Defining Check and Running English

[Colin Colenso]

There seems to be some debate and confusion on this issue, so I wanted to put forth what I believe to be a clear explanation.

Insert this: START(%G[1B3%H[3K6%Is9B9%PY1Q4%Qj9M8%Rk0I4%U[2L9%VY3P5%Wm7S0%Xr9N9%[s0[0%\k1[0%]n7K6%^r5J5%eC4a6%_r3N7%`c3L7%a[2L5%br3J6%cc3L4%d[2L5)END

Into the WEI TABLE: http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/9egg/

This diagraam shows two Outside English (OE) shots. These could be shot with the same contact point on the cue ball, at different speeds (B slower than A) or by hitting at the same speed with different contact points (B higher than A)

B ends up with check side, A ends up with running side.

That blows away any myth that OE is Running and IE is Check. The two things are unrelated other than in many circumstances OE leads to running english.

How to Define Running and Check?
There are a few ways to define these terms, but some common ones have problems.

eg.
1. Running widens the angle, whereas check narrows the angle.
This is generally true,but not in all cases see:
START(%G[1B3%H[3K6%Is9B9%PY1Q4%U[0M3%VY3P5%[s0[0%\k1[0%]n6O6%^r9K3%eC4a6%br3K3%cc3L5%d[2L4)END
In this case, where check side approaches the rail at near 90 degrees, the angle of reflection can be wider than the angle of incidence. Hence this definition is troublesome.

2. Running accellerates the ball, Check decellerates the ball.
I think this definition is also problematic because with some rails on certain shots these statements may not correspond to what we think of as running or check. For example, in the shot in the previous diagram with check, if the cue ball is moving slowly, but spinning fast, and the rail is grippy, the ball may accellerate on impact with the rail. Conversely, a fast moving ball with a touch of running, hitting a dead rail will actually decellerate.

3. Running is when the spin is turning with the angle of incidence, Check is when the spin is turning against the angle of incidence of collision with the rail.

This is the definition that makes the most sense to me. By this definition, if the cue ball approaches a rail at exactly 90 degrees(perpendicular), then the spin is neither running nor check. In those cases we could just say the ball has OE on it or right side or whatever else communicaates the message effectively.

Hope this helps someone who gets a little muddle headed about the definitions of these terms.

btw: The definition for Inside and Outside English can also use this definition by replacing the word rail with object ball.
eg. OE is when the spin is turning with the angle of incidence, IE is when the spin is turning against the angle of incidence of collision with the object ball.

But remember, OE and IE are unrelated to Running and Check.

 

[sjm]

Running is when the spin is turning with the angle of incidence, Check is when the spin is turning against the angle of incidence of collision with the rail.

This is the definition that makes the most sense to me. By this definition, if the cue ball approaches a rail at exactly 90 degrees(perpendicular), then the spin is neither running nor check. In those cases we could just say the ball has OE on it or right side or whatever else communicaates the message effectively.

I concur, Colin. Defining running and check (generally referred to as either reverse, hold, or holdup in the US) in terms of the spin relative to the angle of incidence is very accurate.

Still, in teaching these terms to an emerging player, I think I'd try to keep it far simpler. For example:

Running english is the english that will tend to cause a cue ball that hits a cushion (at any angle other than 90 degress)to travel a greater total distance at a given velocity than it would have travelled with a center ball hit.

Check/reverse/hold/holdup english is the english that will tend to cause a cue ball that hits a cushion (at any angle other than 90 degrees) to travel a lesser total distance at a given velocity than it would have travelled with a center ball hit.

In short, how best to define running and check/reverse/holdup is a function of who you are trying to explain it to. Just my opinion.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I concur, Colin. Defining running and check (generally referred to as either reverse, hold, or holdup in the US) in terms of the spin relative to the angle of incidence is very accurate.

Still, in teaching these terms to an emerging player, I think I'd try to keep it far simpler. For example:

Running english is the english that will tend to cause a cue ball that hits a cushion (at any angle other than 90 degress)to travel a greater total distance at a given velocity than it would have travelled with a center ball hit.

Check/reverse/hold/holdup english is the english that will tend to cause a cue ball that hits a cushion (at any angle other than 90 degrees) to travel a lesser total distance at a given velocity than it would have travelled with a center ball hit.

In short, how best to define running and check/reverse/holdup is a function of who you are trying to explain it to. Just my opinion.

You're right sjm, complexity is harder to teach than simplicity.

But at some stage, accuracy of definition is important, and in biliards, accurate definitions usually become complex.

Several times I have encountered frustrated students who keep asking "Is check side left hand side or right hand side?". To which I keep answering, they are different...here look. It takes a while for beginners to get these basic concepts and definitions, but I think it is crucial for them in learning how to create shots in their minds.

It is interesting to note, that in the snooker side of the world, there is no word which is the equivalent of Outside and Inside English (OE and IE). These terms are very useful and should be taken up by the English snooker world. Because we don't have these terms, check and running side are often used to describe what should be called IE and OE. This leads to quite a lot of confusion.

I hadn't heard the terms holdup or reverse english used to describe check side before.

We often use the term 'reverse side' to mean backspin with side when it comes off a rail, where the side appears to reverse. ie. Left side bounces right and vice versa.

Reverse Side (Snooker term) Diagram
START(%H[3K6%PY9Q5%U[0M3%VZ3P5%[f2V1%\`4[1%eA7b1%b`3Z6%c]3N8%d[2L4)END

Some would call this reverse running side.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I hadn't heard the terms holdup or reverse english used to describe check side before.

I think this means that you are in for a wonderful time when you begin to read American books on pool. Byrne, Capelle, Martin, Cranfield, .... The word "check" is not used in the US. Here we use:

inside english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the object ball, left side for a cut to the left,etc.

outside english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the object ball, right side for a cut to the left

running or natural english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the cushion, generally increasing the speed

reverse or holdup english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the cushion, generally slowing the ball

Obviously, whether these are "left" or "right" depends on how the shot sits, so it is possible to have outside running, inside running, etc, etc.

 

[Bluewolf]

Obviously, whether these are "left" or "right" depends on how the shot sits, so it is possible to have outside running, inside running, etc, etc.[/QUOTE

Thanks again to all of you. Having been told at one point that OE was ALWAYS running, but yet the table sometimes told a different tale, you can imagine the resulting confusion and subsequent inability to predict or to create shape. Thanks for bringing this up Colin.

Now if I can just learn to look at the shot and predict what it will do LOL.

Laura

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think this means that you are in for a wonderful time when you begin to read American books on pool. Byrne, Capelle, Martin, Cranfield, .... The word "check" is not used in the US. Here we use:

inside english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the object ball, left side for a cut to the left,etc.

outside english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the object ball, right side for a cut to the left

running or natural english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the cushion, generally increasing the speed

reverse or holdup english -- refers to how the cue ball rubs on the cushion, generally slowing the ball

Obviously, whether these are "left" or "right" depends on how the shot sits, so it is possible to have outside running, inside running, etc, etc.

Well Bob, I've read the cover off Byrne's "Advanced Pool and Billiards" several times (great book) and a fair amount of other Yankie stuff.

I had heard the terms reverse and hold up used but never paid them much attention...I didn't realize they were the prefered terms for check.

btw: When are you guys at the SF academy going to put up a defense or acceptance of my squirt theory SPID. See Link
http://www.top147.com/magazine/2004005/2004005063000571287.htm

 

[Bob Jewett]

btw: When are you ... going to put up a defense or acceptance of my squirt theory SPID. ...

The problem is that I do not yet agree with you that Ron Shepard's paper fails to explain the current observations. A different theory, which to me seems to conflict directly with what I know of the standard treatment of the subject by physicists, seems unneeded. Shepard's explanation makes the correct predictions, as far as I can see.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The problem is that I do not yet agree with you that Ron Shepard's paper fails to explain the current observations. A different theory, which to me seems to conflict directly with what I know of the standard treatment of the subject by physicists, seems unneeded. Shepard's explanation makes the correct predictions, as far as I can see.

I won't re-hash old arguments for now, so we'll agree to disagree

Perhaps later I will put a more comprehensive report together, and hopefully do some reliable emperical testing of my hypothesis.

 

[Bluewolf]

'It is possible, at least philosophically for two people 'appearing' to be presenting different theories to both be right. Sometimes people think that they are saying the opposite things, when they are saying at least some of the same things, but in a different way. And sometimes people present things more simplistically with at least some elements of approximations, then the one who is more exact and detailed is in conflict with the other idea.Kind of like the difference between an abstract in a published paper and the actual hard data in the research.

For instance in this discussion, it appears that people have expressed the run/check different and some were even speaking about what is happening off ob vs rail and so forth.

I agreed totally with your best theory in this thread colin, it makes the most sense, just being a kind of 'devils advocate' here with reference to what you and bob were discussing at the end of this thread.

I know you physics guys may think in one best way, black white and so forth, but some things or theories even have elements of grey.

Just a thought.

Laura

 

[Colin Colenso]

'It is possible, at least philosophically for two people 'appearing' to be presenting different theories to both be right. Sometimes people think that they are saying the opposite things, when they are saying at least some of the same things, but in a different way. And sometimes people present things more simplistically with at least some elements of approximations, then the one who is more exact and detailed is in conflict with the other idea.Kind of like the difference between an abstract in a published paper and the actual hard data in the research.

For instance in this discussion, it appears that people have expressed the run/check different and some were even speaking about what is happening off ob vs rail and so forth.

I agreed totally with your best theory in this thread colin, it makes the most sense, just being a kind of 'devils advocate' here with reference to what you and bob were discussing at the end of this thread.

I know you physics guys may think in one best way, black white and so forth, but some things or theories even have elements of grey.

Just a thought.

Laura

I thought your were about to give support to the Marxiaan theory of polylogism there Laura....glad you didn't. I guess what you say is true, but I also think many of the physics of pool can be stated in black and white. However, some pool terms have been only loosely defined and this leads to some incorrect assumptions, such as that running accellerate the cue ball. This is not alwaays true because frictional losses on the rail collision may overide the gains in translational velocity that result from the spin gripping on the rail.

Glad I helped you a little.

 

[Bluewolf]

run/check definitions

Glad I helped you a little.

You helped me a lot, Colin. Listing the three ways that check/run have been defined was brilliant,informative, and resulted in priceless clarification. What I did not say, is this. Before seeing your thread on this topic, I was frustrated because of another discusssion I was having on another forum. In fact, I try to be nice, but in that case,I had quite lost my temper, and it had turned into a 'knock down drag out fight/flame session' internet style.That argument was started by a thread I had started, 'when OE is check and IE is running', upon meeting an arrogant, intractible mind and being told that I was confused when I was not, that my questions confused knowledgeable people, and that such concepts were advanced,not for club/league players, but for pros, only. Then, being very determined to acquire the knowledge I sought, I first, spent hours in whatever pool books I could find, particularly 'The science of pocket billiards' by Jack Koehler.

Koehler had defined run/check based on one of the three possible definitions you presented, being, check/run in terms of the cb path/angle off of the angle of rebound. Now Jack has done a lot of experiments to collect data, and I think,JMO, that he was probably operating under the assumption of 'pefect table conditions', which of course is not what we deal with in the real world of pool, which you eloquently described in a very understandable way.
Your prefered definition relating to the 'angle of incidence', not only is a definition which can be understood without assuming perfect table conditions, it is easier to visualize in reference to the prediction of run/check.

So yes, you helped me very much because it will be easier now to see when it is going to be run/check and of course, you dispelled the myth,as Bob Jewett and others agreed, and the one I was in the forum fight over, that IE/OE does not dictate run/check, since I/O references the spin into collision with the OB, whereas check/run references what happens to the cb with side in respect to the cushion. While those terms I/O are useful for communication, I do think that they often create confusion, even in a relative beginner.

Those are perhaps ok (as long as I/O is not referenced to running or check) when the person is just using learning spin to cheat the pocket,pot a frozen rail shot, throw the cb a slight amount,avoid a scratch, or compensate for contact induced throw. Once a person wants to learn shape, such simplifications result in confusion and bad shape. This is how I interpreted what you said in one of your posts.If I am incorrect in any of this, please tell me.

Some have even advocated learning these things my rote, memorizing patterns, which I think is rather silly.This, IMO, produces a very long learning curve and in some cases inaccuracy, due to many possible permutations. Concepts are needed, the physics and the why and that is what your post gave me, having gone through several players and instructors for the concepts and finding noone, previous to you, who could explain these things or were willing to do so.

Part of the problem is this. Some players have the kind of minds, that, they naturally understand physics just like some minds naturally understand other things , and are consequently very good at shape, but they do not have terms for such things, and with this understanding deeply imbedded in their minds, they are playing by feel, and are subsequently unable to tell the asker why this one checks or runs.

Why people think that execution, gained by trial and error, must preceed knowledge is beyond me. They, IMO, have it backwards.

To vent just a bit-

When a person is asking for knowledge, I find it quite arrogant for someone to choose for them, taking away their free will, what the person 'needs' to know and what they do not.I imagine that others have as I, found themselves fighting against arrogance, and persons with holding knowledge , that a person has a right to learn, if that person wishes to learn it. Never in my life, prior to the world of billiards, has anyone withheld knowlege that I was seeking. It is the right of all persons, to choose to learn what they want and nobody elses business and right to dictate which persons 'deserve' that knowledge, which the person is searching for. This is why I was, previous to the posting of your thread, so livid.

Now understanding the concept presented, and already knowing which direction right or left side spins, it is now just a matter of learning to predict, the angle of incidence susequent to the collision with the OB. Is there another concept for that such as was presented for curvature off of the tangent line, or is that something that must be learned with experience? But then, again, perhaps that could be another thread.

The reason this post is so long is to explain why your thread and the contents within it, was such a priceless gift. Finally I meet someone with some sense who freely gives knowledge. We generally take in what we are capable of anyway, so giving knowledge can not hurt anyone who seeks such knowledge.

BTW-Colin, could you write me an email at wolfyap@aol.com, explaining how you get those marvelous pictures into your post. I would like to know also, how to put a pool table with paths of ball into my posts, without using the wei code. Thanks

Laura

 

[Rickw]

I don't mean to criticize but this thread gives me a headache of monumental proportions. LOL. Seems to me that this game is mainly a feel game and that you can over-analyze it. I would bet that many of the top pros would not be able to explain how the do what they do, they just "feel" it. I could be wrong.

 

[sjm]

I don't mean to criticize but this thread gives me a headache of monumental proportions. LOL. Seems to me that this game is mainly a feel game and that you can over-analyze it. I would bet that many of the top pros would not be able to explain how the do what they do, they just "feel" it. I could be wrong.

Rickw, your point is valid, and Earl Strickland has counted himself among those who play instinctively, fairly unable by his own account to explain what he's doing to others. I remember being at a tournament and somebody wrote down a tricky nine ball layout that involved the breakout of a cluster on a napkin and showed it to Earl. "Earl, what would you do with ball-in-hand here?" they asked. His memorable answer was "run out." That he was being asked how didn't even occur to him.

Nonetheless, your observation is worth being considered in more general terms. It is essentially the question of whether one needs a theoretical command of a subject to be able to master it. The answer can sometimes be "no", but it is a fundamental principle of instruction that giving somebody a theroetical command of a subject gives them a calculated edge in its mastery.

It is in this respect that theoretical threads like this one are meaningful, because these subjects are relevant to pool instruction. Most pool instructors are of the opinion that increasing a student's comprehension of the theory underlying the game will increase their chance of mastering it.

Probably like you, I know some great players that are self-taught, and others whose mastery of pool is largely instinctive, but that doesnt mean that relating a theoretical command of the game to pool students is any less important.

 

[Bluewolf]

Nonetheless, your observation is worth being considered in more general terms. It is essentially the question of whether one needs a theoretical command of a subject to be able to master it. The answer can sometimes be "no", but it is a fundamental principle of instruction that giving somebody a theroetical command of a subject gives them a calculated edge in its mastery.

It is in this respect that theoretical threads like this one are meaningful, because these subjects are relevant to pool instruction. Most pool instructors are of the opinion that increasing a student's comprehension of the theory underlying the game will increase their chance of mastering it.
.

Boy are you right on. It is my opinion that it depends on the player wishing to play pool.I think that it depends on the brain of the player. For some, such concepts as those presented here are confusing to them.They instinctively figure out quickly how to not scratch, how to get the shape that they want, etc. For others, the knowledge helps their game. For those people who need the knowledge, in a very large sense, knowledge precedes execution. For that person, the concepts shorten the learning curve. It is not a magic pill that will turn say an sl3 into an sl7, overnight. It just means that they will improve faster than they would have without the knowledge.

For the player needing knowledge and understanding and not getting it, they are like a spinning top, going nowhere fast. For myself and others with similar brains, I imagine many of us would be six feet under before getting good at pool, if such a person could not gain access to the knowledge they very badly needed. When I talk to say an sl3 who has played for 5 years, yet is still a 3, or an sl4 who has played for 8 and these players sincerely want to get better,appear to have decent strokes,etc, even practice regularly, and they do not look to be total clutzes, but appear to have some ability, yet are stuck and have been stuck for a very long time, there is something wrong.

The feel/trial and error thing has not worked for them, they very obviously needed something that they were not getting. I have even known some of these give up the sport entirely, or become worse, in frustration, not knowing how to bump up to a higher level of play, nor what they needed to do so.

Many players learn instinctively, apparently needing no instruction, but others imo could be much better with concepts whether the simple ones I got early on or more advanced ones, I am now trying to learn. I tried playing by feel and by trial and error, but it only got me so far, and it was time for more knowledge to get over that hump.Some, quite sadly, never realize that they need a little understanding and they languish, effectively banging their heads against a metaphorical brick wall.

If a person understands the concepts and knows that on a particular shot, say medium speed bottom or whatever will get the cb where they want on the table, they see it in their brains and know why a certain thing will put the cb there, they may not be able to do it yet, but for that player who needs understanding and knowledge, they are going to be able to do it sooner than if they tried to learn it by rote or trial and error.

As far as the feel thing, this is what I think. When a person learns a new concept and is trying to improve with that new knowledge, there is a temporary setback in their game, because they are 'thinking' ,concentrating on the new knowledge. Once that knowledge is firmly set, they no longer 'think' about it, they are again playing by feel, but better, due to learning something that they needed, that is now part of their 'feel' game.

That is JMO anyway

Laura

 

[Rickw]

sjm,

That's why I stated up front that my intention was not to criticize. This thread just reminded me of my college days and it glazed me over. I do feel though, that one can over-intellectualize the game. I've heard it said that once you get down to shoot the ball, erase all thoughts and let the creative side of your brain do the driving.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I do feel though, that one can over-intellectualize the game. I've heard it said that once you get down to shoot the ball, erase all thoughts and let the creative side of your brain do the driving.

Yes, I think it is a mistake to be thinking when you are competing. On the other hand, if you're not thinking while you're practicing, you're mostly wasting your time. You need to learn things like: if you hit the ball lower it will get more draw; if you spin the cue ball, it will act differently on the cushions, if one ball hits another it will come off at a predictable angle. There are lots of players who never bother to notice such things while they are practicing. Maybe most players -- just check out your local pool hall or pub on Friday night.

As for the original point of the thread, it reminds me of a recent news story about words. See for example the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3582794.stm which describes a tribe in Brazil that has no word for "three" or any higher number. Without a word for it, they cannot grasp the concept. Similarly, many concepts at pool are easy once you have words for them, but are totally mysterious if you don't have a way to name them. "Inside," "outside," "running," and "reverse" are concepts that anyone who wants to play the game well needs to master. What surprised me most in the discussion was that there was anyone here who didn't already have a pretty good idea of what those terms were about -- maybe I need to remember how I thought of the game when I was just starting.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Yes, I think it is a mistake to be thinking when you are competing. On the other hand, if you're not thinking while you're practicing, you're mostly wasting your time. You need to learn things like: if you hit the ball lower it will get more draw; if you spin the cue ball, it will act differently on the cushions, if one ball hits another it will come off at a predictable angle. There are lots of players who never bother to notice such things while they are practicing. Maybe most players -- just check out your local pool hall or pub on Friday night.

As for the original point of the thread, it reminds me of a recent news story about words. See for example the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3582794.stm which describes a tribe in Brazil that has no word for "three" or any higher number. Without a word for it, they cannot grasp the concept. Similarly, many concepts at pool are easy once you have words for them, but are totally mysterious if you don't have a way to name them. "Inside," "outside," "running," and "reverse" are concepts that anyone who wants to play the game well needs to master. What surprised me most in the discussion was that there was anyone here who didn't already have a pretty good idea of what those terms were about -- maybe I need to remember how I thought of the game when I was just starting.

Exactly Bob,
We think using language, and hence we need accurate language (words) to define the concepts we are thinking about.

 

[sjm]

sjm,

That's why I stated up front that my intention was not to criticize. This thread just reminded me of my college days and it glazed me over. I do feel though, that one can over-intellectualize the game. I've heard it said that once you get down to shoot the ball, erase all thoughts and let the creative side of your brain do the driving.

Rickw, you were very respectful in your post, and I hope you found me to be courteous in my reply. I think you raised a point that made this thread even better. I think you're absolutely right, once you get down over a shot, no more thinking, only executing.

 

[blud]

Smoke

sjm,

That's why I stated up front that my intention was not to criticize. This thread just reminded me of my college days and it glazed me over. I do feel though, that one can over-intellectualize the game. I've heard it said that once you get down to shoot the ball, erase all thoughts and let the creative side of your brain do the driving.

Hey Rick, these guys must have better smoke than we ever had.

blud

 

[Rickw]

Thank you

Thanks sjm. And yes I felt that your responding posts were very respectful and thank you for that. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that people that can really play the game at the highest level do not appear to analyze how they do that, they just play the game. I've watched Efren make tremendous shots and I think that he just allows his creative abilities perfom and doesn't try to figure out how he does it intellectually. And, I think that is exactly what helps him be as good as he is.

Rickw, you were very respectful in your post, and I hope you found me to be courteous in my reply. I think you raised a point that made this thread even better. I think you're absolutely right, once you get down over a shot, no more thinking, only executing.