is more sensitive to changes in the CB's initial direction. Also, a back cut often falls in the range of cuts where contact induced throw is a consideration and skid is a definite possibility with dirtier balls.

While the lack of visual references is a huge problem in back cuts for most players, I feel it is important to consider these other factors as well. Knowing that the effective pocket size doesn't change that drastically with speed may allow you to take a more confident stroke at a back cut. Knowing about the skid and throw possibilities may dictate some sort of compensation either in aim or english. As for the visual problem, I find it helpful to visualize a "tunnel" through which the object ball will travel to the pocket instead of just a line that the center of the object ball will travel on.

 

[jsp]

So there is no practical value in thinking "that shot is hard" or "this specific shot always
bothers me and causes problems".

I would hesitate to say that there is "no practical value". I agree that you can out-psych yourself at times, but if you realize that a shot is actually more difficult for you, then wouldn't that understanding have practical value if you choose to concentrate/focus more on making the shot?

It is MUCH more constructive to think "this shot is
basically the same as this other shot I've mastered" or "this shot is no biggie, I did it before."

If a particular shot is objectively more difficult than the "no biggie" shot, then I would actually say this thinking is destructive.

Insisting that one shot is harder than others might be 'technically correct' on paper,
but for practical purposes it's a useless mindset.

As I've argued, no it's not.

Your actual mechanics and approach
is the same every time, and you want to train your mental approach to be as strong
and consistent as the physical one.

I wouldn't say this is false, but you have to think about it in the proper orientation. There is more more value thinking that all shots are difficult and require the same amount of focus/concentration (even hangers) as opposed to thinking that all shots are hangers and require the same amount of {lax} focus/concentration (even difficult shots).

 

[the kidd]

Less than 90 degrees.

 

[fastone371]

The other hard thing about back cutting (for me at least) is its much harder to control the cue ball, you are sometimes forced to use English to drop the ball instead of using it for position.

 

[pdcue]

Lack of understanding of what?

Are you suggesting that given the exact same cut angle, back cuts have objectively the same amount of difficulty as non-back cuts? I agree that the contact point margin of error on the OB is mathematically equivalent, by definition. But determining/maintaining the contact point while down on the shot is harder when you can't view any reference points.

What you said above is like saying, "The idea that guarded jump shots in basketball are somehow more difficult (than non-guarded jump shots in the same location) is an indication of lack of understanding."


Well, isn't that empirical evidence that the shot is harder for "most intermediate players" when they cannot see the pocket?

I'm sorry. I thought it was pretty obvious I was refering to reality - not
perception. A shot is as 'hard' as it is, not as hard as you think it is.
That is why intermediate players often miss easier shots than they make.

Please see "The ball doesn't know what you are thinking".

For your clarification:

Rule number one:

master the art of pocketing any and all shots by learning how to hit
the spot on the OB that makes it go into the pocket.

Rule number two:

Don't rely on visual clues like the rail, a point halfway to the pocket,
the outside point of the pockett, etc
These are crutches that will hold you back in ther long run.

What you are saying is just exactly like saying " I only miss jump shots
when someone from the mothership blinds me with a death ray".

Dale(had a decent jump shot, once upon a time)

 

[CreeDo]

Insisting that one shot is harder than others might be 'technically correct' on paper,
but for practical purposes it's a useless mindset.

As I've argued, no it's not.

The only use in assigning difficulty to shots is in deciding which
ball to shoot in games that allow you to do that. Even then it's better to think of it
as an odds thing... "this one is missable, that one isn't".

Once you're committed to a choice, you should approach your difficult
shot the same as typical shots.
You get up there, position the tip, aim, refine the aim, and then give it your best stroke.
The refining of the aim may take longer on some shots, for example because of distance.
But that should just be an automatic part of the process and not the result of
"well this is a hard shot, so I gotta put extra time into aiming".

I wouldn't say this is false, but you have to think about it in the proper orientation. There is more more value thinking that all shots are difficult and require the same amount of focus/concentration (even hangers) as opposed to thinking that all shots are hangers and require the same amount of {lax} focus/concentration (even difficult shots).

Who said anything about being lax? Or hangers?
Don't exaggerate or twist it just to help your argument. That's cheap sir!

I'm saying players should mentally label the shot as "no biggie",
As in "I don't need to get stressed out about this".
That's nothing like saying "it's a hanger" which has the implication that you can
just screw around and make it with your eyes closed.

 

[JB Cases]

using a good aiming system makes reverse cuts relatively easy. Pretty much the same as other shots.