Sidespin questions

[skipbales]

Based on videos by Dr. Dave and many others I have always tried to use as little side spin as needed to get position off a rail. If the cue ball was not going to contact a rail the only time I have used any left or right was to make very minor aiming adjustments. I shoot a tiny bit off center to my regular aiming point for almost straight in shots because it is easier for me to adjust on the cue ball than to aim just a tiny bit off center on the object ball. My subconscious causes me to overcut once it sees there is any angle at all. As a general rule, it seems to me, side spin makes the shot more difficult so it should be used wisely.

Tor Lowry demonstrates Shooting a ball down the rail from a 30-45 degree angle and drawing out to the middle of the table. With low outside spin and using just low yield almost the same exact position with a 45 degree cut and pretty close on the 30 degree. So why add the side if it makes the shot harder and goes to the same place? Most players add side spin to this shot and some always do, Sharivari demonstrates the effect of draw vs. side on this shot and shows how little effect draw has with steep angles and how little effect side has with very small angles. The break even angle seems to be around 45 degrees. At 45 degrees, or thereabout, the draw and side effects are pretty equal and he describes this a "player's preference".

That said I see a lot of different ideas on the subject. Watching Earl Strickland comment on matches on the Billiard Network (really cool if you haven't seen them) I realize Earl spins almost everything and says so on the commentaries. He predicts spin when there is clearly no reason to add it. Shooting the final ball where no scratch is even possible he will say "he'll put a little low left on this". Most of the time the player just puts the low on but it doesn't matter either way.

What may make some sense, and this is what I am asking about here, is things like using a small amount of side spin to allow a fuller hit on the object ball and using the slight throw effect to help pocket the ball with the fuller hit. This is done where the player wants to hold the cue ball but has a little more angle then he/she wants.

So my question is: When do you think it is appropriate to use side spin if the cue ball is not going to impact a rail?

All comments are welcome and Merry Christmas to you all.

 

[evergruven]

So my question is: When do you think it is appropriate to use side spin if the cue ball is not going to impact a rail?

All comments are welcome and Merry Christmas to you all.

hey skip
I was thinking sort of along these lines recently
how to shoot an out ball, where position is not needed?

dunno about appropriate, but I like using spin
I feel it in my head, and hand, and it feels good
with every shot, there is a learning curve (punny?)
but the more I play with spin, the better I understand it
the more comfortable I get with it
and the freer I feel to enjoy, and express meself

depends on the length, etc.
but if I'm shooting a slightly off-angle cut ftw
I often feel compelled to shoot with low, and a TOO

also curious to know how others feel 'bout it
also most merry and happy tidings to you, all~~

 

[FranCrimi]

It's appropriate to use sidespin as often as it gives the player success, even if by whatever standards you want to quote, it's not warranted. Doesn't matter. You should play in the way that brings you success.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It's appropriate to use sidespin as often as it gives the player success, even if by whatever standards you want to quote, it's not warranted. Doesn't matter. You should play in the way that brings you success.

A practice that brings immediate success may be less successful in the long run than the alternative. For instance, habitually using spin-induced throw to make small cut angles means you’re less practiced at cutting them without spin/throw, despite the fact that cutting them can be more precise, repeatable and adaptable.

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

A practice that brings immediate success may be less successful in the long run than the alternative. For instance, habitually using spin-induced throw to make small cut angles means you’re less practiced at cutting them without spin/throw, despite the fact that cutting them can be more precise, repeatable and adaptable.

pj
chgo

As a playing partner of mine says about our fellow partner "Terry would put spin on a hot dog". My friend Terry is a real Earl Strickland fan and it is no wonder. They are alike in all respects, even temperament.

Since I truly respect your perspective I would like to get your angle on this. Tor Lowry uses stun to get position wherever possible as it is 100% predictable. As mentioned Earl spins everything, even when it isn't likely to do much. I see on the only "Training video" Mosconi made he believed side spin does more than it does too. In the training video Mosconi says "since I got straight in I have to force the cue ball into the rack with side spin". Many players, even pros, think they can force the cue ball sideways with spin. What they actually do is create angle and cheat the pocket but they do it subconsciously and credit the side spin with the result.

That said, I haven't found stun position to be easier, in general. Example: A shot with small angle where both stun or top right go to the same place. Hitting a perfect stun shot with the perfect speed to get to the desired location can be harder for me than the top shot with spin. The reason is I have to hit the stun shot harder to get to the rail where the top carries it there and the spin handles the rebound. The same is true with 3 rail position shots. If there is not enough angle I have to hit way too hard with stun.

Where I end up is using whichever seems to be the easiest in a given situation. I practiced one of Tor's stun drills several hours a day for days and it never got "easy". I could do it sometimes but I could do it more often with spin to get me back online if I was a little off. It is the idea that using angles to control position is "easier" than using spin is what I question. Both can be done and the rebound angle is more predictable with stun but hitting a perfect stun shot from all distances and achieving the correct speed is also difficult. It seems to me to be just as hard to always get the perfect angle as it is to adjust when you are off a little.

What say you?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I haven't found stun position to be easier, in general.

Have you tried visualizing it as a stop shot (but at an angle)? We all master stop shots (the most common "stun" shot) because we shoot them so often.

pj <- practice, practice, argghhh!
chgo

 

[FranCrimi]

A practice that brings immediate success may be less successful in the long run than the alternative. For instance, habitually using spin-induced throw to make small cut angles means you’re less practiced at cutting them without spin/throw, despite the fact that cutting them can be more precise, repeatable and adaptable.

pj
chgo

The answer to that is easy. Make adjustments. That's what players do when the result is unsuccessful. But the important thing is that they're not trying to turn themselves into someone they're not and ruin their own game and style. Look what happened to Tiger Woods, starting about 10 years ago. He started tampering with his swing because it was considered an imperfect swing according to the textbooks. Injuries aside, that tampering hurt his sense of feel and he lost that old sense he once had without caring that his swing was imperfect.

 

[Geosnookery]

The top billiards player in the world ( in history?) , Ronnie OSullivan , puts spin on every shot... yes 100%. Earl Strickland, perhaps the best American Pool Player ever ( at least up there) puts spin on ‘almost’ every shot.

They are both natural talented players. I have a fraction of their talent but put spin on 85% of shots.

My take on it over the years is that players see the game differently. Without any knowledge of math, most people have an instinct for physics...geometry. We know how to hit a tree with a rock and it will fly off to the side if we don’t hit the tree dead centre. We have a built in Knowledge of geometry. A lot of pool lessons just provide the detailed math.

In contrast some players have an instinct for Calculus. OSullivan from an early age had an instinct where the cueball would go. He wasn’t thinking in geometric lines but rather curves...tangents etc....despite the fact he dropped out of school and had likely never heard the word ‘Calculus’. Cueball and object ball are aren’t moving in straight lines but both curving in arcs even if extremely subtle ones. A bit like knowing instinctively where to toss a frisbee to or a football...you don’t need to get out a protractor and slide rule. Your brain is doing calculus without any conscious thought on your part.


Anyways, the point. Straight lines are ‘not’ the default position, thus ‘no spin’ is not the default position. In contrast, spin is the default position as balls always move in curves...never, ever straight. What seems ‘straight‘ is like looking at the Earth’s horizon. Seems straight but the Earth is a sphere. Players like O'Sullivan and others are using the subtle curves of both object and cueball. Using no spin, hitting centre ball is usually ‘good enough’ but not ‘best’. The perfect shot ‘always’ uses spin. It’s just that players don’t always need the perfect shot. O'Sullivan and Strickland aren’t just pocketing balls. Usually they are pocketing them dead centre.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... balls always move in curves...never, ever straight.

I doubt this very much - well, except maybe on napped snooker cloth.

The perfect shot ‘always’ uses spin.

Not even if "balls always move in curves" (I spin most shots for shape, though).

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

To be clear of my intent, it isn't that I can't hit a stun shot. It is questioning the concept that stunning into position is universally easier, or at least easier to learn or control, than shots with spin. Some shots seem easier with stun and some with spin. A lot of it has to do with angle. Without much angle it often requires a lot more force to get the cue ball to the rail with stun. Some top or bottom can get it to the rail than the spin can set the direction. I might approach the rail at 60 degrees and come off at 120 with spin and get to the same place as if I went into the rail at 90 and came off at 90 with stun.

In my attempt to master stun position I discovered many shots that were difficult to execute consistently using just stun or even just center ball (no side but top and bottom ok). I set the shot up and could get the desired result with stun but could also get it with a combination of top or bottom and a little side spin. Some shots were actually very difficult to execute one way and not so tough the other and this was true in both directions. I haven't seen where either concept excludes the other.

It isn't about what is possible, it is about which is easier. In my testing so far I like a mixture of the concepts, depending on specific angles and goals. When I have more angle to work with I seem to favor stun. But with less angle I don't like the speed required to drive the cue ball to a rail.

 

[skipbales]

hey skip
I was thinking sort of along these lines recently
how to shoot an out ball, where position is not needed?

dunno about appropriate, but I like using spin
I feel it in my head, and hand, and it feels good
with every shot, there is a learning curve (punny?)
but the more I play with spin, the better I understand it
the more comfortable I get with it
and the freer I feel to enjoy, and express meself

depends on the length, etc.
but if I'm shooting a slightly off-angle cut ftw
I often feel compelled to shoot with low, and a TOO

also curious to know how others feel 'bout it
also most merry and happy tidings to you, all~~

I get this totally. It is about the feel. I think that is what Earl Strickland does. He just naturally uses spin because he always has. To a player like that it doesn't make the shot harder, it would be un natural to take the spin off. The classic shot is the one from center table shooting a ball down the rail and coming back out to center table. I think most players almost always put some outside spin with the low. I learned the shot that way and it seems more natural to shoot it that way. It would make the shot harder if a person was not used to doing it. But if that was how you always shot it, it might make it harder to shoot with just the low.

 

[skipbales]

Have you tried visualizing it as a stop shot (but at an angle)? We all master stop shots (the most common "stun" shot) because we shoot them so often.

pj <- practice, practice, argghhh!
chgo

Yes. It isn't that I don't think it is a good idea to use stun to predict. It is the idea that it is easier that I now question. A stun shot is a combination of variables itself. No two stun shots are the same. It is a combination of speed, how low the cue ball is struck to begin with and how far it has to travel. It can arrive with stun with a wide range of those choices. In fact, the side spin seems easier to predict and control at distance since it doesn't wear off as fast.

What I really value about stun is as a place to start. I look at what stun will produce, how hard it is to deliver at the speed needed, and then what changes I would need to make to either get better position or make the shot easier.

As to practice, I do. I am one of those people who take things very literally. I try to do EXACTLY what is taught if it sounds logical. So my analysis about stunning into position is the result of hundreds of hours of practice. I see the value but don't see it as the big difference I expected (or hoped for).

 

[skipbales]

One last idea. I took a lesson with Carl Stewart and he presented a totally different view on position. He too favors little or no spin but uses partial pocket aiming to achieve position. This, to me, is WAY harder and not at all my "cup of tea". I have enough trouble aiming for the center of the pocket and having the extra as a margin of error. Purposely aiming at a portion of the pocket is something I reserve for "must do" situations, not as a normal method. I am less of a shot maker and more of a position player.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It isn't that I don't think it is a good idea to use stun to predict. It is the idea that it is easier that I now question.

I think it's undeniable that a centerball shot is inherently less variable than one with side, but an individual can develop to be better with side despite that.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

One last idea. I took a lesson with Carl Stewart and he presented a totally different view on position. He too favors little or no spin but uses partial pocket aiming to achieve position. This, to me, is WAY harder and not at all my "cup of tea". I have enough trouble aiming for the center of the pocket and having the extra as a margin of error. Purposely aiming at a portion of the pocket is something I reserve for "must do" situations, not as a normal method. I am less of a shot maker and more of a position player.

I practice on a table with 5-inch bucket pockets, so I try to play to different parts of them to stay sharp. It helps.

pj
chgo

 

[skipbales]

I practice on a table with 5-inch bucket pockets, so I try to play to different parts of them to stay sharp. It helps.

pj
chgo

Mine are not so forgiving. Also I have new rails and they are VERY sensitive. You touch the long rail and the ball is not going in. And if you hit hard for position along the short rail it is almost impossible to make a ball. I like the discipline that gives me but think the bumpers might actually be a little too springy.

 

[skipbales]

I think it's undeniable that a centerball shot is inherently less variable than one with side, but an individual can develop to be better with side despite that.

pj
chgo

I think that is the answer. There is a place for both and neither method is exclusive of the other nor is either method "easy" to master.

 

[evergruven]

I get this totally. It is about the feel. I think that is what Earl Strickland does. He just naturally uses spin because he always has. To a player like that it doesn't make the shot harder, it would be un natural to take the spin off. The classic shot is the one from center table shooting a ball down the rail and coming back out to center table. I think most players almost always put some outside spin with the low. I learned the shot that way and it seems more natural to shoot it that way. It would make the shot harder if a person was not used to doing it. But if that was how you always shot it, it might make it harder to shoot with just the low.

yea..I listen to what everybody has to say, but at the end of the day, I'm the one shooting the shot
I've said it here before tho, my goal is to be able to successfully shoot every shot, in every way
some folks start with center ball, and can't get away from it (literally)
some of us started with the crazy spin..and tho only recently have I begun to rein that in (literally)
I think that's ok.
it's taken me four years to figure out how to aim the cb with inside to make a ball
and it doesn't even work at all angles..
but I cracked that little code, and am looking forward to having fun with it, and continuing on
pool is the gift that keeps on giving, that sometimes feels like frustrating, maddening curse
I think that's ok, too ^_^

 

[Dan White]

Two HOF players told me they use just a tiny bit of outside english on all shots unless something else is needed for position. This is because that tiny bit of outside does not impact ob direction much but it does send the ob on its way more cleanly. Maybe it is due to less than perfectly clean balls or cloth but I do notice that on slight cut shots up to half ball hit the ob does seem to run away from the cb after contact more cleanly. With just follow I often see the ob skid briefly before it begins natural roll. Real playing conditions might be something Tor is forgetting about. I generally play with vertical axis unless needed otherwise, but it seems to me that small amounts of outside on typical shots allows for a better result in non ideal situations. Mind you, you need a good enough stroke to be able to hit the cue ball where you are aiming, too.

I understand what you mean about taking instructions literally and I'm the same way. Say what you mean because people might actually listen to you! I think the idea of not using english might be more geared to the numbskulls who spin the ball around a bar box all night for no apparent reason. I think what I mentioned above is a different thing. I dare say that most high level players support what I wrote in the first paragraph (though I still have not committed to play that way... yet).

 

[skipbales]

It's appropriate to use sidespin as often as it gives the player success, even if by whatever standards you want to quote, it's not warranted. Doesn't matter. You should play in the way that brings you success.

Two HOF players told me they use just a tiny bit of outside english on all shots unless something else is needed for position. This is because that tiny bit of outside does not impact ob direction much but it does send the ob on its way more cleanly. Maybe it is due to less than perfectly clean balls or cloth but I do notice that on slight cut shots up to half ball hit the ob does seem to run away from the cb after contact more cleanly. With just follow I often see the ob skid briefly before it begins natural roll. Real playing conditions might be something Tor is forgetting about. I generally play with vertical axis unless needed otherwise, but it seems to me that small amounts of outside on typical shots allows for a better result in non ideal situations. Mind you, you need a good enough stroke to be able to hit the cue ball where you are aiming, too.

I understand what you mean about taking instructions literally and I'm the same way. Say what you mean because people might actually listen to you! I think the idea of not using english might be more geared to the numbskulls who spin the ball around a bar box all night for no apparent reason. I think what I mentioned above is a different thing. I dare say that most high level players support what I wrote in the first paragraph (though I still have not committed to play that way... yet).

Yes. CJ Wiley claims all top level players favor a slight offset, some to the inside some to the outside. He favors the inside to lessen the cue ball action, a "Dead Cue Ball". He calls it floating into position instead of rolling. This offset is really miniscule and could even go unnoticed. So many people misunderstood his "touch of inside" he said "maybe I should have called it a hair of inside". He likes the idea of never having any outside. If he is off a little it is center ball or a little extra inside but rarely outside. He feels the rebound is more predictable (for him) since it is so often a similar spin. He lessens the number of variations he has to master. Of course there are times when outside is required, it is just a general rule thing.