"Aim Small" on the Cue Ball
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
TheThaiger
Banned
Your willingness to fellate your chums is clouding your judgment. Your premise on kicks is based entirely on the THEORY they are caused EXCLUSIVELY by chalk. Take that premise away and you may see the subject in a different light.
Very few people in the snooker world believe chalk is the sole reason for bad contacts. The enlightenment hit the snooker world some years ago. It is a shame the world of pool is so far behind. Obviously, it's great there are enthusiastic amateurs about, who are willing to put the time in to prove their theories, but, come on, let's get real here. Some bloke in his basement, unknown outside a few geeks on here, against the whole of the snooker machine, with their bloodlines and breeding, royalty and majesty.
Still, you believe it. That's the important thing.
TheThaiger
Banned
PJ? Being pedantic? Fancy!
TheThaiger
Banned
I often find myself wondering this about you, but are you ok?
These concepts are not difficult to grasp. In fact they're spectacularly easy to understand. Perhaps you could link some video of you actually playing, so we can see whether you're capable of understanding them thoroughly.
Sadly, many players are so inept, the concept of hitting the balls 'sweetly' is quite beyond them. They are often good talkers, however.
I have never seen any careful experiments, video demonstrations, or analysis done by the "snooker world" on this topic. If such a thing exists, could you please provide links or references? That would be much more helpful than anecdotal hearsay.
Chalk residue or smudges most certainly causes cling/skid/kick. This has been demonstrated and proven convincing by many people in the "pool world" (see the videos and articles linked on my cling/skid/kick resource page for clear evidence).
Cling/skid/kick occurs any time there is increased friction at the contact point between the CB and OB. Chalk residue or smudges on the ball surfaces is certainly the most likely culprit. Scuff marks, rough spots, micro cracks, or dirt on the balls can also cause added friction. These conditions certainly exist in some pool halls and bars; although, they seem less common in snooker establishments. At one bar I played at in a traveling league several years ago, the balls were so old, beat up, and dirty, cling/skid/kick occurred on almost every cut shot. There, I tried to use gearing outside english whenever I could to help minimize the risk of clink/skid/kick.
It seems to me that the "pool world" should know a lot more about cling/skid/kick than the "snooker world" because it happens a lot more in the "pool world." Also, it seems like the "pool world" has researched this topic more carefully and thoroughly than the "snooker world." Again, please let us know if the "snooker world" has some non-anecdotal data that could shed additional light on this topic.
Regards,
Dave
And so only a spectacularly simple person would be unable to describe what he means by them.
pj
chgo
I sometimes think a cause for debates like this is a misunderstanding. When some people think there is sling/skid/kick, it might just be a normal amount of throw. Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT) do not require chalk residue or smudges ... CIT and SIT occur even with new and clean balls. "Cling/skid/kick" should refer only to an excessive amount of throw which is more than what should be expected. CIT is maximum for slow speed stun shots close to a half-ball hit (see maximum throw for more info). If one observes significant throw with shots like this, it isn't necessarily cling/skid/kick that is occurring. The amount of throw observed could just be the normal amount. If one misses a shot like this, it is because one didn't adequately compensate for throw ... not because one was unlucky and got a "bad hit" or a "kick."
Regards,
Dave
..................
Last edited:
i fear i am now off-topic, but...
I have 3 spin possibilities that I use: maximum, lots and little.
Pretty complex terms. Sorry to confuse...
I have 3 spin possibilities that I use: maximum, lots and little.
Pretty complex terms. Sorry to confuse...
Dave,
I have a hypothetical question. Let's take a 45 degree cut shot more than 1/2 the table from the pocket & relatively close to the CB, say 1 to 2 diamonds distance, shot with moderate to soft speed & inside english, one hit on the CB @ 1:30 & another hit on the CB @ 4:30. Do you think either of those might have a tendency to make the OB skid or jump before taking on a rolling attitude, if so which one & why?
Thanks in advance & Best Regards,
A bump for Dr. Dave.
For the nth time: no type of stroke or shot causes skid. It's caused by chance when the contact point between the balls happens to have higher than normal friction (usually a chalk smudge at the contact point).
pj
chgo
If I may take a whack at it.
If you're talking about skid from the fresh chalk mark just laid down, under the conditions you specify I don't think either pure inside (3:00 or 9:00), and especially 1:30 can do it. 3:00/9:00 won't if the CB has the chance to develop some topspin on the way to the OB, which it will under your setup (slow -> moderate speed), particularly at two diamonds of CB-OB separation. The reason is the spin equator tilts off the horizontal plane carrying (more or less) the chalk mark with it.
At 1:30, the spin equator never aligns with the horizontal plane.
Therefore, 4:30 (or 7:30) are your best candidates. In those cases, the spin equator does pass through the horizontal plane as the CB acquires a topspin component. They're also good candidates for producing a large amount of normal throw if they represent outside english on a 45-degree cut.
One caveat is that the physical points on the cueball that initially lie on the spin equator as the ball leaves the tip (one of them is the chalk mark), do not remain exactly on the spin equator as it shifts orientation (i.e., the CB picks up a topspin component). The rate of misalignment depends on the amount of torque altering the spin versus the CB's current angular momentum. It takes quite a bit of calculation (a program) to predict the outcome with some hope of accuracy, so there might be some surprises I haven't anticipated. Maybe Thaiger will work it all out for us and report back later.
Does any of this reflect your experience?
And, I'm not sure what the half-a-table length from the pocket has to do with anything?
Jim
Last edited:
TheThaiger
Banned
Firstly, bad contacts are much more prevalent in snooker than in pool.
Secondly, I think it's important to not get dragged into semantic differentiations over terms here - a bad contact occurs when the CB and/or OB do not react in a predictable way, and it should be left at that.
Thirdly, it's not the British way to over analyse - rather, we just accept things as they are and get on with it. Stephen Hendry was commentating on last night's final, and mentioned CB deflection, albeit it without using those words. That is the first time I have EVER heard anyone in the snooker world even refer to it. The BBC often show super slo-mo footage of balls bouncing after being struck, and there's no question poor cuing causes bad contacts. I had a look for them on youtube a while ago, but couldn't find them. I don't know whether the link still works, but this was a fairly indepth examination of the subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/sport/?q=kick shot investigation
If chalk is the only cause of bad contacts, why do players playing at the top of their game get few, whilst those that are struggling with their cuing get a load? There really is only one conclusion. Obviously, the balls will jump if chalk is present, but they jump for reasons not related to chalk, too.
TheThaiger
Banned
Thanks, but Patrick is trolling for a change.
TheThaiger
Banned
Why are you the only person who is aware of this amazing fact?
pj
chgo
TheThaiger
Banned
I'm not. Stephen Hendry is, too - didn't you see the link I provided earlier? Hendry is wrong, according to your mate Bob. Yup, Stephen freaking Hendry is mistaken. That's the world's greatest ever player, by the way. Wrong about the game.
There is something reported on Martin Goodwill's website (an English-billiards player) regarding some work he did on this with Ben Plummer (an engineer) here => http://www.englishbilliards.org/kicks
The conclusions they reached were that the worst type of kicks were caused by chalk (which explains why the phenomenon can readily be reproduced in the lab by the application of chalk); but that 'in the field' the type of kick that occurs much more frequently is not due to chalk. I have read that Martin was able to produce these less severe kicks 'at will' with very clean equipment.
However I have no details of the experiments actually done (including for example whether or not acetone was used to clean the balls - a concern previously raised by Bob Jewett). I am sure I can get Martin Goodwill's contact details if you want to follow this up.
Going back to anecdote :smile: it is widely believed by top players that kicks with snooker equipment are more of a problem with soft naturally rolling contacts (this belief is strong enough to sometimes sometimes influence shot selection). But even assuming that this is true, I don't know whether this would be to do with the frequency / severity of the kick or with the relative importance of a kick's outcome on that particular type of shot.
Last edited: