Shaun Murphy - What's to be done about the Kick?
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
I think he (or his university guy) is wandering off along the wrong path as far as the cause. I think that if anyone did find a way to prevent kicks -- a different ball material, a surface coating, a different chalk, a spray for the cloth ... -- they could make a lot of money.
Well, a little money since the vast majority of players are not significantly affected by kicks. I think it's only at the top that kicks cause a significant fraction of misses. Dr. George Onoda estimated that you can expect a kick about once in 200 shots which lines up pretty well with experience, but I've seen matches where the chance was more like one in 20.
I think that none can argue but that Bob's scientific approach as a student of our pastime of cue sports is beyond reproach. I agree with you, Bob, that Shaun (or his university guy) is barking up the wrong tree here. I have for a long time been of the opinion that kicks are a result of the materials that we use in the construct of our equipment, specifically, the cloth.
If you consider golf, balls had previously been made of various materials such as wood and gutta percha before evolving to their current design. Clubs underwent (indeed, continue to undergo) various changes such as original hickory shafts into modern composition designs and everything else the eggheads have managed to come up with. Even the grass has been genetically engineered to be able to keep it manicured shorter and faster, and recover quicker from divots and damage. But even so, golf is still played on grass after all.
For the cue sports, the balls, cues, and rubber cushions have largely evolved and are nothing like their original incarnation. On the other hand, as far as I know, the green baize has always been the green baize. Of course, they have improved the manufacturing process--current methods mean a finer, lighter, even shaved cloth for professional play--but in essence, the surface is still the same as it has always been: a cloth covered smooth(?), flat(?) surface.
I submit that on a macroscopic level (looking through the eyes of a human being), the surface appears flat and smooth. However, on a microscopic level (say, looking through the eyes of an ant or some such), the cloth surface obviously has tremendous variations. Much like the difference between driving on a smooth concrete surface of an indoor garage versus jaunting along on an old gravel road, we believe our cue ball is rolling (or often sliding) smoothly when in fact it is bouncing (on a microscopic level) along the rough surface of the cloth. And the cloth will act like a trampoline when the cue ball passes over thicker and thinner areas because the individual threads within the weave will have variation in diameter and density.
The cloth is a very elastic surface. We just had a situation at our club where a ball arbitrarily and untouched fell into a pocket when it had been balanced on the edge from a previous shot. This type of situation is usually caused by cloth motion when a player places or removes his hand from the table surface and can happen over a surprisingly long distance of several feet.
You can often see in the slow motion video of a kick how the cue ball "climbs up" the object ball which can only logically be the result of the cue ball equator line striking above the object ball equator line. In my personal experience, true kicks seem to occur significantly most often when using follow, less often when using center ball, and least often when using draw.
I think the kick is an inherent part of the game and is here to stay unless the powers that be wish to introduce radically different equipment in an effort to eliminate the kick. Anyone who would like to experiment with this can try out the equipment shown below and get back to me with your results
.
Edit: I have read through Shaun's article several times now and have come to realize that he does in fact lay much of the onus on the cloth and its manufacturing process. He may be onto something with the heaters....I have never played on a heated table myself.....as a TRUE kick is few and far between in my club. (I think he is also spot on in that most players do not properly distinguish between "bad contact" and "kick".) I guess where I differ with his article is that he appears to believe that it is in fact possible to come up with a perfect materials combination to prevent the kick. Myself, I believe the kick will always be a part of the game as it is just inherent in the materials no matter how refined they may be. (Again, to the golf analogy, grass will always be grass and the putting surface will never be "perfect" unless it is changed to marble or some more predictable material for the roll, but of course, such a drastic change opens many other cans of worms.....could you stick an approach shot on a marble putting green?)
If you consider golf, balls had previously been made of various materials such as wood and gutta percha before evolving to their current design. Clubs underwent (indeed, continue to undergo) various changes such as original hickory shafts into modern composition designs and everything else the eggheads have managed to come up with. Even the grass has been genetically engineered to be able to keep it manicured shorter and faster, and recover quicker from divots and damage. But even so, golf is still played on grass after all.
For the cue sports, the balls, cues, and rubber cushions have largely evolved and are nothing like their original incarnation. On the other hand, as far as I know, the green baize has always been the green baize. Of course, they have improved the manufacturing process--current methods mean a finer, lighter, even shaved cloth for professional play--but in essence, the surface is still the same as it has always been: a cloth covered smooth(?), flat(?) surface.
I submit that on a macroscopic level (looking through the eyes of a human being), the surface appears flat and smooth. However, on a microscopic level (say, looking through the eyes of an ant or some such), the cloth surface obviously has tremendous variations. Much like the difference between driving on a smooth concrete surface of an indoor garage versus jaunting along on an old gravel road, we believe our cue ball is rolling (or often sliding) smoothly when in fact it is bouncing (on a microscopic level) along the rough surface of the cloth. And the cloth will act like a trampoline when the cue ball passes over thicker and thinner areas because the individual threads within the weave will have variation in diameter and density.
The cloth is a very elastic surface. We just had a situation at our club where a ball arbitrarily and untouched fell into a pocket when it had been balanced on the edge from a previous shot. This type of situation is usually caused by cloth motion when a player places or removes his hand from the table surface and can happen over a surprisingly long distance of several feet.
You can often see in the slow motion video of a kick how the cue ball "climbs up" the object ball which can only logically be the result of the cue ball equator line striking above the object ball equator line. In my personal experience, true kicks seem to occur significantly most often when using follow, less often when using center ball, and least often when using draw.
I think the kick is an inherent part of the game and is here to stay unless the powers that be wish to introduce radically different equipment in an effort to eliminate the kick. Anyone who would like to experiment with this can try out the equipment shown below and get back to me with your results
.Edit: I have read through Shaun's article several times now and have come to realize that he does in fact lay much of the onus on the cloth and its manufacturing process. He may be onto something with the heaters....I have never played on a heated table myself.....as a TRUE kick is few and far between in my club. (I think he is also spot on in that most players do not properly distinguish between "bad contact" and "kick".) I guess where I differ with his article is that he appears to believe that it is in fact possible to come up with a perfect materials combination to prevent the kick. Myself, I believe the kick will always be a part of the game as it is just inherent in the materials no matter how refined they may be. (Again, to the golf analogy, grass will always be grass and the putting surface will never be "perfect" unless it is changed to marble or some more predictable material for the roll, but of course, such a drastic change opens many other cans of worms.....could you stick an approach shot on a marble putting green?)
Last edited:
Pathetic Shark
Banned
I bought a used set of pro tournament balls recently from ebay. The seller said he'd give them a good clean before sending them off, which he did, but they arrived with scuff marks still on them, which I took off with Aramith ball cleaner. They looked perfect, good as new, with no chips or imperfections, and no scuff marks.
I have only played with them once, but noticed they kicked like crazy after about an hour's play, so much so I gave up and went home. It was ridiculous. I'd say one in four or five shots kicked, it was that bad. They had scuff marks all over them when I looked later.
I have never been a pixie dust chalk man, unlike some, but am now firmly in the 'it's the balls they use' camp. I've played with all sorts of balls, from balls that were literally covered in chalk to balls that had lumps out of them, and none of them kicked like this set of pristine pro cup balls.
One thing is for certain - chalk is not the primary cause of bad contacts and cleaning the CB after a kick guarantees nothing.
I have only played with them once, but noticed they kicked like crazy after about an hour's play, so much so I gave up and went home. It was ridiculous. I'd say one in four or five shots kicked, it was that bad. They had scuff marks all over them when I looked later.
I have never been a pixie dust chalk man, unlike some, but am now firmly in the 'it's the balls they use' camp. I've played with all sorts of balls, from balls that were literally covered in chalk to balls that had lumps out of them, and none of them kicked like this set of pristine pro cup balls.
One thing is for certain - chalk is not the primary cause of bad contacts and cleaning the CB after a kick guarantees nothing.
Last edited:
Your first clause above is, of course, false, although the second is correct, as Onoda pointed out a long time ago.
Unlike the pros, I don't recall ever playing with new balls on new cloth. :frown:
Most people only play with old balls on old cloth, so can't offer relevant personal observations. So, I offer this:
Personally, the only time I have encountered kicks is on new cloth. As use increased, the problem lessened and eventually disappeared.
At pro tournaments, some tables seem to be more prone to kicks than others, although one would expect that the cloth used came from the same roll.
One possible variable:
The table mechanic.
Most people only play with old balls on old cloth, so can't offer relevant personal observations. So, I offer this:
Personally, the only time I have encountered kicks is on new cloth. As use increased, the problem lessened and eventually disappeared.
At pro tournaments, some tables seem to be more prone to kicks than others, although one would expect that the cloth used came from the same roll.
One possible variable:
The table mechanic.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Your adherence to your man-cave theory is admirable, but the snooker world modernised quite a while ago. Few, if any, credible commentators believe what you believe. You are perfectly free to correct them, multiple world champions and all. I'm sure they would be interested in your views. There is much you can teach them about the game, clearly.
If chalk is the primary cause, why wouldn't cleaning it from the balls reduce the number of bad contacts? Clause one necessitates clause two, does it not? It is undeniable bad contacts have increased in recent years, so perhaps you can explain this? The only constant over this time is the, er, chalk. Tables, cloth, temps, balls - all change. Yet your pixie dust is the same as it ever was.
ETA - a quick google of yer man George led me to...Dr Dave. Truly, you could not make it up.
Last edited:
Just my humble opinion, but I think you guys are getting away from Shaun Murphy's original article. To quote it:
"From the outset it's important that we make a clear distinction between 'the Kick' and a bad contact.....they're not the same thing. A bad contact is something that has been in the game in one form or another since it started. A slightly heavy or dull contact usually slows the cue ball down a touch but does not generally effect the pot....."
He goes on to say the 'Kick' "is chemical reaction" which I have to think is a bit of a stretch. That of course is the point. I don't think anyone has provided demonstrable proof of what is the primary actual cause of true 'Kicks' (sic, capital to follow Shaun Murphy's lead). From what I see, 'Kicks' seem to follow a common pattern: nearly fully ball contact, a particular speed, generally a touch of follow to gain position on the next pot. Then, incredulously, the cue ball is climbing up the object ball, the angle is thrown off and a basically simple pot is missed or nearly so, and the speed of the cue ball is killed so the aforementioned position is invariably lost even if the pot does happen to drop.
A "bad contact" on the other hand can have myriad causes and present itself in a variety of ways on shots of every angle and position. Feel free to debate those possibilities until the cows come home, but I don't think those are the 'Kicks' to which Shaun Murphy is referring.
"From the outset it's important that we make a clear distinction between 'the Kick' and a bad contact.....they're not the same thing. A bad contact is something that has been in the game in one form or another since it started. A slightly heavy or dull contact usually slows the cue ball down a touch but does not generally effect the pot....."
He goes on to say the 'Kick' "is chemical reaction" which I have to think is a bit of a stretch. That of course is the point. I don't think anyone has provided demonstrable proof of what is the primary actual cause of true 'Kicks' (sic, capital to follow Shaun Murphy's lead). From what I see, 'Kicks' seem to follow a common pattern: nearly fully ball contact, a particular speed, generally a touch of follow to gain position on the next pot. Then, incredulously, the cue ball is climbing up the object ball, the angle is thrown off and a basically simple pot is missed or nearly so, and the speed of the cue ball is killed so the aforementioned position is invariably lost even if the pot does happen to drop.
A "bad contact" on the other hand can have myriad causes and present itself in a variety of ways on shots of every angle and position. Feel free to debate those possibilities until the cows come home, but I don't think those are the 'Kicks' to which Shaun Murphy is referring.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Agreed. I think some people set out to prove what they'd always expected, and - lo! - succeeded. Who'd a thunk?
However, the quoted part of the article suggests bad contacts are inevitable and have been a constant part of the game from day one. Maybe so, but I would suggest this is misleading, and their frequency has greatly increased as equipment has changed. Bad contacts are largely a modern phenomenon.
Huh.............interesting.
I don't think that I am qualified to agree or disagree with your statement with any sort of authority, but what I can say is that in my life experience, the Law of Unintended Consequences is absolutely universal in its application to any given enterprise. While ANY material or design change (in this case in regards to snooker) will be implemented in an effort to improve a situation in some way, very frequently that change will affect the situation in some other, unintended (and quite possibly negative) way--sort of like my tongue in cheek statement above about changing putting greens on a golf course to marble so that true roll can be achieved would obviously negatively affect approach shots.
I suppose that is exactly what Shaun Murphy's intent of the article is all about. Perhaps he is suggesting that there has been some subtle change in the industry that had been implemented with a positive intent that may also be having a different, unintended negative effect on the game (the heaters?). Right or wrong, he should be lauded for trying to shed light on the subject so that the great minds can scratch their heads and try to figure out exactly where this gremlin is hiding.
Again, to quote Shaun Murphy's article:
"....the reason for this has never been discovered...until now, I BELIEVE (empasis added).
This increase in friction is caused by a chemical reaction taking place involving four elements - the cloth and the oil in it, the phenolic resin covering of the ball and the table heaters."
I do know that players in my club will cry "Kick!" with surprising frequency, but when watching, I disagree with that assessment probably 90 per cent of the time or more. When I am playing, I feel that I experience an actual Kick maybe once per session (about three or four hours) if even that often. Biggest difference on my table is that it is not heated so temperature of the bed and balls is ambient, and the cloth is Strachan 6811 Club so it is much heavier than tournament cloth. I stated above and I repeat that it seems to me that the vast majority of Kicks occur on shots with follow and with that principle in mind, the game should be approached with stun and screw as the major weapons in the arsenal. In my view, probably 80 per cent of shot selection should be stun or screw, but from what I witness in amateur play, that number is nearly reversed--probably 60 or 70 percent of shots by amateurs seem to be either natural roll (slightly above center) or follow. In my opinion, this opens an amateur up to greater potential for a Kick. If you watch professional shot selection closely, I think you will agree with me that they will actively avoid leaving themselves position which will require follow unless it is absolutely necessary. And if a follow is required, much better to have a crisp contact with a proper stun run through rather than a lackadaisical, dead weight follow. I think the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the underlying cause of Kicks is some (as yet unproven) source of surprising friction between the balls at the moment of impact. With that in mind, for the greatest potential to avoid a Kick, it is my opinion to avoid forward spin on the cue ball whenever possible to prevent it from "climbing up" the object ball and thereby causing a Kick.