Problem With Our Understanding Of Side

[Imac007]

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

Diagram 1 shows a stun shot with various amounts of side at various speeds. Again I am guilty of targeting attention onto smaller amounts of side since that has been my primary focus. The complete conclusion from Dr. Dave states that throw is consistent regardless of speed for smaller amounts of english.. My statement should have had the "smaller amounts of english" disclaimer on the end.

 

[Imac007]

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.
View attachment 528607

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

View attachment 528675

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’m adding to this by quoting the original post I want to continue, rather than editing and adding to something a few pages ago. I’m also uploading the diagrams again.

Diagram 4 caught my eye. It shows 50% english. That amount of english has been established as producing maximum throw. The english was applied using a firm stroke with draw or follow. The rotating contact is shown to reduce throw to less than 2° regardless of whether it is inside outside or center ball through the angles tested. 1° of deviation over a distance of 5 feet is one inch. On shots from no cut through half ball there is less than 1° of throw. The blue line is of particular significance because it shows that inside side with draw or follow had consistent throw of 1° through all angles tested.

The other graph labeled Diagram 1 shows that for small amounts of side throw, is also consistent, regardless of speed. Consistent small amounts of throw and deflections regardless of speed across all angles was unexpected.

I’m going to look at center ball in the next post.

 

[Imac007]

Center Ball Reality Check



This diagram graphs a soft stun shot using 25% outside, 25% inside english and comparing the throw to a center ball stun shot without english. The focus of what this tells us about center ball is what started my journey. Look at the red no english line in the diagram. A simple center ball shot without any spin and the amounts of deviation from the physics elastic model termed ghost ball reveals a problem.

Throw with slow speed, center ball cueing, in just the half of the ball from a straight in shot through a half ball shot, which is about 30°, varies from zero throw to over 5.5° of deviation, with clean balls in a test lab. This represents the majority of angles a player shoots.

Games like 8 ball and straight pool have been primarily played on smaller tables with generous pockets. The nature of the games means that shots longer than ½ a table are infrequent. The forgiveness factor meant that for decades cut induced throw was handled by applying a little outside side to counter it. Many early tables also had nap, lessening the deflection factor and increasing deflection cancelling swerve.

Modern equipment with shaved nap surfaces and the addition of 9 foot tables as a more frequent standard has changed things. The rotation games that have become popular are played on larger tables and longer shots are more prevalent. The effect of throw has become a problem in these modern games.

The center ball thesis for expert play should now be in question. As a beginner base it has merit and what players learn need not be forgotten or thrown out. That said the thesis for cueing a significant number of shots with small amounts of convergent english has merit. Actual table use has found the method quite forgiving and it has the benefit of limiting throw and making the throw element more consistent across a large range of shots.

Players using some outside english in the past often just lined up the center ball shot and tweaked the shot a bit with some back hand english to the outside. The resultant cue line was a slight overcut compared to the ghost ball and a bit of deflection compensated. The net effect was a better result than using pure center ball on most shots. The data presented here shows, in fact, that any shot using top or bottom and a firm stroke had less throw when outer side spin was added. The gearing english thesis worked even if the shooter didn’t get the throw cancelation exactly right, it lessened net throw.

The result though in most cases has been an exaggeration of object ball contact off the natural acquisition of outside english by the collision. The cue ball pace was either deadened or sped up more off rail contact. The rebound angle is either flattened or sharpened when intentional outside english has been added. Cue ball control became more difficult. In order to solve the problem of the uneven travel of the cue ball when it contacts a rail, the side limiting thesis of center ball striking gets recycled. Now the position control issue becomes a pocketing issue due to throw instead.

Intentional off center hits have a forgiveness factor not available to center ball. Center ball has no adjustment to the aim line included to catch an off center hit. If the off center hit is planned a preshot adjustment can be made. If the off center stroke is planned and encounters a subsequent slightly larger off center hit, part of the effect has already been compensated for in preshot adjustments.

Try the following. Set a ball mid table in line with the table center. Put the cue ball on the spot. Cue the center table ball dead on. In theory it should, with a straight stroke rebound off the end cushion and return to hit the cue ball flush. Try it 10 times. What is the actual result? This is a multi-trial attempt. The results should be higher than in actual play where "do overs" are not commonplace. The point is that less than perfect cueing is common and that proactively building in a forgiveness factor based on physics makes sense.

This is not a thesis to throw out what we have all learned. It’s about a new tool in the toolbox. A new way of harnessing side to improve pocketing error management through minimizing the effects of throw, is just one aspect. Countering the negative effects of acquired outside side when rail contact, makes judgement of speed and angles off the rail, more consistent. It also gives the player who has been using outside to compensate for throw issues, an alternative, that doesn’t involve losing cue ball control in the process.

Center ball needs a reality check and a new tool in the toolbox is just a tool. Players have been using the outside spin to counteract the throw issue for decades and just trading one problem for another. By learning to apply side convergently a different set of interactions are set in motion. An alternative option is available. The example using convergent inside english has proven to be a better solution to counteracting throw except where outside english is needed to alter the angle off a rail or added speed is better achieved with spin than pace.

I’ve focused on convergent inside so far but there is a whole world of convergent outside to consider as well. This should be enough grist for the mill to grind for tonight.

 

[336Robin]

Sorry, I don't get that.

pj
chgo

I was vague but here it is. Using Outside Spin is much more forgiving
because the direction of the spin assists the shot and slides off the Object Ball meaning
the area where the cue ball needs to land at contact is a little wider, better yet more forgiving.

Inside Spin grips the Object Ball immediately on contact meaning your arrival point must
be more exact with less or no forgiveness.

This doesn't necessarily change the arrival point of the cue ball if you have it plotted to
the center of the pocket but it does change the ease at which you're able to pocket if
your subjective view of where to hit the object ball is off by a small margin.

In short Inside Spin is more difficult to master. More especially when you consider that your allowance amount
with Outside that you're getting away with (potting balls) makes you think you can allow the same amount with Inside Spin when
it very well may not be true.

 

[dr_dave]

I was vague but here it is. Using Outside Spin is much more forgiving
because the direction of the spin assists the shot and slides off the Object Ball meaning
the area where the cue ball needs to land at contact is a little wider, better yet more forgiving.

Inside Spin grips the Object Ball immediately on contact meaning your arrival point must
be more exact with less or no forgiveness.

This doesn't necessarily change the arrival point of the cue ball if you have it plotted to
the center of the pocket but it does change the ease at which you're able to pocket if
your subjective view of where to hit the object ball is off by a small margin.

In short Inside Spin is more difficult to master. More especially when you consider that your allowance amount
with Outside that you're getting away with (potting balls) makes you think you can allow the same amount with Inside Spin when
it very well may not be true.

Inside spin can actually offer some advantages, assuming it is the right choice for the shot based on CB control requirements. For more info, see:

advantages of using inside spin

Regards,
Dave

 

[garczar]

View attachment 528683

This diagram graphs a soft stun shot using 25% outside, 25% inside english and comparing the throw to a center ball stun shot without english. The focus of what this tells us about center ball is what started my journey. Look at the red no english line in the diagram. A simple center ball shot without any spin and the amounts of deviation from the physics elastic model termed ghost ball reveals a problem.

Throw with slow speed, center ball cueing, in just the half of the ball from a straight in shot through a half ball shot, which is about 30°, varies from zero throw to over 5.5° of deviation, with clean balls in a test lab. This represents the majority of angles a player shoots.

Games like 8 ball and straight pool have been primarily played on smaller tables with generous pockets. The nature of the games means that shots longer than ½ a table are infrequent. The forgiveness factor meant that for decades cut induced throw was handled by applying a little outside side to counter it. Many early tables also had nap, lessening the deflection factor and increasing deflection cancelling swerve.

Modern equipment with shaved nap surfaces and the addition of 9 foot tables as a more frequent standard has changed things. The rotation games that have become popular are played on larger tables and longer shots are more prevalent. The effect of throw has become a problem in these modern games.

The center ball thesis for expert play should now be in question. As a beginner base it has merit and what players learn need not be forgotten or thrown out. That said the thesis for cueing a significant number of shots with small amounts of convergent english has merit. Actual table use has found the method quite forgiving and it has the benefit of limiting throw and making the throw element more consistent across a large range of shots.

Players using some outside english in the past often just lined up the center ball shot and tweaked the shot a bit with some back hand english to the outside. The resultant cue line was a slight overcut compared to the ghost ball and a bit of deflection compensated. The net effect was a better result than using pure center ball on most shots. The data presented here shows, in fact, that any shot using top or bottom and a firm stroke had less throw when outer side spin was added. The gearing english thesis worked even if the shooter didn’t get the throw cancelation exactly right, it lessened net throw.

The result though in most cases has been an exaggeration of object ball contact off the natural acquisition of outside english by the collision. The cue ball pace was either deadened or sped up more off rail contact. The rebound angle is either flattened or sharpened when intentional outside english has been added. Cue ball control became more difficult. In order to solve the problem of the uneven travel of the cue ball when it contacts a rail, the side limiting thesis of center ball striking gets recycled. Now the position control issue becomes a pocketing issue due to throw instead.

Intentional off center hits have a forgiveness factor not available to center ball. Center ball has no adjustment to the aim line included to catch an off center hit. If the off center hit is planned a preshot adjustment can be made. If the off center stroke is planned and encounters a subsequent slightly larger off center hit, part of the effect has already been compensated for in preshot adjustments.

Try the following. Set a ball mid table in line with the table center. Put the cue ball on the spot. Cue the center table ball dead on. In theory it should, with a straight stroke rebound off the end cushion and return to hit the cue ball flush. Try it 10 times. What is the actual result? This mid a multi-trial attempt. The results should be higher than in actual play where "do overs" are not commonplace. The point is that less than perfect cueing is common and that proactively building in a forgiveness factor based on physics makes sense.

This is not a thesis to throw out what we have all learned. It’s about a new tool in the toolbox. A new way of harnessing side to improve pocketing error management through minimizing the effects of throw, is just one aspect. Countering the negative effects of acquired outside side when rail contact, makes judgement of speed and angles off the rail, more consistent. It also gives the player who has been using outside to compensate for throw issues, an alternative, that doesn’t involve losing cue ball control in the process.

Center ball needs a reality check and a new tool in the toolbox is just a tool. Players have been using the outside spin to counteract the throw issue for decades and just trading one problem for another. By learning to apply side convergently a different set of interactions are set in motion. An alternative option is available. The example using convergent inside english has proven to be a better solution to counteracting throw except where outsidevenglish is needed to alter the angle off a rail or added speed is better achieved with doin than pace.

I’ve focused on convergent inside so far but there is a whole world of convergent outside to consider as well. This should be enough grist for the mill to grind for tonight.

I just play pool. Does ANYBODY contemplate ANY of this while actually playing a game??? WAAAAAY overthinking this entire subject. Look, I've known MANY great players that could barely read a comic-book but they figured out playing pool at an INSANE level by just playing. A LOT.

 

[336Robin]

I just play pool. Does ANYBODY contemplate ANY of this while actually playing a game??? WAAAAAY overthinking this entire subject. Look, I've known MANY great players that could barely read a comic-book but they figured out playing pool at an INSANE level by just playing. A LOT.

I get your post for sure. There was a video that was extremely helpful so as to
show visually the effect of throw somewhere posted here once where the shooter shot
his shots differently and he drew lines showing the amount of throw with each
technique. He was shooting those shots toward the camera with different cuts and
speeds. I wish I had book marked it or saved it somewhere. Feel is big in the game of
pool and always will be.

 

[Cornerman]

View attachment 528683

This diagram graphs a soft stun shot using 25% outside, 25% inside english and comparing the throw to a center ball stun shot without english. The focus of what this tells us about center ball is what started my journey. Look at the red no english line in the diagram. A simple center ball shot without any spin and the amounts of deviation from the physics elastic model termed ghost ball reveals a problem.

Throw with slow speed, center ball cueing, in just the half of the ball from a straight in shot through a half ball shot, which is about 30°, varies from zero throw to over 5.5° of deviation, with clean balls in a test lab. This represents the majority of angles a player shoots.

Games like 8 ball and straight pool have been primarily played on smaller tables with generous pockets. The nature of the games means that shots longer than ½ a table are infrequent. The forgiveness factor meant that for decades cut induced throw was handled by applying a little outside side to counter it. Many early tables also had nap, lessening the deflection factor and increasing deflection cancelling swerve.

Modern equipment with shaved nap surfaces and the addition of 9 foot tables as a more frequent standard has changed things. The rotation games that have become popular are played on larger tables and longer shots are more prevalent. The effect of throw has become a problem in these modern games.

The center ball thesis for expert play should now be in question. As a beginner base it has merit and what players learn need not be forgotten or thrown out. That said the thesis for cueing a significant number of shots with small amounts of convergent english has merit. Actual table use has found the method quite forgiving and it has the benefit of limiting throw and making the throw element more consistent across a large range of shots.

Players using some outside english in the past often just lined up the center ball shot and tweaked the shot a bit with some back hand english to the outside. The resultant cue line was a slight overcut compared to the ghost ball and a bit of deflection compensated. The net effect was a better result than using pure center ball on most shots. The data presented here shows, in fact, that any shot using top or bottom and a firm stroke had less throw when outer side spin was added. The gearing english thesis worked even if the shooter didn’t get the throw cancelation exactly right, it lessened net throw.

The result though in most cases has been an exaggeration of object ball contact off the natural acquisition of outside english by the collision. The cue ball pace was either deadened or sped up more off rail contact. The rebound angle is either flattened or sharpened when intentional outside english has been added. Cue ball control became more difficult. In order to solve the problem of the uneven travel of the cue ball when it contacts a rail, the side limiting thesis of center ball striking gets recycled. Now the position control issue becomes a pocketing issue due to throw instead.

Intentional off center hits have a forgiveness factor not available to center ball. Center ball has no adjustment to the aim line included to catch an off center hit. If the off center hit is planned a preshot adjustment can be made. If the off center stroke is planned and encounters a subsequent slightly larger off center hit, part of the effect has already been compensated for in preshot adjustments.

Try the following. Set a ball mid table in line with the table center. Put the cue ball on the spot. Cue the center table ball dead on. In theory it should, with a straight stroke rebound off the end cushion and return to hit the cue ball flush. Try it 10 times. What is the actual result? This mid a multi-trial attempt. The results should be higher than in actual play where "do overs" are not commonplace. The point is that less than perfect cueing is common and that proactively building in a forgiveness factor based on physics makes sense.

This is not a thesis to throw out what we have all learned. It’s about a new tool in the toolbox. A new way of harnessing side to improve pocketing error management through minimizing the effects of throw, is just one aspect. Countering the negative effects of acquired outside side when rail contact, makes judgement of speed and angles off the rail, more consistent. It also gives the player who has been using outside to compensate for throw issues, an alternative, that doesn’t involve losing cue ball control in the process.

Center ball needs a reality check and a new tool in the toolbox is just a tool. Players have been using the outside spin to counteract the throw issue for decades and just trading one problem for another. By learning to apply side convergently a different set of interactions are set in motion. An alternative option is available. The example using convergent inside english has proven to be a better solution to counteracting throw except where outsidevenglish is needed to alter the angle off a rail or added speed is better achieved with doin than pace.

I’ve focused on convergent inside so far but there is a whole world of convergent outside to consider as well. This should be enough grist for the mill to grind for tonight.

I don’t think you read this important graph at all. You missed its importance. And straight Pool has never traditionally been played on small tables.

You’re dropping quickly into the Bit Bucket it all your research can’t grasp simple concepts.

Freddie <~~~ loves this graph

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Using Outside Spin is much more forgiving because the direction of the spin assists the shot and slides off the Object Ball meaning the area where the cue ball needs to land at contact is a little wider, better yet more forgiving.

Inside Spin grips the Object Ball immediately on contact meaning your arrival point must be more exact with less or no forgiveness.

I think it's the other way around.

Outside spin is less forgiving because at slower rubbing speeds the amount of throw is more sensitive to small rubbing speed differences.

Inside spin doesn't "grip the ball immediately".

In short Inside Spin is more difficult to master.

I think we just use it less, so we're less familiar with it.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

***Too Long - Didn't Read***

The few parts that I bothered to skim seem to be just recitations of commonly known facts (a fair number of them wrong). I don't suppose the misinformation is too problematic, since hardly anyone will have the patience to read these novel-length posts.

pj
chgo

 

[garczar]

The few parts that I bothered to skim seem to be just recitations of commonly known facts (a fair number of them wrong). I don't suppose the misinformation is too problematic, since hardly anyone will have the patience to read these novel-length posts.

pj
chgo

Got that right. We're not building a nuclear reactor here.

 

[Imac007]

I get the perspective

Sorry, I don't get that.

pj
chgo

He’s referring to inside and outside english. The same side has a different effect depending on the intended direction of cut. It’s a matter of which side of center is the contact point.

 

[336Robin]

Pool is a highly subjective sport so whatever speaks to you and works for
you is all that matters. Your understanding of it is the nuts if works for you.

I do think you're right in that people use it less and are therefore less familar with how
to use. Dr. Dave has a link somewhere about outside gearing english that mentions
that it can assist aiming inconsistencies but I also follow your assertion that slower
speeds with more outside can prove problematic. That seems like more of a slow
speed shot situation than one where a majority of shots speed fall.

I don't fall into the touch of inside crowd but Lately I've used inside spin to straighten
out kick shots to the cross corner with a lot of success but that's a whole different
thing..

I think it's the other way around.

Outside spin is less forgiving because at slower rubbing speeds the amount of throw is more sensitive to small rubbing speed differences.

Inside spin doesn't "grip the ball immediately".


I think we just use it less, so we're less familiar with it.

pj
chgo

 

[Imac007]

I don’t think you read this important graph at all. You missed its importance. And straight Pool has never traditionally been played on small tables.

You’re dropping quickly into the Bit Bucket it all your research can’t grasp simple concepts.

Freddie <~~~ loves this graph

The 4x8 was very popular for years and that is what Mosconi set his 14.1 record on. Hustlers tried to encourage play on 5x10’s. They preferred rotation games like 9 ball which went quickly.


There is another insight that can be mined from this graph. Throw is not accumulative. When an object ball is cut the cue ball rotates around its center of mass. Outside side is the result. When outside side is applied to the cue ball the normal cut induced throw no longer applies. With the right speed and turn we know that resultant gearing english can actually eliminate throw.

The insight is that friction produced side trumps contact acquired side. When convergent side is applied to the outside the amount of rotation is less than normally acquired contact side. Since it’s not accumulative and the friction produced turn dominates in the interaction, any contact off a rail is near to a natural rebound. The ball runs less and checks less based on angle into the rail. When there is some distance to the rail and soft to medium speed is used, the side spin often evaporates before contact. It’s as close to a neutral cue ball as possible especially when compared to center ball. It’s the smallest outside effect compared to gearing side, minimizing the widening and speed implications off a rail.

There are tangent line implications that haven’t been worked out yet. The force line directions are different between inside and outside convergence comparatively. In theory they meet near the impact area. When looking at the difference in approach angle to the impact area it alters the physics math slightly. The difference is notable on very thin cuts.

The use of convergent cueing lines to apply side is unexplored territory. Using a geometric relationship to produce consistent application regardless of distance is one insight considered so far. There are many pool minds that will try the entire gamut of possible areas of exploration. I’m just trying to point at another such avenue. Effects are what they are Dr. Dave reminds us that not every bit of data or math finds its way into table applications. This is an attempt to do just that. Knowledge never becomes part of wisdom unless it finds a use. Only applied knowledge has value, otherwise it is just data noise.

 

[Imac007]

Limited audience

I know what your talking about and Ronnie, too.

We try to relate to stuff based on how descriptions overlay our experiences. I knew few would actually relate when I wrote it. That said, those of us who have had the body sense of moving balls with a steady consistent stroke understand the nuances needed to put the cue ball on a string and keep it there. When position require us to be too fine in our maneuvering, just a slight misstep and a snowballing of lost pattern play can devolve. Glad to have found a kindred soul who related.

 

[Imac007]

The few parts that I bothered to skim seem to be just recitations of commonly known facts (a fair number of them wrong). I don't suppose the misinformation is too problematic, since hardly anyone will have the patience to read these novel-length posts.

pj
chgo

I’m in a no win position based on the diversity of readers. When I get to the point, it goes over too many heads because they need a base level to understand. When I dumb it down, then nit pickers need the perspective details which go with the explanation. If I now include details I’m verbose.

That’s the origin of the "herding cats" analogy, I referred to earlier.

Language is description. Communication is shared understanding. In order to understand the receiver needs to relate to the description at the level of its origin. Impossible so I just remain stoic and try to relate to different audiences at different times.

I only describe. Persuasion is an inside job, the world is what we tell ourselves it is. I listen and read with that in mind. Go inside and live what the communicator is trying to share. Find the perspective in which the communication makes sense. I’m willing to defend my perspective, acknowledge its limited context or admit it was wrong, when faced with relevant facts, not drawn conclusions. You face all the same obstacles in communicating too.

I wish you luck herding your cats too.

 

[Imac007]

The few parts that I bothered to skim seem to be just recitations of commonly known facts (a fair number of them wrong). I don't suppose the misinformation is too problematic, since hardly anyone will have the patience to read these novel-length posts.

pj
chgo

Some of my descriptions around outside side might be different than your experience. I sharpened my early skills on heavily napped cloth. I see the Filipino players on YouTube facing similar conditions. Also Chinese 8 ball is played on napped directional cloth. It looks newer and slick comparatively, but does swerve based on direction of play similar to snooker felt. I see players like Francisco B adjusting on no nap cloth by using outside but on a downward plane trying to get the ball to swerve more like experienced on the napped cloth he came from. I can relate. The shaved nap cloth swerves less and deflects more.

I remember a TAR episode 38, at about 45 minutes, where the interviewer was asking FB where he aimed on a particular shot. He indicated an aim point short of the pocket using outside side, a throw adjustment. The interviewer started to argue with him that deflection would make such an aim and targeting line impossible. A second commentator laughed at his partner. He understood that if FB described where he aimed and the other guy didn’t get it, it wasn’t FB that had the problem. I see FB getting lots of ‘bite" on the ball. Pushing the cue ball into the table bed allows for longer contact and the ability to simulate some of the action he gets on heavier cloth conditions. Occasionally he misses a shot when the intended bite results in more of a skid as the angle ends up in deflection instead of a sense of extended contact. In other words the cue ball gets away and lose the hold moment that table resistance can provide.

You might not relate but there will be players out there that will. It just represents a tool in FB, Effren’s and other Asian players toolbox they can use when conditions dictate. This whole thread started with the intent of revealing possible tools not being used by mainstream players.

That same dynamic, more deflection and less swerve back on unnapped cloth is used by some players to cut the object ball more and compensate for throw with deflection. I suspect that perspective is what rings true for you and creates dissonance when you read my description. As usual it’s all perspective, context specific differences.

 

[336Robin]

Faster, slicker cloth with less swerve back have taken over the US market
or most of our world anyway, swerve is there but it is much less. Intuitive
adjustments take place according to conditions and some shots "once a thing" are
now "less of a thing". The most important thing being....can you get out...meaning
can you make the intuitive adjustments necessary for the cloth you're playing on to
get proper shape. This argument about cloth has existed for a long time. Old timers
talk of the day when you had to have a real stroke to move the ball which also meant
you had to be able to adjust for Side Spin to do so. Its the circle of life and a
ferocious animal walks out on a rock and roars over the plain, baby animals are born, birds fly, the sun
comes up hot as hell and everyone runs for the water hole or the shade and
someone gets eaten. Post on!

Some of my descriptions around outside side might be different than your experience. I sharpened my early skills on heavily napped cloth. I see the Filipino players on YouTube facing similar conditions. Also Chinese 8 ball is played on napped directional cloth. It looks newer and slick comparatively, but does swerve based on direction of play similar to snooker felt. I see players like Francisco B adjusting on no nap cloth by using outside but on a downward plane trying to get the ball to swerve more like experienced on the napped cloth he came from. I can relate. The shaved nap cloth swerves less and deflects more.

I remember a TAR episode where the interviewer was asking FB where he aimed on a particular shot. He indicated an aim point short of the pocket using outside side, a throw adjustment. The interviewer started to argue with him that deflection would make such an aim and targeting line impossible. A second commentator laughed at his partner. He understood that if FB described where he aimed and the other guy didn’t get it, it wasn’t FB that had the problem. I see FB getting lots of ‘bite" on the ball. Pushing the cue ball into the table bed allows for longer contact and the ability to simulate some of the action he gets on heavier cloth conditions. Occasionally he misses a shot when the intended bite results in more of a skid as the angle ends up in deflection instead of a sense of extended contact. In other words the cue ball gets away and lose the hold moment that table resistance can provide.

You might not relate but there will be players out there that will. It just represents a tool in FB, Effren’s and other Asian players toolbox they can use when conditions dictate. This whole thread started with the intent of revealing possible tools not being used by mainstream players.

That same dynamic, more deflection and less swerve back on unnapped cloth is used by some players to cut the object ball more and compensate for throw with deflection. I suspect that perspective is what rings true for you and creates dissonance when you read my description. As usual it’s all perspective, context specific differences.

 

[Jaden]

well...

General player understanding of side/english usually relates to the aim line through center ball. That line extends to the target, an object ball when potting, which is roughly the ghost ball location. Paradoxically the physics of spin on the object ball doesn’t care about the target line. When parallel english is used the line and direction of force will coincide with the target line. When any other version of side application is used, the direction of force and its relationship to a parallel line through the center of mass are the common denominator. FHE and BHE each have lines of force that don’t care about the shot line in their calculations. Deflection calculations are a different matter. The relationship between contact point, contact angle, approach angle, tip shape, chalk and coefficient of friction all factor into eventual force dynamics after impact, including deflection calculations, but the original target line is not found in those equations, except with parallel english.

Basically the line of force through the ball when side is used, has a parallel relationship to a line running through the center of mass. In other words the physics math is different for FHE than for BHE or parallel english, because the line paralleling each type of english, through the center of mass, is on a different plane. Parallel english finds the force line through the center of mass coincides with the target line. The paradox is that regardless of which type of english is used the reference used has been the target line, usually measured in tips of english. But tips of english from the ghost ball line won’t tell you the length of the torque line. In other words it doesn’t tell you how much side is really being applied on the ball, except when using parallel side.

A closer look is enlightening. We know that the cueing angle through the ball is related in physics math to a parallel line running through the center of mass, not a spot on the surface. The center of the ball is the true reference point. The distance of the cueing line to the paralleling line through that center is a torque arm, the length of that line is used in spin calculations. I call it simply the torque line.

There is a problem in perception because the ghost ball line, not the paralleling line through the center, has been used as the reference. Using that as the perspective has all perceived lines of english radiating from or paralleling the ghost ball line. Using those diverging lines the game has missed a whole range of angles with side, not currently used in play. The implications are huge.

Our fixation on the target line, when describing side, is only relevant when parallel english is used. In essence every type of side’s, force line, is parallel in nature, only that parallel line, doesn’t correlate to the target line. Various deflection, curved ball travel dynamics, combined with aim adjustments, and margin of error characteristics, allow balls to arrive in the same impact zone and pocket balls, despite our understanding reference being flawed.

If anyone is interested I will explain the missed versions of side, how to apply them, how to adjust for each and their uses in potting and playing position. There is some basic geometry, mainly ratios, in the explanations but no real math otherwise.

Some references to Dr. Dave physics results will be used as references for validation.

The tendency for everyone to base aiming off of the original sight line is why people think they get more spin with LD tech.

This is due to LD tech promoting less squirt so that the cues ending line to the original sight line is more parallel than with higher deflection/squirt shafts. So in effect, the same amount of perceptual offset using the original sight line as a reference, is in actuality a GREATER offset based on the final line of the cue in reference to the ball itself.


Jaden

p.s. it's difficult to demonstrate so that people can see it because they KEEP wanting to reference the amount of side spin they're using based on offset from center on the original perceived shot line, instead of the offset of the final line of the cue in relation to center ball.

 

[Imac007]

The tendency for everyone to base aiming off of the original sight line is why people think they get more spin with LD tech.

This is due to LD tech promoting less squirt so that the cues ending line to the original sight line is more parallel than with higher deflection/squirt shafts. So in effect, the same amount of perceptual offset using the original sight line as a reference, is in actuality a GREATER offset based on the final line of the cue in reference to the ball itself.


Jaden

p.s. it's difficult to demonstrate so that people can see it because they KEEP wanting to reference the amount of side spin they're using based on offset from center on the original perceived shot line, instead of the offset of the final line of the cue in relation to center ball.

In general the range of angles we experience perceptually and conceptually is usually through 90°. Only 30° are experienced, when seen down the center ball line, on the ball’s surface, from center ball to the edge. To experience the other 60° of angles the ghost ball center line needs to move off the ball’s surface. This fact creates two problems when looked at from the standpoint of throw and aiming.

The first is that the angles perceptually look very much alike in relation to one another but as the graph shown earlier reveals, the throw differences are not proportionate. On shots from straight in to ¾ ball the throw goes from zero to 2°. The second is that perceptually each angle is little different from the next, over the 14° of angles in the quarter and as you shift slightly to increase the cut, the throw increases lessening the actual cut. We feel the cue line shift and think the cut adjustment is enough, yet it isn’t. In the small change between ~10° and 14°, the amount of throw increases a full degree. On a shot of spot shot distance that is a over half inch or a quarter ball’s width at the pocket.

Cueing systems have emerged because of the two facts. When the center cue line moves off the surface the benefit of a physical landmark is lost. Center to edge aiming systems use the perceptual landmarking to set up reference lines then pivot to center. That allows physical locations to be used, not imaginary ones.

Going back to the graph, the 20-30° angle, with a center ball soft stun, increases throw from 3° to over 5½°. That is similar in change to the 4° shift from 10-14°. Roughly the area between about ⅔ and ½ ball contact. The point is that perceptually the difference between the two aim lines makes it easy to end up with a fat hit.

This is not an aiming thread, it’s mostly about using spin to negate throw. Regardless of aiming system to get to the gb line, the throw issue remains. By using a center ball to ghost ball reference, the throw dynamic is the same regardless of how you get to that location.

The inside convergent side application does several things.
The rotating ball decreases throw.
The inside convergent line adds cut to the contact.
And, almost more importantly the perceptual shift is felt as a difference, a definite feeling of cutting the ball is felt so the angles don’t feel like they are so close together in proximity.

By using the midpoint between the balls as the constant convergent point, it’s self adjusting. Where various pivot systems need adjustments to offsets, variable bridge lengths and further adjustments based on distances between balls, those are part of a system. Those gyrations are the process to get to a center ball aiming system that still is looking throw in the face.

Simplicity is the key. I use parallel or contact point to contact point aiming, aimed at the undercut side of the pocket. The system to get to the cb to gb line is unimportant. Once there, locate the midpoint of the distance between the two lines. That becomes the target the tip points at. Now shift the butt only, to the inside, keeping the tip pointed at that midpoint target. Once the new cue line is sensed as going to just pass the inside of the dead center of the ball, that is the cueing line. While it takes a fair bit of time to explain, it is quickly pure simplicity at the table.

Oddly once the midpoint target is set, it’s better to just focus there as that is on the straight stroke line. The perceptual effect and body sense now feels like the shot is half its original distance. Once that sense is felt the stroke through the ball can be more like simply stroking at a straight in shot..

It’s surprising how quickly your body can learn to feel like the line is right. Initially the perspective will be completely foreign feeling. The temptation is to look at the object ball. Trust that the cueing line is right and that all it needs is a straight stroke, avoiding spin. You may have to close your eyes just to get rid of subconscious cue adjustment related to visually holding onto the ob as the target, instead of the shot line midpoint. The line the cue is pointing should be the only concern. In a short time a connectedness is felt between the shot line and the ball going into the pocket. Perception calibrates and the sub/unconscious adjustments no longer occur.