Pool Myths Explained

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?

Snooker and pool both involve round balls knocking into each other. I am talking from the perspective of physics. In physics, there is no such thing as "purity of stroke". There are such things as position, momentum, and angular momentum. As soon as the cue ball stops contacting the cue, the "purity" of the stroke becomes irrelevant, and all that matters is position, momentum, and spin. There's no quantum mechanics here, no "spooky action at a distance," we're talking about basic Newtonian physics. The cue ball doesn't have any memory of how purely it was stroked (beyond position, momentum, and spin)

Like I said, it's possible that some players use more or less spin, tend to hit harder or softer, or leave themselves thinner or thicker angles. All these things could affect how many kicks they get. There's also the slim possibility that some players strike the cue ball in such a way that it leaves less chalk marks, or maybe they chalk their cue less often. If "purity" translates into one of these, then it could affect kicks as well. But if it doesn't, then it won't.

It isn't voodoo, it's physics.
 
Regarding fundamentalists....

....we're screwed, guys.....
 

Attachments

  • Billiards in heaven.jpg
    Billiards in heaven.jpg
    65.3 KB · Views: 245
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.

Again, I'm not talking about the conduction of current, I'm speaking of static charges. Of course, wood is a very poor conductor of electrical current, but it can in fact become charged under various circumstances.

Folks operating wood mills using high-speed wood surfacing equipment often have trouble using in-line capacitive moisture meters if the wood is very dry because the static charge on the wood surface interferes with the readings. Also, wood dust flowing past the walls of PVC dust collection pipes can create a charge large enough to cause a spark that can set off an explosion that could blow the roof off the building (similar to explosions inside grain silos) if the air/fuel mix inside the pipe is just right. All dust collection systems with plastic piping should have internal grounding straps to dissipate this charge for safety reasons.

The dust I mentioned on the balls would not create a problem because of static discharge (which would be extremely low in energy even if it did occur), but rather because of the increased friction of the chalk dust on the interacting surfaces. In light of Dr. Dave's recent experiments on ball cleaning methods and throw, surely dust collected onto the ball surface must be examined as a possible cause of severe throw (skid). I'm not claiming that this is definitely what happens during all skids, but the idea isn't so far fetched and should be at least considered as a possible contributory factor - a much more plausible explanation than an "impure hit."
 
I had a conversation recently with a pro player regarding skids and he was convinced that they were mostly caused by an elevated cuing action, which causes the cue ball to be slightly airborne on contact, and at certain angles, will trap the object ball between the cue ball and the cloth, resulting in a skid-like contact. Another thing he said was that sometimes the object ball will settle into slight divots in the cloth (especially on older cloth) and that will cause the balls to skid on contact as well.

I was and am still pretty skeptical, but he seems absolutely convinced about his theories, so just throwing it out there as something to consider.
 
Last edited:
well stated......sometimes "fundamentalist's" need be reminded....... ;)

Hi CJ...Did you miss me ? ;) Going slightly off topic here, but I was just wondering how it was going, with your long awaited 'secret' enterprise, regarding your plans to bring televised pool to the hungry masses. (who are trying to [sic] pretend they don't want it :o) ?.. I have not heard you mention it lately...Did you, perhaps, wisely give up on it ? ..You remember, I sincerely wished you good luck, and success with it !..I was just curious how you were going to implement it ?..Big name sponsors...A wealthy angel...Your own cash ??? :confused:..C'mon, throw me a few scraps of info !

As is often the case, (with you at least)..I have a completely different outlook, on the feasibility of such a difficult venture..Here is my response to another overly optimistic friend, in another thread...I guess you may have missed it, as my last sentence was a direct challenge to your worthy efforts at bringing pool, out of the doldrums !..I hate to be so negative, about the game we both love, but I would be very interested to hear your take, (aka refutiation) on my outlook...Don't be bashful, as you know, I have VERY thick skin ! :o

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4965700&postcount=51

heers,

SJD

PS..Are you any relation to my good friend, Roger Long ? :confused:
 
Last edited:
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.

I suggest people who are not from a snooker background stay out of this debate.
 
I suggest people who are not from a snooker background stay out of this debate.

Lol...

Look Ron, I'm with you on the snooker thing. I agree snooker players are vastly superior cueists, they hit the ball with more "purity," and their fundamentals are unmatched. It's a game that's orders of magnitudes more difficult than American pool.

But this...is just pathetic. Either give a brief explanation re "quality of hit" and skids, or STFU; the only person embarrassing himself in this thread is you.
 
I had a conversation recently with a pro player regarding skids and he was convinced that they were mostly caused by an elevated cuing action, which causes the cue ball to be slightly airborne on contact, and at certain angles, will trap the object ball between the cue ball and the cloth, resulting in a skid-like contact. Another thing he said was that sometimes the object ball will settle into slight divots in the cloth (especially on older cloth) and that will cause the balls to skid on contact as well.

I was and am still pretty skeptical, but he seems absolutely convinced about his theories, so just throwing it out there as something to consider.

The confusion stems from how you define 'kick'. Convention wisdom in snooker had it that 'kick' meant chalk, leading to excessive and obsessive cleaning of the CB. Kicks continued, happened more often in fact. The more chalk was targeted as the cause, the worse the problem became. So people started to think differently. Chalk has to my knowledge remained virtually the only thing that has stayed the same since snooker popularised - tables, cloth, balls, venues etc, have all changed. So why are there more 'kicks' today than there were in the past?

Hence broadening the term to'bad contact'. Broadly, this is where the player feels the reaction of CB leaving the OB is not as he was expecting, robbing him of anticipated position. There are probably many causes for a 'bad contact', with poor cueing prime suspect. Other factors will include balls (older super crystalates kicked far less than todays balls), super fine shaved cloths, heated tables, climate control etc.

One thing is clear: the only professional cue sport no longer obsesses over chalk, and TFFT.
 
Lol...

Look Ron, I'm with you on the snooker thing. I agree snooker players are vastly superior cueists, they hit the ball with more "purity," and their fundamentals are unmatched. It's a game that's orders of magnitudes more difficult than American pool.

But this...is just pathetic. Either give a brief explanation re "quality of hit" and skids, or STFU; the only person embarrassing himself in this thread is you.

Victor's pro chum explained it well enough.

It baffles and amuses me in equal measure how americans dont understand the concept of a pure hit lol.
 
Victor's pro chum explained it well enough.

It baffles and amuses me in equal measure how americans dont understand the concept of a pure hit lol.

It's really not an American/British thing. There are plenty of Brits that understand physics. Like Stephen Hawking. You're just not one of them.
 
The biggest myth:

"It's the Indian, not the arrow."

This can be scientifically tested and shown to be a myth. In fact, I'm surprised Dr. Dave hasn't gotten 20 Indians and split them into two groups: 10 Indians with straight arrows and 10 Indians with warped, out-of-balance arrows.

Put Barry Behrmann on a spot fifty paces from the foul line and see how many Indians from each group can put an arrow through BB's heart. I doubt Dr. Dave would even need to use the high-speed, slow-motion camera (although that would be cool).

The Indians with straight arrows will win and the Myth will be BUSTED!


If a person has a repeatable stroke and stance then the straightness of the cue really doesn't matter.

When you put your bridge down and aim the tip to the ball, just because the shaft or butt is warped is not going to change where the tip is going to hit.

Unless your stroke is not repeatable, but then again if its not then a straight shaft/butt isnt helping you to begin with.
 
So why are there more 'kicks' today than there were in the past?
How do we know whether or not this is just anecdotal hearsay? Has anybody done a careful experiment comparing the old equipment with the new? It wouldn't be that difficult.

Maybe people (both players and spectators) are just more aware of cling/skid/kick now. Also, maybe more people now like to blame shot misses on things out of their control. Also, maybe more people now confuse a "normal amount of throw" with "cling/skid/kick resulting from a bad hit" (especially with slow stun shots). (BTW, "bad hit" refers to the higher-than-normal-friction occurring between the CB and OB ... it has nothing to do with the shooter or the stroke.)

Have you read the cling/skid/kick resource page, and have you viewed all of the videos and articles linked on the page? Check them out and share them with your snooker friends who have similar thinking. The resources might help offer a new perspective.

Regards,
Dave
 
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?

One more thing to add. The claim that dominant players have fewest kicks is based only on human observation, and humans are notoriously bad at determining whether observed effects are statistically significant. My guess is that this is isn't actually happening. If it is happening, then it either has to do with the equipment that top players play on more frequently than others, or something about the direction, speed and spin that they use in their shots. Not something mystical like sunspots, UFOs, or "purity of stroke".

It wouldn't be the first time that conventional wisdom in a sport is wrong.
 
Back
Top