You lost me after "In general.."
Problem With Our Understanding Of Side
- Thread starter Imac007
- Start date
I appreciate the "post on" after pj’s dismissive response and verbiage complaint.
With decades of experience in what it takes to reach peak performance and my insight of how to apply several of Dr. Dave’s findings about throw and how to get less of it, I wanted to give back to him and the game. I’m fighting to make it a tribute to the math and physics data that he admits have trouble finding their place in use at the table.
Who knew that a.simple geometry principle could be added and transform a combination of his findings into a simple way to virtually eliminate throw. Without his diagrams which came from hard work, a labor of love, there would have been no material to mould into what I view as a breakthrough in side utilization.
The founder of a local billiard academy uses and loves the method. Using it on all shots is misuse. It’s a tool. That said, the ability to pot balls consistently makes it highly addictive.
I really want players to take this to the table. Unless positioning or speed dynamics work best with outside side, nearly all other shots except the dead straight, work well.
I’ve made the transition to slick cloth more easily with this technique. The inside side cancelling acquired contact side does more than create a neutral cue ball. It removes energy from the total equation. That translates into less momentum. On slick tables a firmer stroke can be used than if center ball is used, with more control. Acquired spin keeps a ball moving until friction eventually stops it. It travels farther on the open table. If it hits a rail it travels less or more dependent on the angle to the rail.
On slower more felted tables side spin effect is magnified due to more friction. Judicious use on the heavier naps counters excess effects there too. Using the technique on a snooker table was eye opening. Pocketing is king on that surface. That is the techniques initial strength so I was able to focus more on pace. Better pocketing and better position make any game a lot easier.
Thanks for the perspectives and your time.
Last edited:
Your wording "The tendency for everyone to base aiming off of the original sight line" is what initiated the post. Adding in "amount of perceptual offset using the original sight line as a reference", triggered a whole entire combined data dump.
I have cues ranging from ld and light to heavy solid ash stiff with brass ferrules. I bought the ld shaft because I came from napped cloth snooker, stiff shafts, brass ferrules and smaller tips. There was a world of experience that now met bigger balls, cloth without nap and different deflection and swerve dynamics. Bringing my napped cloth experience using a snooker cue to the pool environment was a disaster. The ld shaft fixed a whole variety of the issues immediately. As to whether a ld cue using parallel side applies more spin compared to an equivalently weighted and similarity directionally cued solid shaft, I would say maybe. The physics math says unlikely. Players using them claim differently.
https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/low-squirt/
I would say that in everyday use most cues have a downward plane, adding up to table resistance. That lengthens the contact time on the surface. If the shaft is low deflection its length of contact time is longer in that context, increasing momentum velocity transfer time marginally. Dr. Dave’s link has another about how to increase spin if so desired.
My topic here created a nearsighted response. My thesis was about how to improve pocketing by removing throw, using side. It was about a novel method of applying side not currently being used in any mainstream sense known. Since your reply cited the original post, it likely triggered your response.
The context of my response would make no sense, without having read the subsequent posts, I apologize.
When posts turn into novellas i pass. On all of them.
I can’t believe YOU are trying to tell ME this. 14.1 was played on 5x10 for decades, and then 9’ tables when the standard pool hall table became smaller (9’). You have no idea why Mosconi broke the record on an 8’ Table, do you!? Next time YOU should ask ME (or anyone with a modicum of a clue) instead.
{snipped mind-numbing excess verbosity....}
The obvious thing that should raise anyone’s eyebrows on this graph is that with slight outside English on slow shot at about 60 degree cut, we have more cut-induced throw (CIT) than the same shot using no English or inside English. The outside “gearing English” increases rather than counteracts CIT in this special case.
Stroke on that for a few hours.
Freddie <~~~ can’t believe this thread
yo Imac!
in general, I'm a fan of your posts
you are clearly a thoughtful and creative person
and you make the time to post in those ways
thanks for that.
but like gar and others, I feel inundated with words
not grasping the concepts to begin with certainly doesn't help
that's my fault tho
honestly, my eyes are looking up at this whole thread
but I'm here..trying to pick up on what you're laying down
re: side, one thing I can contribute is some recent experience
ironically only after having a vertical axis revelation
did I realize that I can go way out on the cueball, like way out
to stay off the rail, and get back in line, including off straight-in balls
I also am realizing the importance of bridge elevation and how that affects
where the cue meets the rock
interesting stuff
even if we don't understand each other
we'll never have the chance
if we don't communicate
post on...
:yeah: ..............
Earlier I explained that side was not accumulative. Dr. Dave showed us that gearing english was based on his 40% calculation. The ¼ ball cut is at 49°, from there to 60° on the 25% graph posted earlier, the throw rises above a plain ball cut. The reality that friction based side dominates over slippery contact effect is illustrated here. On a near edge to edge contact out at 60° the 25% falls short of the 40% needed for gearing.
The 50% graph shown here reveals throw again, when the spin exceeds gearing. The gearing english point on the graph, shows it lies just shy of 40°, at about ⅓ contact. Beyond that turn speed, the cue ball drags the object ball forward generating throw once again. Before the gearing point the turn grips the ob throwing it in the direction of the turn, not the cb direction. Beyond the gearing point, the english loses its grip and the cb direction dominates the throw dynamic. When contact drops below ¼ or so, the ability of the cue ball mass to drag the ball forward, starts to diminish. Think about it, at 90° the balls barely touch and the ob goes sideways. That only happens if the throw effect from 60° to 90° declines to ~0. It glances off with no drag forward. The test results only show to about ⅛ contact.
The point about table size and games related to this topic is that 8 ball and straight pool are shorter shot games. The rotation games are more susceptible to throw issues, due to longer shots. That is the relevant point here. The popularity of 9 foot tables and 9 and 10 ball are more recent history. Between that and advent of slippery cloth, the whole topic around throw is more relevant, an historical reality.
Last edited:
yo Imac!
in general, I'm a fan of your posts
you are clearly a thoughtful and creative person
and you make the time to post in those ways
thanks for that.
but like gar and others, I feel inundated with words
not grasping the concepts to begin with certainly doesn't help
that's my fault tho
honestly, my eyes are looking up at this whole thread
but I'm here..trying to pick up on what you're laying down
re: side, one thing I can contribute is some recent experience
ironically only after having a vertical axis revelation
did I realize that I can go way out on the cueball, like way out
to stay off the rail, and get back in line, including off straight-in balls
I also am realizing the importance of bridge elevation and how that affects
where the cue meets the rock
interesting stuff
even if we don't understand each other
we'll never have the chance
if we don't communicate
post on...
Appreciate you sticking with the posts.
Short, to the point posts, assume prior knowledge.
Lack of base knowledge mean readers demand info which becomes verbose.
Nit pickers then need context to understand the info, more words.
Without facts, within context, detractors, with other context bias, claim "fake news".
Dealing with different Donald’s is my fate:thumbup:
You got caught in the middle somewhere. :grin:
I hope you try the technique and find it useful.
this is not an attack but i just wanted to point out that it also means u need to structure it in a manner that people can follow because right now it borderline reads like a stream of consciousness kind of thing.
The forum format is not the best for such discussions because there will always be so many tangent topics happening at once.. very easy to lose people this way.
you might want to consider updating your original post with all the updated information in bite-sized sections. judging from the responses on this thread so far maybe a summary of the concepts would be good to open each section before you explain the reasoning behind your theories/hypotheses etc... not sure if this will help move things forward
The issue I have is in assuming you know how all players think. You are making assumption that all players think like you do when it comes to spin. The use of the word “our” means everybody......which means me and you don’t have a clue about how I think about spin.
And the OB is not roughly in the ghostball location. It is in the OB location, which is not the same location as where the CB will be placed to make the OB go where you want. Those are two separate locations on the table. And using the bases of the balls for measuring.....those two locations, spots on the table, are a ball width apart.
So right there, that false assumptions that the OB is roughly in the ghostball location, makes your theories invalid.
And.....what’s is a medium speed shot? I see these terms, slow, medium, fast, used for cb speed......but they are really useless because they are subjective. I’ve never thought in those terms when determining the cb speed I want for the shot.
There are a lot of things that look good on paper, but when applied to the real world go to shit. They just don’t work or the information provided is of no value when applied to the real world........like the OB is roughly in the ghostball location. It either is or isn’t in the ghostball location, there is no roughly.
And the OB is not roughly in the ghostball location. It is in the OB location, which is not the same location as where the CB will be placed to make the OB go where you want. Those are two separate locations on the table. And using the bases of the balls for measuring.....those two locations, spots on the table, are a ball width apart.
So right there, that false assumptions that the OB is roughly in the ghostball location, makes your theories invalid.
And.....what’s is a medium speed shot? I see these terms, slow, medium, fast, used for cb speed......but they are really useless because they are subjective. I’ve never thought in those terms when determining the cb speed I want for the shot.
There are a lot of things that look good on paper, but when applied to the real world go to shit. They just don’t work or the information provided is of no value when applied to the real world........like the OB is roughly in the ghostball location. It either is or isn’t in the ghostball location, there is no roughly.
Last edited:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't really understand it.
This ain't rocket surgery.
pj
chgo
What do you mean by explain? Define your version of "understand" please.
When pocketing a ball, the ghost ball location will depend on the part of the pocket targeted. Targeting is precise at longer distances and highly variable when the ball is over the hole.
The terms for speed calibration are from Dr. Dave. The diagrams are repeated here, with labeled terms intact, for convenience rather than as links. His SAWS resource page delineates the speed calibration as:
Speed definitions (hitting from the head string):
• “slow” – 1⁄4 stroke off 1 rail back to the head string
• “medium” – 1⁄2 stroke off 2 rails to the center string
• “fast” – 3⁄4 stroke off 3 rails to the foot string
FYI, here are more-precise definitions of typical pool shot speeds:
pool ball speed resource page
And for those who really want to know the exact speeds used in my TP analyses, they can be found in the TP analysis documents (usually at the top).
Regards,
Dave
When you post a graph from an article or TP analysis, you should also post a link to the source document so people can see the full context and explanations if they so desire.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Your comment was read and is part of consideration going forward. Thanks. I’ve started with an ADDENDUM to the original post that has a glossary of side terms.