Problem With Our Understanding Of Side
- Thread starter Imac007
- Start date
The only way to eliminate throw (used in the US sense, not on the UK sense of squirt) on a cut shot is to use gearing outside english. Is that part of your plan?
That is certainly the way I play.
But analysis can be useful. It was not until squirt was understood that the foundation (and pitfalls) of backhand english were understood. That understanding can help players who are practicing side spin shots to not blame themselves for missing certain shots but rather to blame a change in speed, for example, which might lead them to practice and get a feel for the same shot at different speeds.
But we seem to have a visitor with a very different viewpoint and approach. Exactly what that viewpoint is remains unclear. Maybe it will be useful -- it's too early to tell.
Last edited:
And you will wake up from a nightmare about negative pivot points poking you in the eyes.:grin-devilish:
Lol. The very idea of the cue line having a larger offset at the surface than near the middle of the ball, a negative pivot as you’ve labeled it, certainly jarred my reality and kept me up some nights digesting the implications.
Your point about each amount of side having shot keys related to amount of deflection, the feel of how the tip must go through the ball at the right pace to control the travel and weight sense of each ball is so true. I’ve played there and still do. This exploration took me to a different place. Ronnie O’Sullivan and Stephen Lee talked about controlling the white ball differently. They spoke about using the same pace for the most part on all shots and varying where they contacted the ball to determine length of travel and direction. In order to do that a player needs to have a complete toolbox including ways to deaden pace, when the consistent cueing tempo would otherwise be too much. Throw, stun run throughs, check and running side and the neutral cue ball, with cancelling momentum, all combined with position angles that work, have a different body sense of moving the ball around. The tic-tac-toe-toe scenario we all find easy allows us to tap into that singular tempo and pace. Bringing more of that seeming simplicity into planning of shots based on pacing more than finesse is less touchy and less likely to have the cue ball get away from you.
Both methods are just tools. I’ve found that table size dictates the method most used. It’s hard on a bar table to find a right tempo and consistent pace that works for most shots. A mindset that custom designs the right combination of cue pace, rotation control of the cue ball, and pace altering techniques is needed to navigate in confined spaces, more than larger ones.
Knowing that distance usually straightens the shot and creates a larger position funnel plays into the consistent pace pattern selection. It also has a somewhat liberating aspect on the player. There is consistent "letting the stroke out" and "trusting your talent" aspect. The modern game on 9 foot tables is offering players a stage on which the tempo/consistent pace game may take them to a more predictable result, shot after shot. Pro golfers control pace by using the same swing on most shots, varying the loft of the club, the spin applied and the height they choose to take the ball to target, let them be consistent.
Working with the spin in a more controllable way because it is applied in small doses, makes the pace side of the position game, more consistent. Combined with subtle height variations of tip contact, the cue ball glides more than twirls.
It’s late. I’ve gathered together some diagrams of Dr. Dave creation, and plan to introduce some of the thinking these triggered. It looks like a weekend project as I have a league match in about 11 hours and I need sleep and time for food on waking.
To answer your inquiry about gearing english, I would be remiss if I didn’t include it because it is one of the ways that throw effects can be negated. However, it is very pace specific and a tool that can be used primarily when it fits both pocketing and positioning needs. Even Dr, Dave’s SAWS needs to be modified to accommodate positioning needs. To me that is too complex for me to just sense intuitively, yet.
This has been an attempt to introduce a mindset trying evolving avenues of exploration. Going down old paths rarely takes you anywhere new. As you eluded, getting a sense of nuances like deflection dynamics, how throw works and other subtleties are knowledge that become intuitively integrated into our games if we let them. I try to let my body play, that’s not my mind’s role, gathering information is.
I look forward to seeing what research you cite next. I'm glad somebody actually looks at some of my math and physics stuff. Most people do not relate to the hard-core math-physics side of pool. Also, honestly, much of the math/physics offers very little in terms of useful advice at the table. Although, there are exceptions, as described here:
physics “understanding” sometimes provides useful insight
Understanding useful pool principles and effects (not the math and science) can definitely help some people develop their intuition and skills more quickly. However, see:
knowledge can be useful, but you still need skill
Concerning the best ways to deal with (or sometimes eliminate) CB deflection and throw, the resources below are probably better for most people than my math and physics analyses. Much of the instruction is based on math and physics, but it is presented in a much more understandable and useful way:
aim compensation when using sidespin
back-hand (BHE) and front-hand english (FHE)
cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT) tutorial
using outside english to reduce or eliminate throw
System for Aiming With Sidespin (SAWS)
Enjoy,
Dave
Last edited:
On the shoulders of giants
As Dave tells us the hardcore math and physics rarely offers on table benefits. The general tendencies, like throw that alter the ball path become common instinct. The resources linked by Dave are great places for sluicing for nuggets that are under our noses and offer value. In fairness to those reading and Dave, some conclusions here are extrapolations. I’ve already presented one concerning deflections. Dave using parallel english and a tip offset measured in inches provides us with a detailed picture of three different offset equally spaced. Then he graphed deflections across a wide range of speeds from slow to fast.
Since I am talking about small amounts of side and a cue angle that infects comparatively to parallel english I extrapolated based on the look at the data as a whole. In general terms, deflection is more with a larger torque line. Deflection increases with speed. A center ball shot has no deflection or throw. As speed and torque line decrease towards zero so does deflection. I considered a thought experiment decreasing the torque line by the exact same amount as each tested offset. I extrapolated the differences between the other offsets in actual numbers and it would have given me a negative deflection. Obviously there is going to be deflection so I surmised that a better comparative measure would be to look at actual numbers compared on a percentage basis. That would never reach zero. That was far enough down the rabbit hole and gave me something I could take to the table. Convergent side with a small torque line virtually eliminates deflection. The same analysis with throw netted a similar finding
I’ve now included 3 more diagrams. The top one is about calculating gearing english for eliminating throw using outside side. A firm stroke is used and the tip offset will vary based on angle plus deflection must be considered in setting an aim angle. A big picture, usable at the table picture emerges, concerning all types of spin. A spinning ball has less friction and therefore less throw. A race car driver knows that in a quarter mile race a spinning tire goes nowhere. The optimal acceleration off the line is one in which traction is gained almost immediately. Dr. Dave discovered that throw was maximum at about 50% english. More than that and the spin of slippery surface against slippery surface had less traction. Traction takes time and contact time between colliding balls is very short.
That slippery surface against slippery surface where one of the balls is spinning replays the same way. A rotating ball needs time to get traction and the time lessens the effect. The ideal ratio of horizontally rotating ball and matching speed let’s the rotating ball gain immediate traction and in essence just roll along the surface. Even foreign material which would cause cling otherwise is simply rolled over. That is the reality of the top graph.
Another extrapolation from the speed factor is that when the contact time is shortened so is the throw effect. Balls hit with higher speed have less throw than those struck softer. They also have slightly more deflection.
At the table I simply think that outside side will lessen throw but I have to compensate for deflection and speed effects. In general a target line to the overcut side of the pocket with 50% english will work with everything except a soft shot at distance. For more in-depth adjustments the SAWS link here is the best resource available. I just haven’t intuited those adjustments into my game, yet. It also requires cue calibration.
I currently use 3 cues. A solid maple 21 oz snooker cue with 11mm tip, a 19.7 oz solid ash Chinese 8 ball cue with an 11.5mm tip, and a 16.7 oz, 13 mm R360 shafted pool cue. My use of convergent side allows me to seamlessly shift between all three with no adjustment for most shots. That said, convergent side is just a tool and should only be used for the right job. Needless to say calibration and adjustment criteria will have a wide variance for me using SAWS.
This is unfinished but I’m going to post it anyways then return to add and edit later. Take a close look at Diagram 4 and the effect of maximum inside english combined with a vertically rotating ball. That insight rocked my pool understanding and set me down this path. Off to pool.
As Dave tells us the hardcore math and physics rarely offers on table benefits. The general tendencies, like throw that alter the ball path become common instinct. The resources linked by Dave are great places for sluicing for nuggets that are under our noses and offer value. In fairness to those reading and Dave, some conclusions here are extrapolations. I’ve already presented one concerning deflections. Dave using parallel english and a tip offset measured in inches provides us with a detailed picture of three different offset equally spaced. Then he graphed deflections across a wide range of speeds from slow to fast.
Since I am talking about small amounts of side and a cue angle that infects comparatively to parallel english I extrapolated based on the look at the data as a whole. In general terms, deflection is more with a larger torque line. Deflection increases with speed. A center ball shot has no deflection or throw. As speed and torque line decrease towards zero so does deflection. I considered a thought experiment decreasing the torque line by the exact same amount as each tested offset. I extrapolated the differences between the other offsets in actual numbers and it would have given me a negative deflection. Obviously there is going to be deflection so I surmised that a better comparative measure would be to look at actual numbers compared on a percentage basis. That would never reach zero. That was far enough down the rabbit hole and gave me something I could take to the table. Convergent side with a small torque line virtually eliminates deflection. The same analysis with throw netted a similar finding
I’ve now included 3 more diagrams. The top one is about calculating gearing english for eliminating throw using outside side. A firm stroke is used and the tip offset will vary based on angle plus deflection must be considered in setting an aim angle. A big picture, usable at the table picture emerges, concerning all types of spin. A spinning ball has less friction and therefore less throw. A race car driver knows that in a quarter mile race a spinning tire goes nowhere. The optimal acceleration off the line is one in which traction is gained almost immediately. Dr. Dave discovered that throw was maximum at about 50% english. More than that and the spin of slippery surface against slippery surface had less traction. Traction takes time and contact time between colliding balls is very short.
That slippery surface against slippery surface where one of the balls is spinning replays the same way. A rotating ball needs time to get traction and the time lessens the effect. The ideal ratio of horizontally rotating ball and matching speed let’s the rotating ball gain immediate traction and in essence just roll along the surface. Even foreign material which would cause cling otherwise is simply rolled over. That is the reality of the top graph.
Another extrapolation from the speed factor is that when the contact time is shortened so is the throw effect. Balls hit with higher speed have less throw than those struck softer. They also have slightly more deflection.
At the table I simply think that outside side will lessen throw but I have to compensate for deflection and speed effects. In general a target line to the overcut side of the pocket with 50% english will work with everything except a soft shot at distance. For more in-depth adjustments the SAWS link here is the best resource available. I just haven’t intuited those adjustments into my game, yet. It also requires cue calibration.
I currently use 3 cues. A solid maple 21 oz snooker cue with 11mm tip, a 19.7 oz solid ash Chinese 8 ball cue with an 11.5mm tip, and a 16.7 oz, 13 mm R360 shafted pool cue. My use of convergent side allows me to seamlessly shift between all three with no adjustment for most shots. That said, convergent side is just a tool and should only be used for the right job. Needless to say calibration and adjustment criteria will have a wide variance for me using SAWS.
This is unfinished but I’m going to post it anyways then return to add and edit later. Take a close look at Diagram 4 and the effect of maximum inside english combined with a vertically rotating ball. That insight rocked my pool understanding and set me down this path. Off to pool.
I know what your talking about and Ronnie, too.
Yes, but...
No. You're probably thinking of the fact that swerve increases as speed decreases, giving the appearance of squirt increasing.
Of course.
Not sure what you mean by this, but not always true. Throw happens to the OB on a cut shot (or with CB spin, or both). By "center ball shot" do you mean a straight shot with no cut angle?
Again, speed has no effect on squirt itself. Do you mean something else by "deflection"?
That's all I have the patience for. Using more common terminology would make you much easier to understand and less work to read.
pj <- work! [/Maynard]
chgo
P.S. It does look like Dr. Dave's graphs show an increase in squirt with speed. I hope he'll let us know if my statements about that above are incorrect in practical terms.
Last edited:
... most definitely. Both shot speed and shot distance (CB to OB) are critically important in compensating for CB deflection. This is the foundation of the SAWS system.
Regards,
Dave
I haven't seen your material on it. I do find it odd I never see anyone post
here about a shot and the distance it was from the Object Ball and what they did to
make it (or if they hit ball too hard or soft) and it caused them to miss what they
regularly make. I aim differently with less allowance for squirt and swerve with BHE
than I do other Side Spin shots. Some distances the BHE is very reliable aiming
directly at the usual contact point and others you have to make an allowance.
To me the understanding of side should at least have some underpinnings of those
kinds of things. Not simply to say, its a feel thing and you'll get it if you keep trying
which so many do say.
Of course. Assuming "think about" means "include in visualization" and "what technique to use" means where to aim and where and how hard to hit the CB.
pj
chgo
Players have to think about that indeed and in that way being able to put the cue ball where its supposed to end up at contact. You would think
that if people understand side that what works on one side works for the other side too but it doesn't.
I just don't see it discussed much here in that concrete sort of way. Its kind of like it doesn't exist here or something. People talk about the latest LD shaft has
1/16 th less squirt than the last model and its questionable how well the played with the prior one.
I think upon examination that I was swayed by the smallest offset having an uptick as speed increases and gave it more salience than the overall because I was looking at small offsets. In the bigger picture your take is probably better, that both throw and squirt are generally consistent regardless of speed. I use squirt and deflection interchangeably. I agree the terminology issue can be confusing. I don’t care about the bounce of the cue off contact so I tend to look only at the net effect on the cue ball. Center ball is center ball as used in common terminology meaning vertical center.
Actually, throw (object ball thrown by cue ball) changes significantly with the speed of rubbing between the balls, either because of the CB's speed or the speed of its spin - less is usually more. Since throw and transferred spin are produced by the same friction, this applies to both.
pj
chgo