Cutting Semantics

H

heater451

Registered
This came up in league last night....

One of my teammates grew up in London (IIRC), and I remarked on a player missing has "overcut". He said it was an "undercut'.

We briefly discussed how we were describing the same thing, but for some reason from the opposite directions. I consider a thinner-than-desired cut to be "over", whereas he was polar-opposite on it.

I realized that a thicker-than-desired cut could certainly be an "overcut", because it is a cut that is more of an overlap (as equal-distance aiming dictates). It further dawned on me, that the real difference is where one considers the "0-deg cut" to be--starting from full-in-the-face and moving towards the (linear) left or right, or starting from the outside most point and moving towards the center of the target ball.

I never questioned this before, since I've never had someone disagree on what is and under/overcut, but I'm wondering now if it's a regional thing.

Has anyone else on the forum run into this, and if so, was it a US vs. European type thing?
 
heater451 said:
This came up in league last night....

One of my teammates grew up in London (IIRC), and I remarked on a player missing has "overcut". He said it was an "undercut'.

We briefly discussed how we were describing the same thing, but for some reason from the opposite directions. I consider a thinner-than-desired cut to be "over", whereas he was polar-opposite on it.

I realized that a thicker-than-desired cut could certainly be an "overcut", because it is a cut that is more of an overlap (as equal-distance aiming dictates). It further dawned on me, that the real difference is where one considers the "0-deg cut" to be--starting from full-in-the-face and moving towards the (linear) left or right, or starting from the outside most point and moving towards the center of the target ball.

I never questioned this before, since I've never had someone disagree on what is and under/overcut, but I'm wondering now if it's a regional thing.

Has anyone else on the forum run into this, and if so, was it a US vs. European type thing?
Click to expand...

I am with you. I reason that a full face hit (as in a straight hit) is no cut at all, so that is the zero point and more cut is moving away from that.

Second rational is to consider the angle that the object ball moves relative to the cue ball path prior to hitting. A straight shot would again be zero with the theoretical limit being 90deg. If a ball is missed due to hitting too thin, that is an over cut.
 
Where are you located?

I think like you, an over cut is too thin. You're cutting the ball and you cut it too much (over cut) and therefor hit it too thin. Undercut would be catching it thicker than intended.

I can only vaguely follow the logic on the other interpretation. Maybe it's just because I'm so used to the way I think about it, but it doesn't make any intuitive sense to me.
 
Makes sense. Pool grammar doesn't. I'll stick with the common way. Cut equaling the desired angle.
However that works out...
 
This needs diagrams.
Pool is visual and simplifying to words is an act of physics.

Keep it in the original presentation ball diagrams. That sounds like a project for BARPA, diagrams for edge cases.
 
I have never heard it any other way than "overcut" you cut it too much so too thin, and undercut is too full. Not sure how you can view it any other way, at least not when facing from the point if the shot. I guess if you look at it from the other side of the table you can look at it the other way, but that does not make any sense.
 
hang-the-9 said:
I have never heard it any other way than "overcut" you cut it too much so too thin, and undercut is too full. Not sure how you can view it any other way, at least not when facing from the point if the shot. I guess if you look at it from the other side of the table you can look at it the other way, but that does not make any sense.
Click to expand...
From a slicing standpoint, thin would be under cutting and thick would be over cutting.
Hence,
jimmyco said:
Is he a butcher by trade?
Click to expand...
 
I always defined over vs under cutting being based on the direction you want the ob ball to go. If you are cutting towards the left and it goes too far left you over cut it. If didn't go far enough left, it is undercut.

Beause thick vs thin is refering to how much the cb hits the ob, both hits can cause over or undercuts because back cuts would reverse if a thick/thin cut overcuts or undercuts. It relies on the perspective of each shot. So I just rely on saying it is over or undercut and leave out if i hit it thick or thin.
 
MmmSharp said:
...
Beause thick vs thin is refering to how much the cb hits the ob, both hits can cause over or undercuts because back cuts would reverse if a thick/thin cut overcuts or undercuts. It relies on the perspective of each shot. So I just rely on saying it is over or undercut and leave out if i hit it thick or thin.
Click to expand...
I am not following what you mean by "reverse" here. Would you please describe an example?
 
heater451 said:
I am not following what you mean by "reverse" here. Would you please describe an example
Click to expand...
Perhaps i worded that poorly. my point is that hitting a ball too thick or too thin is not always going to result in an over or under cut, so i dont use those thick or thin to describe over/under.

Example. Say you hit the ob ball so thin it only wobbles. I would say i hit it too thin. But i wouldnt say i under or over cut it.

over/under vs thick/thin mean two different things that will often relate with each other, but not always. I use use the terms thick and thin to describe the contact of the cb and object ball. Over/undercut can be the result of that contact.
 
Is not this an argument about perspective? Is glass half empty or half full?
What is the focus of the terms employed? The "remaining portion" of the OB or the "removed portion" of the OB? Will not an overcut on one result in an undercut on the other? Assuming this to be the genesis of our instant quandary, will one of the many geniuses populating this site please provide us with the solution.

Once again, Justnum has provided our best comment yet -- someone needs to find the crayon box.
 
Last edited:
vase or 2 faces??.......;)
2 faces or vase.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top