Backcuts: Why are they any different?

BRussell said:

I do find it easier to aim, and I think I make more shots, along the rail than out in the middle of the table.

Click to expand...

Me too. In fact, I've always been surprised that many players seem to have more trouble with OBs frozen to the rail - those seem easier to me, not harder. Maybe it's because I visualize the OB contact point and that's made easier by having the rail pointing the way to the pocket.

pj
chgo

Maybe it is just me but I look at a cut shot as just that...a cut shot. I'm either cutting it to the right or the left. I think some people overthink it and it becomes a mental issue at the table.

ScottK said:

Incorrect.

Click to expand...

You are correct, that was a bad description.

Dale

I know we are talking about perspective. However isn't there cut induced throw that adds to it as well? Seems to me like the over cutters have already accounted for that in their head.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

West Point 1987 said:

Not a drill, but a neat observation...when you start missing shots you shouldn't and are slipping out of gear, try shooting a rack of balls whereby you make absolutely no adjustments...just drop down and shoot. If it looks wrong to you, DON'T adjust. Trust your initial alignment and don't let yourself talk yourself into adjusting to a miss. You will be surprised. It can get you back into gear quick. :smile:

Click to expand...

I do this often when I start struggling on easy shots just to make sure my alignment is on. While standing I align to the shot then drop down to the table without any adjustments and shoot. Its really amazing that it can be so easy to pocket balls without any fie adjustment. It makes you realize how much your brain can get in the way of pocketing balls.

I didn't read all replies, so apologies if I'm repeating this point.

But it seems to me, back-cutting is a much bigger issue for US table players than snooker players and UK pool players, who play into relatively smaller targets.

I suspect the reason is that on US tables, a lot of 15 degree front cuts are made with a 10 degree cut angle, via a slide off the side rail. On the same angle back cut, players are forced to align very differently to make the shot... and the pattern nature of US games encourages players to play front cuts about 5 times more often than they play back cuts.

I suspect all cuts, back and front, on a snooker table, would leave the average US pool players scratching their heads.

Colin

Colin Colenso said:

I didn't read all replies, so apologies if I'm repeating this point.

But it seems to me, back-cutting is a much bigger issue for US table players than snooker players and UK pool players, who play into relatively smaller targets.

I suspect the reason is that on US tables, a lot of 15 degree front cuts are made with a 10 degree cut angle, via a slide off the side rail. On the same angle back cut, players are forced to align very differently to make the shot... and the pattern nature of US games encourages players to play front cuts about 5 times more often than they play back cuts.

I suspect all cuts, back and front, on a snooker table, would leave the average US pool players scratching their heads.

Colin

Click to expand...

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.

Colin Colenso said:

I didn't read all replies, so apologies if I'm repeating this point.

But it seems to me, back-cutting is a much bigger issue for US table players than snooker players and UK pool players, who play into relatively smaller targets.

I suspect the reason is that on US tables, a lot of 15 degree front cuts are made with a 10 degree cut angle, via a slide off the side rail. On the same angle back cut, players are forced to align very differently to make the shot... and the pattern nature of US games encourages players to play front cuts about 5 times more often than they play back cuts.

I suspect all cuts, back and front, on a snooker table, would leave the average US pool players scratching their heads.

Colin

Click to expand...

Sorry, the pocket size has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it.

Dale

When you aim for a backcut you are aiming to hit the opposite side of the object ball and that is tougher for most people to judge since they do not get to practice it as much.

Imagine if you will the object ball divided into quadrants. (below is an overhead view). The quadrant is parallel to the side rail and end rail. A cut to the right requires you to hit somewhere inside the proper quadrant depending on the angle of the cut. A normal cut starts with you on the same side of the proper quadrant, giving you a good view. A backcut puts you on the opposite side of the proper quadrant making it tougher to judge.

A better way to describe the above post is by using Joe Tuckers aiming system. A cut is going to have you contact the object ball on one of the numbers. The ball is numbered on both sides. A regular cut will have you contact one of the numbers that is on the same side that the cueball is on. A backcut will have you contacting one of the numbers that is opposite the side the cueball is on. You are cutting across the ball.

(((Satori))) said:

When you aim for a backcut you are aiming to hit the opposite side of the object ball and that is tougher for most people to judge since they do not get to practice it as much.

Imagine if you will the object ball divided into quadrants. (below is an overhead view). The quadrant is parallel to the side rail and end rail. A cut to the right requires you to hit somewhere inside the proper quadrant depending on the angle of the cut. A normal cut starts with you on the same side of the proper quadrant, giving you a good view. A backcut puts you on the opposite side of the proper quadrant making it tougher to judge. Even if you are simply looking for a contact point you are still looking across the ball when looking at a backcut.

Click to expand...

I don't get it.

(((Satori))) said:

A better way to describe the above post is by using Joe Tuckers aiming system. A cut is going to have you contact the object ball on one of the numbers. The ball is numbered on both sides. A regular cut will have you contact one of the numbers that is on the same side that the cueball is on. A backcut will have you contacting one of the numbers that is opposite the side the cueball is on. You are cutting across the ball.

Click to expand...

I still don't get it.

BRussell said:

I don't get it.

Click to expand...

That is because I can't explain it.:smile:

Sorry!

(((Satori))) said:

A better way to describe the above post is by using Joe Tuckers aiming system. A cut is going to have you contact the object ball on one of the numbers. The ball is numbered on both sides. A regular cut will have you contact one of the numbers that is on the same side that the cueball is on. A backcut will have you contacting one of the numbers that is opposite the side the cueball is on. You are cutting across the ball.

Click to expand...

I think all back cuts are shots like this, but not all shots like this are back cuts.

For instance, here are two shots with that kind of cut - one is a back cut (the 1 ball) and the other isn't (the 2 ball). The only difference is that the back cut is shooting away from the "visual cue" rail and the other is shooting toward it.

pj
chgo

View attachment 61638

Patrick Johnson said:

I think all back cuts are shots like this, but not all shots like this are back cuts.

For instance, here are two shots with that kind of cut - one is a back cut (the 1 ball) and the other isn't (the 2 ball). The only difference is that the back cut is shooting away from the "visual cue" rail and the other is shooting toward it.

pj
chgo

View attachment 61638

Click to expand...

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.

Good illustration PJ.
I just went to my table and made both shots 5 times in a row with just one visual reference. The heart of the ghost ball.

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

pt109 said:

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

Click to expand...

This is how I learned to visualize then too. After a (long) while I didn't need to walk around any more, but I still have to be a little more careful with them.

pj
chgo

I didn't read any replies, so sorry if I repeat an answer, but... They are no different. Every single (normal) cut shot can be explained as follows: The cueball a has to cut object ball b into pocket c at angle d. This is true for all shots whether you think it's a "backcut" or not. Your problem is you are not seeing the shot for what it is. A simple cut shot. You are letting the rails (or lack of) influence your perception of the shot for what it is, just a cut shot.

You need to be able to stand back and look at the shot and the angle needed to cut it, and you need to be able to do this with no external references like the rails. Take your stick and hold it across the centers of the cueball and the object ball your cutting if you need to to get a sense of how much angle is needed for the cut. You'd probably be surprised how deceptive certain shallow angles can really be (most normal shots are not more than a half ball cut which is 30 degrees or less)

I would suggest working on a ton of half ball cuts with the object ball away from the rail. They are easy to make because you only need to aim at the edge of the ball and you will lock in what that kind of shot looks like at all spots on the table. Then when you can recognize that kind of shot easily you'll be able to better see when shots are more or less than the half ball hit and be able to adjust accordingly...

As always tons of practice is needed. And I mean practice, not just slap a bunch of balls around hoping to get the occasional back cut to try out. You'll learn nothing that way.

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.