Backcuts: Why are they any different?

[Patrick Johnson]

I realized after I posted that my explanation would not apply to everyone because they dont focus on one quadrant like I do.

When I aim I focus on only one quadrant. A back cut has me focusing on the far side quadrant... the quadrant that doesnt allow me to view the whole quadrant from behind the cueball.


For an example I'll use your diagram. I'm dividing the ball into four quadrants from an overhead view. The ball is divided in half parallel to the side rails and again in half parallel to the end rails... making four quadrants.

Ball 2 can only be made in the target pocket by hitting the ball, in one of the quadrants. In this case the quadrant, looking at it from a top view like in the picture, would be the bottom right. No matter where it is on the table, if you want to pocket the ball in that target pocket you must make contact with the object ball within that quadrant (unless you bank it). So that is the quadrant I focus on for that pocket.

Ball 1 would need a top right quadrant for the chosen pocket.


A backcut does never allows me to see the whole quadrant I need while a regular cut gives me a view of the full quadrant I need.

I hope that makes sense.

I finally get what you're saying - and my diagram above doesn't show it, but it agrees with the shooting-away-from-the-rail definition of back cuts.

Another way of describing your back cut is whenever the CB crosses an OB's quadrant line before hitting it. Because the quadrant lines are oriented to the table, this can only occur when you're shooting away from the rail. Interesting way to look at it.

pj
chgo

 

[Lou Loulacy]

On back cuts ( also known as blind pocket shots where I come from) I just go look at the
pocket through the object ball....and keep my eye on the object ball as I walk back to the
cue ball.
Works for me....try it

Agreed. Ever used specs of chalk on the table to draw an imaginary line as a reference point? I sometimes do that. Works great until you rely on it and run into new felt =]

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

 

[(((Satori)))]

I finally get what you're saying - and my diagram above doesn't show it, but it agrees with the shooting-away-from-the-rail definition of back cuts.

Another way of describing your back cut is whenever the CB crosses an OB's quadrant line before hitting it. Because the quadrant lines are oriented to the table, this can only occur when you're shooting away from the rail. Interesting way to look at it.

pj
chgo

Exacty!

.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Cutting back toward the rail you're shooting from is a back cut - and there are also back cuts to the side pockets. They're also "blind pocket" shots, but without shooting away from a rail.

I think both of the shots shown below are back cuts.

pj
chgo

View attachment 1059

 

[Colin Colenso]

So you just dropped by to tell that; Snooker Players > Pool Players.
Thnx for info. Only backcut snooker players even try is black ball from spot(and that is easily practiced to get high % because black is always then same place.) and that normally because they missed position.. More often than taking backcut they just play safe behind small colors.

I wasn't saying that at all, your own insecurity assumed it.

My point for those that read, is that on most US tables, shots along rails are aimed by most to come off the rail before hitting the pocket.

As such, a perceived 15 degree cut can be made with a 10 degree hit. With the same perceived angle cutting back, 17 or 18 degrees can be used to slide the OB in off the side rail.

In snooker and UK pool, hitting the side rail first is deadly, hence players get used to playing actual angle to the pocket.

I'm simply postulating a possible reason for my own experience that back cutting problems seem more common among US pool players than in the smaller pocket sports.

Feel free to disagree, but don't put words in my mouth.

Colin

 

[(((Satori)))]

Cutting back toward the rail you're shooting from is a back cut - and there are also back cuts to the side pockets. They're also "blind pocket" shots, but without shooting away from a rail.

I think both of the shots shown below are back cuts.

pj
chgo

View attachment 1059

Yeah, both are back.cuts because you are cutting across the ball imo.


There is a reason to orient the quadrants to the table... because when you orient, not only do you know that an objectball needs to be struck somewhere within one certain quadrant for pocketing in one certain pocket no matter where the ball rests on the table (unless you bank also one side pocket will have 2 possible quadrants depending on wether the objectball is on the upper half or lower half of the table), but with practice you can simply look at the location of the objectball on the table and know where within the proper quadrant to strike the objectball. Joe Tucker calls these aiming lines I believe.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Cutting back toward the rail you're shooting from is a back cut - and there are also back cuts to the side pockets. They're also "blind pocket" shots, but without shooting away from a rail.

I think both of the shots shown below are back cuts.

pj
chgo

I agree, in technical terms PJ, but when people say they struggle with back cuts, I'm imagining they are referring to shots where the CB is closer to the rail than the OB when cutting back to the pocket on that rail.

A bit like your shot on the 1 ball several posts back.

Colin

Edit: Attaching an image of the shot I'm perceiving, and illustrating the pot angle differential / tendency I mentioned earlier.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I agree, in technical terms PJ, but when people say they struggle with back cuts, I'm imagining they are referring to shots where the CB is closer to the rail than the OB when cutting back to the pocket on that rail.

A bit like your shot on the 1 ball several posts back.

Colin

Or the cueball could be closer to the ceter string for shots in the side, like in his second diagram.

 

[BRussell]

Cutting back toward the rail you're shooting from is a back cut - and there are also back cuts to the side pockets. They're also "blind pocket" shots, but without shooting away from a rail.

I think both of the shots shown below are back cuts.

pj
chgo

View attachment 1059

I don't understand why the side pocket shot is a back cut. Are all shots of that angle into the side back cuts? What shot into the side would not be a back cut? And what is a blind pocket cut?

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Edit: Attaching an image of the shot I'm perceiving, and illustrating the pot angle differential / tendency I mentioned earlier.

I don't think that the white line is where the effective center of the pocket is, if that's what the diagram is saying. I think it is in the pocket and close to the intersection of the rail grooves and close to the yellow line.

 

[Ron Swanson]

You guys are making this way too hard. It's a mental thing a lot of times (yes fundamental for some).

If you can make the forward cut shot you can make the back cut shot. Approach the shot with confidence regardless which way you are cutting the ball and do the same pre shot routine from start to finish that you normally do regardless of the shot.

Agreed. Virtually no shot on an american pool table is difficult. You just have to own the moher, is all.

 

[Electech]

my experience with this issue

Did not read all of the responses.

I had the same issue 10 or so years ago. Found out through a lesson that my sight plane alignment was wrong. "The brain will figure it out" theory sometimes just doesn't work.

Are you confident in your sight plane that it is correct and that the placement of you cue in relation to your eyes is centered in your plain and square? Is there a differentiate knock point for consistency? (yes its an archer term but it helps to summarize) Are they back cuts only to the bridge-hand side?

Back cuts to the bridge-hand side was my issue. My sight plain was wrong in relation to my cue and my head was turned to try and compensate I believe sub consciously. This was causing a dead sighting area when cutting to the left (bridge-hand side). I like to think of a pool stance in relation to shooting positions with either a gun or bow hence the term knock point.

https://www.google.com/search?q=knock+point&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=nock+point+definition

Consistency is what we try to repeatably achieve but the form has to be correct to accomplish the desired results. If your confident in the above then please disregard. Just an issue I am failure with.

There are several ways to check your alignment. search youtube for snooker lessons some great videos there are several other sources on this site.

Play well hope this helps.

I've always struggled with backcuts and I don't understand why, hopefully someone can explain.

It seems like my eyes have a hard time finding the shot line on backcuts. I'll get down to shoot and immediately realize that I've lined up wrong. I'll stand back up, try to see the shot again, then get down and realize that my aim is still off. I'll usually have to stand up and reset two or three times before I find the correct line to make the ball.

And oddly enough, my brain always wants to aim to undercut it into the rail, never overcut.

This is the only shot I really struggle with. The others I can get down and immediately know where I need to aim. The only other shot I sometimes struggle with is a spot shot from far away.

Before you ask: I don't use any aiming systems, I just know where to shoot most shots...except backcuts lol

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree, in technical terms PJ, but when people say they struggle with back cuts, I'm imagining they are referring to shots where the CB is closer to the rail than the OB when cutting back to the pocket on that rail.

A bit like your shot on the 1 ball several posts back.

Colin

Imagine a line drawn from one side pocket to the other across the table. If there was a rail where that line is, the two shots in my diagram would be identical mirror images of each other, with exactly the same visual cues. I think they are identical, which makes me think "back cuts" should be called "blind pocket shots" like pt109(?) suggested.

pj
chgo

 

[pdcue]

Agreed. Virtually no shot on an american pool table is difficult. You just have to own the moher, is all.

" Virtually no shot on an american pool table is difficult."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your lack of connection with reality is stunning.

Dale(who is tempted to explain why shots are, or are not, difficult)

 

[Ron Swanson]

" Virtually no shot on an american pool table is difficult."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your lack of connection with reality is stunning.

Dale(who is tempted to explain why shots are, or are not, difficult)

Explain! Explain!

 

[pt109]

Agreed. Virtually no shot on an american pool table is difficult. You just have to own the moher, is all.

Reminds me of a story about Tony Knowles....at the time he was ranked # 4 in the
WPBSA. He was at a BCA trade show promoting snooker tables...
....and he said how easy playing on a pool table was....
...so Rempe and Sigel stuck him up for $7,000....

Those pockets sure are big....but they're big for your opponent also....
....they look even bigger when the cue ball is heading for one.

 

[Cezar Morales]

I've always struggled with backcuts and I don't understand why, hopefully someone can explain.

It seems like my eyes have a hard time finding the shot line on backcuts. I'll get down to shoot and immediately realize that I've lined up wrong. I'll stand back up, try to see the shot again, then get down and realize that my aim is still off. I'll usually have to stand up and reset two or three times before I find the correct line to make the ball.

And oddly enough, my brain always wants to aim to undercut it into the rail, never overcut.

This is the only shot I really struggle with. The others I can get down and immediately know where I need to aim. The only other shot I sometimes struggle with is a spot shot from far away.

Before you ask: I don't use any aiming systems, I just know where to shoot most shots...except backcuts lol

Pretty obvious where ur problem is.

I used to have it.

Corey Duel once addressed it on Tar w John Schdmit.

You are aiming ur CUESTICK at the Point so your cue ball is gonna hit the object ball "THICK".

His solution was to aim where u want ur cue ball to hit ur object ball which means ur cue stick should not be pointing at the object ball, you should be aiming away.

So try aiming by using the side of the cue ball.

Just my 0.02

 

[Poolmanis]

I wasn't saying that at all, your own insecurity assumed it.

My point for those that read, is that on most US tables, shots along rails are aimed by most to come off the rail before hitting the pocket.

As such, a perceived 15 degree cut can be made with a 10 degree hit. With the same perceived angle cutting back, 17 or 18 degrees can be used to slide the OB in off the side rail.

In snooker and UK pool, hitting the side rail first is deadly, hence players get used to playing actual angle to the pocket.

I'm simply postulating a possible reason for my own experience that back cutting problems seem more common among US pool players than in the smaller pocket sports.

Feel free to disagree, but don't put words in my mouth.

Colin

I disagree and I just say many other cuesports underestimate pool players shotmaking ability because they miss shots and pockets are easy(kind of). Your comment were 90% same kind of comment what are at pool videos at Youtube
I play also snooker and Finnish Kaisa(lot harder pockets than Snooker and normally tighter than Russian Pyramid) and I sometimes shoot century breaks with poolcue and still snookerplayers think they are higher tear players than poolplayers because their game is so tight pockets etc...
Many times Snooker players just don´t get how difficult cut angles pool players shoot with high percentages. They realize it only after someone shoot those shots at snooker.. After they notice they even don´t think attacking that ball when poolplayer think that shot is quite routine.
After that they start to talk about Ronnie bla bla... (and i think Ronnie and Efren are the gods of cuesports)
Not to mention 1k pool videos where Snooker players come to bash the game and players .. I don´t remember any snooker vids where pool players come trolling..

I don´t put words in your mouth. And I´m not insecure.

 

[pdcue]

I don't think it's possible to stop using the visual cues given by the table's geometry - we do it almost entirely subconsciously.

However, I do think it's possible to substitute other visual cues, such as walking around to align the OB straight into the pocket to help you accurately locate the OB contact point.

pj
chgo

So, if it is impossible, how could I possibly do it all the time?

Dale( who must be a miraculous pool player)

 

[sebroy9]

I've always struggled with backcuts and I don't understand why, hopefully someone can explain.

It seems like my eyes have a hard time finding the shot line on backcuts. I'll get down to shoot and immediately realize that I've lined up wrong. I'll stand back up, try to see the shot again, then get down and realize that my aim is still off. I'll usually have to stand up and reset two or three times before I find the correct line to make the ball.

And oddly enough, my brain always wants to aim to undercut it into the rail, never overcut.

This is the only shot I really struggle with. The others I can get down and immediately know where I need to aim. The only other shot I sometimes struggle with is a spot shot from far away.

Before you ask: I don't use any aiming systems, I just know where to shoot most shots...except backcuts lol

If you are under cutting back cuts a lot practice back cuts only and focus on over cutting them a lot even if you miss as long as you over cut that's fine, then gradually find the balance so that you don't over cut anymore and you start to cut the ball properly. This way you will fine tune your aim to go between the under cut and the over cut and get a feel for that angle.

Also, when you have a severe cut, focus 100% on the edge of the cue ball with the edge of the object ball to cut the ball in.