"Aim Small" on the Cue Ball

Neil said:
Snooker???? You mean that game the guys with little balls play across the pond? That game that is dying over there?? Yeah, some of those guys came over here and tried to play with the guys with big balls, we sent them home after they found out they couldn't "hang" with us.
Click to expand...

Us? Legend...own...lunchtime...

............................


Number of failed snooker players winning international pool events? Plenty.
Number of failed pool players winning international snooker events? None.
Number of successful pool players winning international snooker events? Oh yeah, none.

As a pro pool player said to me once, "we're all failed snooker players. We'd all be playing it if we were good enough".

Snooker players are simply on a different planet to pool players. And guess what?! They get on with it. They don't take 10 minutes to think about each shot. They don't walk around the table 18 times. They don't get down on a shot, then get up again. Then get down and then up. Down, up, down, up. No endless chalking. No pre-bloody-shot routine checklist to laboriously go through. No physics. No baffling acronyms. Just a pure stroke; no fuss, no muss.

What's not to like?
 
Scaramouche said:
Please be understanding of our UK participants.

Them Brits have their own dialect, talk about "bottle", "getting chuffed", and "putting their tin hats on", sending us off to the British - English dictionary to find out what the hell they are talking about.

And it bugs me that they put the emphasis on the wrong syllable when saying "controversy".

It comes from being on a tiny island, surrounded by a stew of languages, cut off from daily contact with the mass of proper English speakers here in North America.

Snooker commentators have a way of speaking that I call third person personal, as in:

"He is having exceedingly great difficulty potting the pink, Luca Brecel."
Most annoying to have to wait until the end of the sentence to find out whom they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Ha, it's us that are putting the wrong emphasis on words, is it? I always thought it was you lot that couldn't say Monty Python correctly. You can neither spell NOR pronounce aluminium correctly, so that one is a complete disaster. How you pronounce the word "route" is an affront to nature.

But that's forgivable. You can go your own way with god's language and, personally, I'd prefer to drop unnecessary U's in words such as colour, honour etc. What is not forgivable is the adding the word "like" where it's not needed and finishing every sentence with a question mark, and starting sentences with an 'and'.

"It was like two-thirty in the afternoon? And she was, like, late for work? And, she, like, said that? To me? OMG!!!"


Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. American culture, eh? :rolleyes:

ps the snooker commentator who does that is Dennis Taylor, who's Irish. Which isn't in the UK. Would you prefer pool commentators instead?
 
TheThaiger said:
Ha, it's us that are putting the wrong emphasis on words, is it? I always thought it was you lot that couldn't say Monty Python correctly. You can neither spell NOR pronounce aluminium correctly, so that one is a complete disaster. How you pronounce the word "route" is an affront to nature.

But that's forgivable. You can go your own way with god's language and, personally, I'd prefer to drop unnecessary U's in words such as colour, honour etc. What is not forgivable is the adding the word "like" where it's not needed and finishing every sentence with a question mark, and starting sentences with an 'and'.

"It was like two-thirty in the afternoon? And she was, like, late for work? And, she, like, said that? To me? OMG!!!"


Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. American culture, eh? :rolleyes:

ps the snooker commentator who does that is Dennis Taylor, who's Irish. Which isn't in the UK. Would you prefer pool commentators instead?
Click to expand...

Although I don't agree with most of your posts, I can relate to this one.
For years I worked with a guy that could not pronounce the word aluminum (only one i). His pronunciation sounded like al la min na min. I've got to give you credit for this one.
 
TheThaiger said:
If you really can't work out what 'hitting the CB sweetly (or cleanly) means, there's no hope for you.
Click to expand...
Yes, you've already admitted you don't know what you're saying about hitting the CB. No need to confess over and over.

If and when you start paying more attention to the CB than the OB, you'll begin to understand.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the thread you're posting in?

LOL

pj
chgo
 
TheThaiger said:
If you really can't work out what 'hitting the CB sweetly (or cleanly) means, there's no hope for you. If and when you start paying more attention to the CB than the OB, you'll begin to understand. Coincidentally, that will be the day you start to improve as a player.
Click to expand...

Would 'purely' or 'precisely' be a more 'correct' adjective?

A hit that causes the cue ball to bounce a little as possible. Would that be what you mean?

Just trying to help,
 
ENGLISH! said:
Would 'purely' or 'precisely' be a more 'correct' adjective?
Click to expand...
"Precisely" at least has an objective meaning. "Purely", like "cleanly" or "sweetly", are such vague terms they only show that the speaker doesn't really know what he means.

pj
chgo
 
I'm not trying to argue, merely trying to understand you. How is 'pure' a subjective term? Something is either pure or it is not. Pure oxygen is devoid of any other components & free from any 'contaminants'. So by anaylogy a pure stroke would logically mean, to me, a perfect stroke. To hit the CB purely would be to hit the CB with a perfect hit.
 
Last edited:
"Purely", like "cleanly" or "sweetly", are such vague terms they only show that the speaker doesn't really know what he means.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
sheffield6:
...you know exactly what he means.
Click to expand...
No, I don't, and I doubt he does either.

But since you apparently do, please define those terms for us.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
What does "a perfect hit" mean? You've just replaced one vague term with another.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I don't need to do this for you. You are quite capable of looking up all of the definitions & synonyms.

Maybe you can enlighten all of us with your definition of what would be a pure or perfect hit on a cue ball.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Maybe you can enlighten all of us with your definition of what would be a pure or perfect hit on a cue ball.
Click to expand...
If a chalk smudge happens to appear right at the contact point between the CB and OB, it doesn't matter how purely or perfectly the CB was hit. There will be "kick" (AKA "skid" or "cling"). And the amount of throw will be greater with slower speed and with stun (again, regardless of how you hit the CB). More information, including convincing video demonstrations on this topic, can be found here:

Regards,
Dave
 
Dave,

Agreed. I think the topic may have switched, but I could be wrong with all of the peripheral stuff going on.

I've taken that Thaigar has suggested that the cue ball is at times bouncing on the table & not in a 'pure' roll or slide when contacting the OB. That is why he has turned the attention to the 'hitting' of the cue ball. I may be wrong.

Regards,
 
ENGLISH! said:
DI've taken that Thaigar has suggested that the cue ball is at times bouncing on the table & not in a 'pure' roll or slide when contacting the OB.
Click to expand...
Again, this doesn't depend on how "purely" or "perfectly" the CB is struck. CB hop depends on shot speed, cue elevation, and/or amount of tip offset above center. With certain combinations of speed, elevation, and tip offset, the CB will hop regardless of the "purity" or "perfectness" of the "hit" (whatever those think may really mean). For example, many people think that a well-struck and firm follow shot will not involve CB hop. That is simply not the case, regardless of how "purely" the ball is stuck. For more info and video demonstrations related to this topic, see:

Regards,
Dave
 
ENGLISH! said:
I don't need to do this for you.
Click to expand...
You mean you can't - and neither can TheThaiger or sheffield6 - because vague terms like "cleanly"' "sweetly" and "purely" don't mean anything specific about hitting the cue ball except maybe (though I doubt it in these cases) in the mind of the speaker.

But back to the idea that brought all this up: it doesn't matter - as I, Bob and now Dave have all said, you can't affect whether or not "kick" happens with the quality of your stroke. The fact that nobody can say how the stroke might affect that (or even describe such a stroke with non-vague terms) is a big clue, even if you don't know much about it yourself.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
you can't affect whether or not "kick" happens with the quality of your stroke.
Click to expand...
The "quality" of the stroke can most certainly affect the shot speed, cue angle at impact, and where you hit the CB, but all that really matters is the speed, angle, and tip position. For more info and examples related to this topic, see:

Regards,
Dave
 
Dave,

I understand, but as Duckie has said the speed of certain shots can & will dictate different results from some of your demo videos. If one would hit your coin shot much more softly & with a center or slightly below center hit on the cue ball than you did in the video, there is a very good chance that the ball would skid into the coin. I think that is what Thaigar is refering to.

If one plans to hit on the center of the equator & does not strike the cue ball 'purely' or 'perfectly' as intended, but instead struck it above that then one could & most probably would get the cue ball bouncing. If the cue ball strikes the OB in an accending or decending direction it would react differently than by being struck by a rolling or skidding ball. I think that is the point he was trying to make, but again, I coud be wrong. Also he is talking about Snooker balls which are smaller & the same measure of hitting 'off' results in more of a differential relative to the size of the two(2) different balls.

Regards,
 
ENGLISH! said:
Dave,

I understand, but as Duckie has said the speed of certain shots can & will dictate different results from some of your demo videos. If one would hit your coin shot much more softly & with a center or slightly below center hit on the cue ball than you did in the video, there is a very good chance that the ball would skid into the coin. I think that is what Thaigar is refering to.
Click to expand...
No disagreement there. If you hit any shot softer, the CB will be less likely to be hopping into the OB. Again, this has nothing to do with the "purity," "perfectness," "type," or "quality" of the stroke ... just the stroke speed.

ENGLISH! said:
If one plans to hit on the center of the equator & does not strike the cue ball 'purely' or 'perfectly' as intended, but instead struck it above that then one could & most probably would get the cue ball bouncing.
Click to expand...
No question about that. If you hit the CB firmly enough and/or with enough tip offset above center, it will hop.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
No disagreement there. If you hit any shot softer, the CB will be less likely to be hopping into the OB. Again, this has nothing to do with the "purity," "perfectness," "type,"
or "quality" of the stroke ... just the stroke speed.

No question about that. If you hit the CB firmly enough and/or with enough tip offset above center, it will hop.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

Just a little 'fun' nit pick question.

If one intended to hit the CB softly (speed related term) & exactly at the center (accuracy term for location) but instead hit it harder & above where intended, would that stroke be less 'pure' or 'perfect' than had the intended stroke been executed exactly as intended?

Best Regards,
 
ENGLISH! said:
Dave,

Just a little 'fun' nit pick question.

If one intended to hit the CB softly (speed related term) & exactly at the center (accuracy term for location) but instead hit it harder & above where intended, would that stroke be less 'pure' or 'perfect' than had the intended stroke been executed exactly as intended?
Click to expand...
I would personally call that an "ineffective" stroke. I personally would not use words like non "pure" or "imperfect" to describe such poor execution.

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top