Inside English vs Outside English

Patrick Johnson said:
Assuming you're talking about OB throw, I haven't (intentionally) said anything about that in this thread. Can you show me where so I can correct it?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Your first post in this thread. There you say that "inside english usually reduces throw". How does that square with your definitions here that...

Inside/reversing spin = spin that tends to reduce CB speed when it rubs against a ball or rail.
Outside/running spin = spin that tends to increase CB speed when it rubs against a ball or rail.
Click to expand...
And what exactly do you mean by "reduce" and "increase" CB speed when it rubs against another ball? Reduce/increase with respect to what? The zero friction case? Or the case if there is no side spin (stun)? In either case, your definitions have problems.
 
Matt said:
Call it what you want, but if I tried to describe what english to use when hitting into a rail on a kick shot by using inside/outside instead of running/reverse or right/left, I wouldn't be surprised if I got a blank stare in return.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if it was otherwise.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue my case, just trying to make myself clear on a slippery subject. Basically, I think it's useful to know that the same things go on between ball/ball and ball/rail (but at different scales), and I wish our terms more clearly represented that similarity. That's all.

pj
chgo
 
Michael Andros said:
"The expression comes from English snooker, a pool game where one of the main strategies is to block an opponent from having a straight line shot at a ball he must hit.
To do this, the shooter will create a spin on his shot to circumvent the obstruction.
This spin is called “putting English on it.”


Or, so says one of 34,802,667,109 sites on the internet! :grin:
Click to expand...

It's not official until Patrick Johnson confirms it.
 
jsp said:
Your first post in this thread. There you say that "inside english usually reduces throw". How does that square with your definitions here that...

Inside/reversing spin = spin that tends to reduce CB speed when it rubs against a ball or rail.
Outside/running spin = spin that tends to increase CB speed when it rubs against a ball or rail.
Click to expand...
I meant to get around that by saying "tends to" - how about "spin that seems like it should slow the ball"? :)

And what exactly do you mean by "reduce" and "increase" CB speed when it rubs against another ball? Reduce/increase with respect to what?
Click to expand...
CB speed.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Its after-collision speed can be increased with outside/running spin (and decreased with inside/reverse spin).
Click to expand...
Okay, that's what I thought you meant initially. Which is why I asked what is the reference after-collision speed that is used for comparison (in determining whether the CB speed is increased or decreased)? Is it the after-collision speed of the zero friction case or the after collision speed of the no side spin (stun) case?

If the reference case is the after-collision speed with zero friction, then assuming the OB goes in the same direction then the CB speed will always be lower in the non-zero friction case, regardless of the side spin direction. The presence of friction will always results in a slower CB speed compared to the friction-less case.

If the reference case is the after-collision speed with no side spin, then as we both know there are cases where throw can increase with outside spin and decrease with inside spin, which would lead to after-collision speeds opposite to what your definitions say.

And I don't think it's very scientific to put "tends to" in any definition to weasel out of the cases where the definition simply doesn't apply. :p
 
jsp said:
If the reference case is the after-collision speed with zero friction, then assuming the OB goes in the same direction then the CB speed will always be lower in the non-zero friction case, regardless of the side spin direction. The presence of friction will always results in a slower CB speed compared to the friction-less case.
Click to expand...
Having thought of it a bit more, I think I'm wrong about this. Outside english can result in a higher after-collision speed (compared to the zero friction case) provided the OB is thrown in the direction of the spin.
 
The subject of this thread is very simple to learn and understand but, at the same time, it's one of those subjects that differ just enough between most to make it complicated to anyone that has not played for years.

There, that should be clear as mud as well.

Rake
 
jsp said:
I don't think it's very scientific to put "tends to" in any definition to weasel out of the cases where the definition simply doesn't apply. :p
Click to expand...
My "definitions" are only intended to be understandable indications of the direction of spin, not "scientific" definitions of all possible outcomes. I'm open to suggestion if you have better alternatives (that don't differentiate between ball/ball and ball/rail collisions).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
My "definitions" are only intended to be understandable indications of the direction of spin, not "scientific" definitions of all possible outcomes. I'm open to suggestion if you have better alternatives (that don't differentiate between ball/ball and ball/rail collisions).



pj

chgo
Click to expand...


Clockwise and counter-clockwise?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Patrick Johnson said:
My "definitions" are only intended to be understandable indications of the direction of spin, not "scientific" definitions of all possible outcomes. I'm open to suggestion if you have better alternatives (that don't differentiate between ball/ball and ball/rail collisions).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

MattPoland said:
Clockwise and counter-clockwise?
Click to expand...
:)

How about this?

- inside/reverse = when (or as if) the CB is hit on the same side as the OB or rail it hits

-outside/running = when (or as if) the CB is hit on the opposite side from the OB or rail it hits

pj
chgo
 
More seriously, there’s no single term that can describe all the aspects of a shot. And usually we don’t try to communicate all aspects of a shot. We tend to focus on the aspect we find relevant. When talking about a single aspect, certain terms are more effective than others.

Here’s my preference...

OB Throw: Right vs.Left English (I’m more focused on indicating how I’m altering the natural OB direction. I expect my audience to know right throws left and vice versa).

CB Path: Reverse vs. Running English (I’m more focused on indicting how I’m getting position. Running around the table versus holding up.)

One-Rail Kicks: Left vs. Right (I’m indicating whether I’m widening or shortening the CB rebound path)

Multi-Rail Kicks: Short vs. Long (I’m usually indicating if I’m trying to alter the natural reference path I’m anticipating).

Banks: Inside vs. Outside (I’m indicating whether I am widening or shortening the OB rebound path.)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
MattPoland said:
More seriously, there’s no single term that can describe all the aspects of a shot. And usually we don’t try to communicate all aspects of a shot. We tend to focus on the aspect we find relevant. When talking about a single aspect, certain terms are more effective than others.

Here’s my preference...

OB Throw: Right vs.Left English (I’m more focused on indicating how I’m altering the natural OB direction. I expect my audience to know right throws left and vice versa).

CB Path: Reverse vs. Running English (I’m more focused on indicting how I’m getting position. Running around the table versus holding up.)

One-Rail Kicks: Left vs. Right (I’m indicating whether I’m widening or shortening the CB rebound path)

Multi-Rail Kicks: Short vs. Long (I’m usually indicating if I’m trying to alter the natural reference path I’m anticipating).

Banks: Inside vs. Outside (I’m indicating whether I am widening or shortening the OB rebound path.)
Click to expand...
Those work for very specific shots, like when a table diagram is posted. But they're mostly not general enough for talking about how spin works in principle.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Those work for very specific shots, like when a table diagram is posted. But they're mostly not general enough for talking about how spin works in principle.



pj

chgo
Click to expand...


I feel like I may be seeing your point.

I think that draws out two standards of communication. If we are loosely speaking about spin “in general” or in terms of “typically” then I agree that you can say things like “outside typically speeds up the ball”. If you’re willing to ignore the exceptions to make a general point, then sure. That’s an effective use of language.

But when we are speaking about spin for a specific purpose, using any dichotomy terms are inherently two-dimensional. The principles of spin are multi-dimensional relative to other concepts. Their implications change depend on what concept you are juxtaposing them with. That’s already illustrated by how inside can be reverse or running based on cut angle or whether you’re incorporating draw or follow. When talking in specific, you have to switch to terms that tailor to the effect your emphasizing or include more information when using the term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
MattPoland said:
I feel like I may be seeing your point.

I think that draws out two standards of communication. If we are loosely speaking about spin “in general” or in terms of “typically” then I agree that you can say things like “outside typically speeds up the ball”. If you’re willing to ignore the exceptions to make a general point, then sure. That’s an effective use of language.

But when we are speaking about spin for a specific purpose, using any dichotomy terms are inherently two-dimensional. The principles of spin are multi-dimensional relative to other concepts. Their implications change depend on what concept you are juxtaposing them with. That’s already illustrated by how inside can be reverse or running based on cut angle or whether you’re incorporating draw or follow. When talking in specific, you have to switch to terms that tailor to the effect your emphasizing or include more information when using the term.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, Matt - well put.

And I still assert that the supposed differences between CB/OB and CB/rail collisions/results are unnecessary and counter-instructive. But I probably gotta live with 'em. :)

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
:)

How about this?

- inside/reverse = when (or as if) the CB is hit on the same side as the OB or rail it hits

-outside/running = when (or as if) the CB is hit on the opposite side from the OB or rail it hits

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
You will continue to lose/confuse most posters on this thread, as long as you insist on grouping inside/outside with running/reverse. From what I see, after having yourself posted like 25 of the 99 total responses on this thread (which I started), and yet you are still trying, in vain, to argue your point on this topic.
 
ChrisinNC said:
You will continue to lose/confuse most posters on this thread, as long as you insist on grouping inside/outside with running/reverse. From what I see, after having yourself posted like 25 of the 99 total responses on this thread (which I started), and yet you are still trying, in vain, to argue your point on this topic.
Click to expand...
Chris, you can't win here. This guy will argue to his grave same as on the AimingForum. What he's trying to assert is nonsense. I just hope he's not teaching this to others because they will have to be "re-aligned" at some point. Like i said before, in 40yrs of being around the game i've NEVER heard of ONE player describing inside/outside and running/reverse in these terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top