Pool Myths Explained

[dr_dave]

I have never been convinced that static electricity isn't one of the causes
of skids...or kicks as the snooker world calls them.

Here is one story....I was there.

Jimmy White was playing somebody? in Toronto...late 80s...
...I dropped in about halfway through the match...
...Jimmy said to me at the break "I can't believe how many kicks we're
getting....almost every second shot."
The referee was Bob Hargrove and he was using white nylon gloves..
...BCE was sponsoring the event and Keith Whybrow was there as
head of BCE Canada.
Keith asked Bob to switch gloves with Graham Duncan, who had white
COTTON gloves.

Snooker referees clean the balls with their gloves whenever they pick
them up....

THE KICKS STOPPED HAPPENING

Does anybody have another explanation other than static electricity?

FYI, many possible theories for what causes cling/skid/kick can be found on the cling/skid/kick resource page. Check them out, along with the supporting video demonstrations and experimental results.

There are many possible explanations for your story:

1.) Maybe the balls were cleaned with a substance that caused more cling than normal, and maybe the cotton gloves rubbed the substance off more easily, or maybe after enough play and wiping with both types of gloves, the residue on the balls wore off over time.

2.) Maybe the players misinterpreted what they saw. Maybe some of the shots that were thought to be the result of cling/skid/kick actually had a normal (albeit large) amount of throw (e.g., if some of the shots were stunned or hit with very slow speed).

3.) Maybe the nylon gloves had a substance on them that was being rubbed onto the balls (e.g., if the gloves were washed and/or dried with a fabric-softener liquid or sheet).

4.) Maybe there was an extreme amount of static electricity (due to dry conditions, and exacerbated by the nylon gloves), and maybe there was an extreme amount of chalk dust in and on the cloth that stuck to the balls. Chalk on the balls is known to cause cling/skid/kick; although, I am not aware of any tests that have been done to determine if fine chalk dust held by static electricity (even in filthy conditions, which is unlikely at a snooker event) would be a likely culprit or not. I would guess not, but I don't know for sure. Maybe you or others could do a simple experiment to test this theory.

5.) Maybe the whole thing was in their heads or the result of odd coincidences (e.g., maybe fresh chalk marks on the CB happened to end up at the CB-OB contact point for several shots).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Personally, i think most bad contacts are the result of bad cueing.

Definitely agree. It's a shame this isn't brought up more often as a possible reason. I know Hendry has mentioned it in commentary at least.

In a TAR interview Johnny Archer said he seems most likely to get a skid when he's "poked" at the ball and not followed through properly. He said that if he strokes properly and does a full follow through he won't get a skid.

According to this thread his reasoning contains a couple of myths. But, let's give him a break, he's new to the game.

The only thing I can confirm about these quotes is that some myths are unfortunately being perpetuated and reinforced in this myth-busting thread.

If by "bad cueing" or non "full follow through" you mean the CB was hit with less speed than desired, than it is reasonable to suggest that there would be more throw than expected, and some people might misinterpret this extra amount of throw as cling/skid/kick.

However, how the CB is struck has absolutely nothing to do with how the OB responds to the CB. The OB doesn't "care" how the CB was struck by the player. It only cares about the ball contact point, the type and amount of CB spin, and the CB speed (and the condition of the surfaces of the balls at the contact point). Now, if "how the CB was struck" affects the cut angle, spin, or speed, then the outcome of the shot will obviously be different. However, there will be cling/skid/kick only if there is more friction than normal at the contact point between the balls. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the CB was struck well or not, regardless of what anybody might say or claim.

Now, if the CB is struck in a way such that a fresh chalk mark on the CB happens to end up at the contact point with the OB, then cling/skid/kick would be guaranteed. For example, with straight follow shots at a certain distance, cling/skid/kick is pretty much guaranteed (for more info, see: "Throw Follow-up: Part IV: Follow Cling" - BD, October, 2014). Other examples of types of shot where cling/skid/kick might be more likely are discussed in an article by George Onoda (see pp. 13-14 here).

Regards,
Dave

 

[bdorman]

You get charged up yourself from walking around the table, and you can transfer this charge to the CB through your cue in the instant the tip makes contact.

You can't transfer any electric charge in your body to the CB via the cue. The wood simply won't conduct the electricity. Heck, you could wire the butt end of the cue into a 120v outlet and nothing would occur at the tip end.

Besides, two billiard balls on the same table are not going to have opposite charges (which would attract oppositely charged electrons (dust) to cling to them). Negative dust is going to come in contact with negative dust and there will be no transfer of electricity.

But I do like the excuse and am going to add it to my list of Why-I-Missed-Excuses.

 

[Ron Swanson]

You can't transfer any electric charge in your body to the CB via the cue. The wood simply won't conduct the electricity. Heck, you could wire the butt end of the cue into a 120v outlet and nothing would occur at the tip end.

Besides, two billiard balls on the same table are not going to have opposite charges (which would attract oppositely charged electrons (dust) to cling to them). Negative dust is going to come in contact with negative dust and there will be no transfer of electricity.

But I do like the excuse and am going to add it to my list of Why-I-Missed-Excuses.

Snooker cues have brass ferrules - i wonder if that could make a difference?

 

[Ron Swanson]

The only thing I can confirm about these quotes is that some myths are unfortunately being perpetuated and reinforced in this myth-busting thread.

If by "bad cueing" or non "full follow through" you mean the CB was hit with less speed than desired, than it is reasonable to suggest that there would be more throw than expected, and some people might misinterpret this extra amount of throw as cling/skid/kick.

However, how the CB is struck has absolutely nothing to do with how the OB responds to the CB. The OB doesn't "care" how the CB was struck by the player. It only cares about the ball contact point, the type and amount of CB spin, and the CB speed (and the condition of the surfaces of the balls at the contact point). Now, if "how the CB was struck" affects the cut angle, spin, or speed, then the outcome of the shot will obviously be different. However, there will be cling/skid/kick only if there is more friction than normal at the contact point between the balls. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the CB was struck well or not, regardless of what anybody might say or claim.

Now, if the CB is struck in a way such that a fresh chalk mark on the CB happens to end up at the contact point with the OB, then cling/skid/kick would be guaranteed. For example, with straight follow shots at a certain distance, cling/skid/kick is pretty much guaranteed (for more info, see: "Throw Follow-up: Part IV: Follow Cling" - BD, October, 2014). Other examples of types of shot where cling/skid/kick might be more likely are discussed in an article by George Onoda (see pp. 13-14 here).

Regards,
Dave

Again, important to separate snooker from pool. The snooker world simply does not buy your assertions. Stephen hendry is possibly the greatest cue sport player ever. I listen carefully to what he has to say. Why should he get fewer kicks than his opponents? Why did he, who monstered the ball and was forever at the table, get fewer kicks than his opponent who didn't and wasn't?

I've long thought there's a good opportunity for a physics geek in snooker. Whilst the presentational style of the major bbc tournaments works, broadly, it could do with a bit of tweaking here and there, not least to modernise. Could be quite lucrative work for someone who is able to demonstrate exactly what is going on.

 

[buddha162]

Why should he get fewer kicks than his opponents? Why did he, who monstered the ball and was forever at the table, get fewer kicks than his opponent who didn't and wasn't?

There are far greater coincidences in the universe than Hendry's perceived fewer kicks.

 

[Ron Swanson]

There are far greater coincidences in the universe than Hendry's perceived fewer kicks.

Indeed there are. Why don't you start a thread on them?

 

[buddha162]

Indeed there are. Why don't you start a thread on them?

Why would I do that?

It would help your hypothesis re bad cueing if you care to explain how. Friction is a pretty solid hypothesis, but I'm open to other possibilities. Not quite enough to take your word (or Hendry's) on faith.

 

[dr_dave]

It would help your hypothesis re bad cueing if you care to explain how. Friction is a pretty solid hypothesis, but I'm open to other possibilities. Not quite enough to take your word (or Hendry's) on faith.

The only attempt at an explanation I've heard to date is:

Pixie Dust

... but I don't buy it. :grin-square:

Regards,
Dave

 

[Ron Swanson]

Why would I do that?

It would help your hypothesis re bad cueing if you care to explain how. Friction is a pretty solid hypothesis, but I'm open to other possibilities. Not quite enough to take your word (or Hendry's) on faith.

Purity of hit.

No one is denying what friction does.

 

[Neil]

Purity of hit.

No one is denying what friction does.

Between what? The tip and the cb, or the the cb and the ob? Please explain what you mean by "purity of hit".

 

[Ron Swanson]

The only attempt at an explanation I've heard to date is:

Pixie Dust

... but I don't buy it. :grin-square:

Regards,
Dave

There are several interesting threads on thesnookerforum. Why don't you check them out.

It would also be interesting to see how they take to your 100 myths.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Purity of hit. ...

And what does that mean? After the ball leaves the tip nine numbers describe its complete state:

• location x,y,z
• velocity in x, in y, and in z
• rotation, around the x, y and z axes

In which of those numbers does a "pure" stroke differ from an inferior stroke?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Between what? The tip and the cb, or the the cb and the ob? Please explain what you mean by "purity of hit".

This may come as a shock to an aiming system fundamentalist, but there is only one ball on the table that counts. You work out which one.

 

[Ron Swanson]

And what does that mean? After the ball leaves the tip nine numbers describe its complete state:

• location x,y,z
• velocity in x, in y, and in z
• rotation, around the x, y and z axes

In which of those numbers does a "pure" stroke differ from an inferior stroke?

Ask stephen hendry.

 

[ineedaspot]

And what does that mean? After the ball leaves the tip nine numbers describe its complete state:

• location x,y,z
• velocity in x, in y, and in z
• rotation, around the x, y and z axes

In which of those numbers does a "pure" stroke differ from an inferior stroke?

Exactly. The whole idea that "purity of stroke" affects skid/kick is really dumb. There are possible hypotheses, for example, maybe some players tend to hit balls harder or softer or use more or less spin, or like to leave themselves thinner or thicker angles. These things could affect the number of skids/kicks a player gets on average.

But it has nothing to do with "purity" it has to do with velocity, location, and spin.

 

[Neil]

This may come as a shock to an aiming system fundamentalist, but there is only one ball on the table that counts. You work out which one.

Didn't think you had a clue what you were saying. Thanks for proving it.

 

[CJ Wiley]

"fundamentalist's" need be reminded...

well stated......sometimes "fundamentalist's" need be reminded.......

This may come as a shock to an aiming system fundamentalist, but there is only one ball on the table that counts. You work out which one.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Exactly. The whole idea that "purity of stroke" affects skid/kick is really dumb. There are possible hypotheses, for example, maybe some players tend to hit balls harder or softer or use more or less spin, or like to leave themselves thinner or thicker angles. These things could affect the number of skids/kicks a player gets on average.

But it has nothing to do with "purity" it has to do with velocity, location, and spin.

Once again, i am talking from a pro snooker perspective only, where conventional wisdom has shifted in recent years.

Perhaps you can tell me why the dominant players have fewest kicks? Are they sprinkled by the kick fairy?

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Ask stephen hendry.

So basically you're talking out your ass on a subject your idol knows about? Let's put it this way, at any point in time I can forcably make a ball skid. It's all friction based for a skid/cling/kick to happen. The elastic properties of the ball that make it bounce/rebound combined with the friction produced by its surface lead to a quagmire of what produces skids. But in reality it's not as convoluted as the math makes it seem. There's a term out there that describes how much friction a material has. Something along the lines of the force required to pull that material through an incline. When the elastic force is not strong enough to break the frictional force, a skid occurs.

Basically take Bob's X, Y, and Z's above and have the speed of impact produce a force greater than that of the rotational friction being applied and no skid can occur.