English on very thin cuts. Poll.

[CaptainJR]

Inside -- 80 degrees
Outside -- 81 degrees
No side -- 79 degrees

That is exactly why I said "insignificant" in my reply earlier. And that the important thing is what position you need or if you don't need position, just simply using the spin or lack there of to make sure you don't scratch.

 

[Bob Jewett]

That is exactly why I said "insignificant" in my reply earlier. And that the important thing is what position you need or if you don't need position, just simply using the spin or lack there of to make sure you don't scratch.

It's even more insignificant than the numbers indicate since I adjusted the angle one degree at a time and just happened to stop at the listed angles after a lot of tries. If I had tried each method one more time, all the numbers listed would change by 1 degree.

But I still feel more comfortable using outside english on the shot than inside. Of course, as several people have pointed out, you almost always need to choose the spin according to the position and therefore need to be able to use all the spins. From the numbers, it doesn't look like I have any imbalance in shooting percentage among the choices.

 

[jingle]

Great stuff Bob & Colin, thanks for your insightful contributions!

 

[Driller]

For me, inside english is the way to go. I've never understood this. But on shots that the cueball is not close to the rail, and there is not a big gap between the cue ball and object ball, I can definitely make an extreme cut easier with inside english. With an extreme cut you must hit the cueball so hard to get the object ball to move that I doubt any throw is transferred to the O.B. with outside english. Inside also works on longer shots, but it is much harder to adjust to the swerve.

 

[Jal]

For me, inside english is the way to go. I've never understood this. But on shots that the cueball is not close to the rail, and there is not a big gap between the cue ball and object ball, I can definitely make an extreme cut easier with inside english. With an extreme cut you must hit the cueball so hard to get the object ball to move that I doubt any throw is transferred to the O.B. with outside english. Inside also works on longer shots, but it is much harder to adjust to the swerve.

I know I'm just blowing in the wind here, but why use inside unless needed for position? Throw is virtually identical if you use no english and you avoid the attendant problems.

Also, you can get pretty large amounts of throw even at these higher speeds. While it generally diminishes with speed, its maximum value actually increases with cut angle. What really matters is surface speed, which can be very low with outside.

Jim

 

[pete lafond]

For me; If it is the last ball on the table to play, then OS English (that is unless OS is needed anyway for position) I play each shot with these mental thoughts - If IE is used the tendency is to ht the OB ball fuller, Top English may tend to throw the ball a little even on a thin cut. Low English will tend to undercut (actually this yields the truest cut) only because most other English's create some throw. Low also is great when coming off the rail into a tight cluster to make sure you do not stick behind a ball. Middle is a great middle of the road shot that will yield the "non-stick" provided by low and throw the least.

I always keep in mind that the more humid the conditions, every English throws no matter how thin unless the ball is spinning with IS or low.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, at these severe angles, I'm not sure that using outside for the purpose of aiding the cut is a good idea. If you use it for position, you can apply a pretty fair amount of it without increasing throw very much. But if you use enough of it to attempt to cancel or reverse the throw direction, you can easily find yourself getting the opposite result and maximizing it in the wrong direction.

To reverse it enough to make the complications from swerve and squirt worth it, you have to generate spin/speed ratios (RW/V) just over 1 (approx. 1.05). But here the amount of reversal is extremely sensitive to variations in the ratio. To make it more predictable, you have to go out even further where miscue looms large. And here you don't get much throwback for your trouble.

I think the only situation where it's called for is when you truely have to squeeze every degree out to have any hope of making the shot.

But maybe you see it differently.

Jim

P.S. I downloaded about 3/4 of your video on backhand english (dialup). Great stuff. Thanks for taking the time and trouble.

JAL,
Interesting points. I know you've looked into the theory aspect of this area in more detail than have I...and what I have found in testing and in my own investigations has always concurred with your insights as far a I can recall.

Regarding OE, I'm in no rush to use it unless it is needed for position or for making extreme cuts.

When pretty close to the OB, I find my practice with BHE makes me pretty accurate in hitting the same contact point that I can align to center ball. Certainly sometimes I can get the retrograde effect..or at least some strangely high cut angles working this way. Other times it doesn't seem to work so well, and this may be relevant to the aspects you raised.

I'd have to look into it further...do some more testing to see if there is a way to make it more repeatable, and to recognise causes for lack of success, such as speed, amount of offset etc.

Colin

 

[unknownpro]

I know I'm just blowing in the wind here, but why use inside unless needed for position? Throw is virtually identical if you use no english and you avoid the attendant problems.

Jim

Because you can focus your eyes on your tip path very near the contact point. With no english you need to be focusing straight through the cueball path farther from the contact point.

unknownpro

 

[Jal]

Because you can focus your eyes on your tip path very near the contact point. With no english you need to be focusing straight through the cueball path farther from the contact point.

unknownpro

I don't think it would help if you use backhand english, even if you're Colin Colenso...well, maybe. But I see your point.

Jim

 

[pete lafond]

I played last night and found myself cutting thin ones a bit different based in amount of cut (IE fanning I use IS english) Also what makes the difference is the distance from the OB, how far OB is off the rail and just plain position.

So to revise this I guess I must say, just do not know unless confronted on any given day. I have no favorite on thin cuts as a general rule.

 

[12310bch]

I know that you meant this to be an "all other things being equal," question but my first thought is where is the cue supposed to go after the hit? On a close thin cut I will generally use inside english. Because: 1.) Less chance of turning the cue loose 2.) There is a psychological thing with me that wants to get the cue tip over close to where I'm going to strike the object ball since both cue and object are in my field of view.
McReady said the key to his success was his mastery of inside english. Maybe he's right.

 

[PoolBum]

When you use inside english, the deflection throws the cue ball away from the object ball, and then when it curves back in it is cutting the ball at a greater angle.

Inside English does not make a cueball masse.

 

[CaptainJR]

Inside English does not make a cueball masse.

I would agree with that using inside english on it's own. If you add a little bottom (draw) with your inside english, I think you can masse the cue ball a little bit. I've used this shot many times when it was just a little questionable if I could get by a ball. After I shoot it I always seem to wonder if it actually did masse the shot or was it the throw of the english that pocketed the shot?????

 

[Jal]

Inside English does not make a cueball masse.

Ideally, it wouldn't with a level cue. But most shots are performed with an elevated cue because of the rail. As such, the cueball does curve. The phenomena is called "swerve", or "mini-masse", or just plain "curve". The reason it does this is because the spin axis is tilted forward by the same amount that the cue is non-level. This causes the front of the spinning ball to swipe across the cloth.

When the balls are fairly close to each other and a firm stroke is used, the amount if curve on the way to the object ball is negligible to non-existent. It just doesn't have the time to curve to any appreciable extent and is partly airborne so it's not contacting the cloth.

Even with a level cue the cueball will curve ever so slightly because of the cloth's rolling resistance. In effect, the axis is tilted with respect to the cloth even if it's perfectly perpendicular to the slate. But this curve is so small it's hard to measure and doesn't really affect the shot in any practical sense. It can only be seen after some collisions when the ball still has a lot of spin but very little speed.

Swerve has been discussed so much and is so well accepted that you would have to come up with a demonstration or knockout argument to prove it's not true. A lot of people would be surprised.

Jim

 

[PoolBum]

Ideally, it wouldn't with a level cue. But most shots are performed with an elevated cue because of the rail. As such, the cueball does curve. The phenomena is called "swerve", or "mini-masse", or just plain "curve". The reason it does this is because the spin axis is tilted forward by the same amount that the cue is non-level. This causes the front of the spinning ball to swipe across the cloth.

When the balls are fairly close to each other and a firm stroke is used, the amount if curve on the way to the object ball is negligible to non-existent. It just doesn't have the time to curve to any appreciable extent and is partly airborne so it's not contacting the cloth.

Even with a level cue the cueball will curve ever so slightly because of the cloth's rolling resistance. In effect, the axis is tilted with respect to the cloth even if it's perfectly perpendicular to the slate. But this curve is so small it's hard to measure and doesn't really affect the shot in any practical sense. It can only be seen after some collisions when the ball still has a lot of spin but very little speed.

Swerve has been discussed so much and is so well accepted that you would have to come up with a demonstration or knockout argument to prove it's not true. A lot of people would be surprised.

Jim

I agree--because a cueball is spherical shooting down on the cueball with an elevated cue while applying inside English will make the cueball masse some, but it is not the English (spin on the horizontal axis) that makes it masse, it is the spin on its vertical axis while applying inside or outside English that makes it masse, or 'swerve'. Left or right spin by itself on the horizontal axis of the cueball will not change its path.

 

[Jal]

Good point, James. It isn't really the english component but the other one that produces the curve, if you look at it in terms of components. Not to nitpick the semantics, but I would reverse the meaning of the terms "horizontal axis" and "vertical axis".

Jim