Skid

[lfigueroa]

actually thats what happens more often in Vegas than anything. Happens less with Kamui chalk FWIW.

Here we would disagree. I see more skids at the DCC in the midwest that out in Vegas. And I believe Kamui may actually increase the chances of skid because it reputedly puts more chalk on the tip, which means more chalk on the CB, which means more skids.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Fatboy]

That shit they spray on balls everyday is part of the problem too.

There is a such thing as cleaning equipment too much.

Gotta be like BDF and have your own balls with you these days.

there is a pool room i play at that they put thois wax shit on the balls constatly and they slide and bank long, its ok if your used to it, but if you not man its tricky to figure out. anything "Spray" is for the maid not pool balls.

 

[Fatboy]

Here we would disagree. I see more skids at the DCC in the midwest that out in Vegas. And I believe Kamui may actually increase the chances of skid because it reputedly puts more chalk on the tip, which means more chalk on the CB, which means more skids.

Lou Figueroa

at my house in Vegas i played alone for hours with Kamui for this reason to see what would happen. I use lots of talc too(my hands are wet constantly) I had the table looking a mess and no skids to speak of, I let go like this for 3-4 days and less skids, then cleaned it and went back to Master Chalk-more skids after the first 4-5 hours of play. Nobody else was playing during this time to my experiment was controlled. i did it cause i was curious about Kamui chalk, your right there is a ton more of it visible on the cloth, CB-especially measle ball, I used a blue circle in this case. didnt wipe it off either.

Could have been a coincidence, i was surprised myself i didnt have more problems I had less. Who knows, I tried to make the ball skid, about a 1/3rd ball hit with the CB 18" away from the OB is about the easiest most reliable skid shot I have found. wit henough speed to play the CB back to the center of the table off the long rail. Just a hair softer thay you would hit a ball on a lag on a 9' box, thats the "skid" speed. it can hapen with just about any shot, i'm just sharing what i found to be the most relliable way to get a funny contact.

of course i can't make layered tips work and do great with triangles, so everyone has different experiences with equipment, i suppose thats part of pool.

best
eric:smile::smile:

 

[dr_dave]

Dave:

Are you sure about that? Because "kick" in the snooker circles is NOT skid. It's when the cue ball hops a bit due to inconsistencies in the cloth. It's most likely seen when applying follow (top) onto the cue ball, and instead of taking the english, the cue ball hops a bit, and if the hop is severe enough, it causes the object ball to hop, too.

As some consider skid to be a "mystery of the universe" in pool, so too is kick to snooker.

Sean,

"Cling" occurs anytime there is a high-friction spot (e.g., a chalk or scuff mark, or anything else that might cause more-than-normal friction) on the CB or OB at the contact point between the balls. For a stun shot, cling causes excessive (more than the normal amount of) sideways throw. For a rolling CB shot, the "throw" is not sideways -- it is vertical -- causing the CB and/or OB to hop and the CB to lose most of its follow action (and also causing extra sideways throw if there is a cut angle, even slight). I have demonstrations and explanations of both effects on the "cling/skid/kick" resource page.

Do the snooker people use a different term for "cling" causing excessive cut-induced-throw (CIT). I always thought they used the term "kick" for this effect also, but I don't know for sure. If they don't call this "kick," what do they call it?

In pool, "cling" refers to any effect (CIT, or ball hop and loss of follow action) caused by a more-than-normal amount of friction between the balls.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

at my house in Vegas i played alone for hours with Kamui for this reason to see what would happen. I use lots of talc too(my hands are wet constantly) I had the table looking a mess and no skids to speak of, I let go like this for 3-4 days and less skids, then cleaned it and went back to Master Chalk-more skids after the first 4-5 hours of play. Nobody else was playing during this time to my experiment was controlled. i did it cause i was curious about Kamui chalk, your right there is a ton more of it visible on the cloth, CB-especially measle ball, I used a blue circle in this case. didnt wipe it off either.

Could have been a coincidence, i was surprised myself i didnt have more problems I had less. Who knows, I tried to make the ball skid, about a 1/3rd ball hit with the CB 18" away from the OB is about the easiest most reliable skid shot I have found. wit henough speed to play the CB back to the center of the table off the long rail. Just a hair softer thay you would hit a ball on a lag on a 9' box, thats the "skid" speed. it can hapen with just about any shot, i'm just sharing what i found to be the most relliable way to get a funny contact.

of course i can't make layered tips work and do great with triangles, so everyone has different experiences with equipment, i suppose thats part of pool.

best
eric:smile::smile:

Maybe "the skid shot" just didn't come up

Lou Figueroa

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Now I've never heard of a straight in skid shot! Can someone explain that saw the shot?

to be precise, there was a slight angle with whitey contacting the ob just to the right of center. Chris applied some left to bring the cue ball up table.

It was a poor description by me, and especially so, in the context of this discussion. :embarrassed2:

I will do better.

best,
brian kc

 

[CreeDo]

What sean is describing is exactly what I always called skid, IMO kick and skid are two words
developed independently for the same thing. The ball climbs the face of the other ball, there's a 'thud' sound (probably the cue ball coming back down after climbing) , and the object ball undercuts.
You may also see the ball visibly slide or rotate funny (backwards?).

It can happen on a straight in shot too, you get the same sound, but the ball is going straight
so it doesn't cause a miss. Sometimes a cut shot skids but rattles in anyway.

Steve Davis seems to think it's increased friction at the contact point and doesn't mention the cloth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/13209259

 

[3andstop]

Any proof of this? I think we need to have a CLEAR definition of what skid is then.

Lou said earlier it's ALL chalk. So are you contradicting him?

No, no proof, only what I feel is happening. I'm going to give it some detail here, and I'd love to hear from Bob J. or Dr. Dave regarding my accuracy or lack there of.

First of all, in my mind there are two (at least two) kinds of momentum / motion happening with a pool ball.

1. Directional momentum / motion. This can happen without the pool ball rolling, The ball can slide in a direction.

2. Rotational momentum / motion. This can happen without the pool ball moving in any particular direction, The ball can spin in place.

Ok, now there is the Law of Inertia which if I'm close says .... An object at rest tends to stay at rest, while an object in motion tends to stay in motion. This is until an outside force acts on the motion.

Ok, now back to the two kinds of motion of the pool ball. We know they can exhibit either type of motion separately and independently of each other as well as together at the same time.

So, from that we can conclude that these motions don't necessarily have to commence at the same time.

Now back to the Law of Inertia. We have an Object Ball at rest. We now introduce a Cue Ball in motion approaching the OB at rest.

The CB is approaching with 2 (two) kinds of motion. Rotational as well as directional.

These two outside forces are about to act on the OB at rest. Doing so will inhibit the OB's tendency to stay at rest.

Which motion will act first on the OB? Rotational motion? Directional motion? Both together? One or the other independently?

I say given the right speed, angle, friction, if the rotational motion acts first on the OB the friction of the forward rolling Cue Ball can impart that gear type affect to the OB and cause it to jog backwards for just a fraction of a split second.

If that happens then it tries to come back to meet the CB as the CB passes they stay together ever so slightly throwing the OB off it's otherwise normal path.

If this phenomena is exaggerated enough the CB can actually climb up on the OB and thud as they meet.

Now, whether or not a particular dirt particle adds or removes surface friction in any specific situation is less important than the phenomena itself.

For example, a tiny microscopic spec of hard grit may actually reduce the contact area between the two balls and in doing so, reduce friction. In this case a dirty ball is less likely to skid.

Or, a larger dusty or dirty portion on a ball's contact point may not reduce contact area, but rather increase the friction of the two balls which would increase the likelihood of a skid with all other speed and angle factors favorable to the phenomena.

Regardless, I believe this skid is a product of these two separate types of motion working against each other for a split fraction of a second on the pool ball in certain circumstances.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :smile:

 

[real bartram]

No, no proof, only what I feel is happening. I'm going to give it some detail here, and I'd love to hear from Bob J. or Dr. Dave regarding my accuracy or lack there of.

First of all, in my mind there are two (at least two) kinds of momentum / motion happening with a pool ball.

1. Directional momentum / motion. This can happen without the pool ball rolling, The ball can slide in a direction.

2. Rotational momentum / motion. This can happen without the pool ball moving in any particular direction, The ball can spin in place.

Ok, now there is the Law of Inertia which if I'm close says .... An object at rest tends to stay at rest, while an object in motion tends to stay in motion. This is until an outside force acts on the motion.

Ok, now back to the two kinds of motion of the pool ball. We know they can exhibit either type of motion separately and independently of each other as well as together at the same time.

So, from that we can conclude that these motions don't necessarily have to commence at the same time.

Now back to the Law of Inertia. We have an Object Ball at rest. We now introduce a Cue Ball in motion approaching the OB at rest.

The CB is approaching with 2 (two) kinds of motion. Rotational as well as directional.

These two outside forces are about to act on the OB at rest. Doing so will inhibit the OB's tendency to stay at rest.

Which motion will act first on the OB? Rotational motion? Directional motion? Both together? One or the other independently?

I say given the right speed, angle, friction, if the rotational motion acts first on the OB the friction of the forward rolling Cue Ball can impart that gear type affect to the OB and cause it to jog backwards for just a fraction of a split second.

If that happens then it tries to come back to meet the CB as the CB passes they stay together ever so slightly throwing the OB off it's otherwise normal path.

If this phenomena is exaggerated enough the CB can actually climb up on the OB and thud as they meet.

Now, whether or not a particular dirt particle adds or removes surface friction in any specific situation is less important than the phenomena itself.

For example, a tiny microscopic spec of hard grit may actually reduce the contact area between the two balls and in doing so, reduce friction. In this case a dirty ball is less likely to skid.

Or, a larger dusty or dirty portion on a ball's contact point may not reduce contact area, but rather increase the friction of the two balls which would increase the likelihood of a skid with all other speed and angle factors favorable to the phenomena.

Regardless, I believe this skid is a product of these two separate types of motion working against each other for a split fraction of a second on the pool ball in certain circumstances.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :smile:

Just lost to Ko cause a ball skid
Would have been up 6 3

 

[Diamond69]

Just lost to Ko cause a ball skid
Would have been up 6 3

Chris,
Obviously your thread started numerous discussions. Sorry to hear you lost twice by the same set of circumstances (some will argue that 1 game/skid didn't cost the loss, but that's a different discussion).

Someone in the thread talked about "adjusting" for skid if you are experiencing it. Obviously you're level of play is much higher than mine. I'm sure your frustration is running high, but if you have any thoughts on being able to adjust to something that happens rather infrequently, I'd appreciate hearing them.

 

[1on1pooltournys]

Just lost to Ko cause a ball skid
Would have been up 6 3

Amazing people that have been players and around pool as long as they have can't see this problem. It's simple. Throw the cleaners and balls in the trash.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

"Cling" occurs anytime there is a high-friction spot (e.g., a chalk or scuff mark, or anything else that might cause more-than-normal friction) on the CB or OB at the contact point between the balls. For a stun shot, cling causes excessive (more than the normal amount of) sideways throw. For a rolling CB shot, the "throw" is not sideways -- it is vertical -- causing the CB and/or OB to hop and the CB to lose most of its follow action (and also causing extra sideways throw if there is a cut angle, even slight). I have demonstrations and explanations of both effects on the "cling/skid/kick" resource page.

Do the snooker people use a different term for "cling" causing excessive cut-induced-throw (CIT). I always thought they used the term "kick" for this effect also, but I don't know for sure. If they don't call this "kick," what do they call it?

In pool, "cling" refers to any effect (CIT, or ball hop and loss of follow action) caused by a more-than-normal amount of friction between the balls.

Thanks,
Dave

Dave:

Respectfully, I disagree with that section on your site. The mistake you're making, is that you're "lumping in" kick with skid and cling. The snooker "kick" is not skid or cling at all.

See here:

http://idlex.freeserve.co.uk/siphon/analytics/snooker.html

Please review the info on this site -- it has descriptive pictures of what a snooker "kick" is. When you do, you'll see that it has nothing to do with pool's "skid" or "cling."

A snooker kick seems more to do with how the cue ball is struck related to the table surface (i.e. the nap cloth), than it does to any chalk or residue on the cue ball surface itself.

Again, please review, before answering again with links to your site. It's the very information on your site, in fact, that I'm disputing. Methinks you're going to have to modify your site to remove "kick" from the general lumping-in that you've done with "skid" and "cling."

Just FYI,
-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

John, trying to have a logical discussion with you is like entering a fun house Hall of Mirrors. I ain't goin', so you'll need to find yourself another rube.

Lou Figueroa

I just don't understand you telling Chris that skid is only chalk induced but then claiming you know when skids will happen.

How come a pro doesn't know but you do?

 

[Bob Jewett]

... See here:

http://idlex.freeserve.co.uk/siphon/analytics/snooker.html

Please review the info on this site -- ...

I found that site to be inaccurate. I think the author has not thought the problem through. In particular, a result of "kick" is often that the cue ball does not follow as far as expected (for a cue ball with follow). If the author of that site is correct, the cue ball would follow through farther than expected.

I think most people from a snooker (or English billiards) background use the term "kick" for exactly the same phenomenon as what the European carom players refer to as "bad contact" and the US players refer to as "skid" or "cling". I have certainly watched many commentated instances of "kick" on snooker videos and they sure look to me like what I would call skid.

 

[real bartram]

Chris,
Obviously your thread started numerous discussions. Sorry to hear you lost twice by the same set of circumstances (some will argue that 1 game/skid didn't cost the loss, but that's a different discussion).

Someone in the thread talked about "adjusting" for skid if you are experiencing it. Obviously you're level of play is much higher than mine. I'm sure your frustration is running high, but if you have any thoughts on being able to adjust to something that happens rather infrequently, I'd appreciate hearing them.

I would have been up 6 3
Good chance I win from there

 

[Diamond69]

I would have been up 6 3
Good chance I win from there

I agree 100%. The question was if you feel at your level if you should be able to predict and therefore adjust to a potential skid shot. I would think no, but others believe it possible. My assumption is since you got hurt by it before, you would have adjusted if it were as simple as that.

 

[1on1pooltournys]

I agree 100%. The question was if you feel at your level if you should be able to predict and therefore adjust to a potential skid shot. I would think no, but others believe it possible. My assumption is since you got hurt by it before, you would have adjusted if it were as simple as that.

I won't put words in Chris's mouth, but I think he will say at times yes. If, and only IF, you have an option to hit a certain shot multiple ways, then you may choose the one that is less likely to skid. That all being the players opinion/ perspective on what type of hit causes a skid.

Of course then there are times that you are forced to shoot a shot one way, and one way only. Then the ball skids and you are unlucky.

In these circumstances, there is an obvious option to allow for the least amount of skids possible: Throw the balls and cleaner in the trash. Do not wax balls every match or even every day.

 

[3andstop]

I agree 100%. The question was if you feel at your level if you should be able to predict and therefore adjust to a potential skid shot. I would think no, but others believe it possible. My assumption is since you got hurt by it before, you would have adjusted if it were as simple as that.

There is this very common orientation between OB and CB that is pretty obvious as a high risk of skidding at a certain speed. But it is a lot more complicated than just this specific common obvious ball orientation.

Skids also happen when you're trying to play position at a lot of different angles when you add things like inside english, drag draw that decays before it reaches the OB.

I think most good players can recognize that obvious ball orientation that is high risk for a skid, its the other less obvious ones that get ya. :smile:

 

[dr_dave]

Dave:

Respectfully, I disagree with that section on your site. The mistake you're making, is that you're "lumping in" kick with skid and cling. The snooker "kick" is not skid or cling at all.

I'm merely suggesting that people sometimes use the terms "skid" and "kick" to refer to "cling" (the effects caused by a more-than-normal amount of friction between the balls.) Have you seen the Englishbilliards.org link referenced on the "cling" resource page? It clearly defines a "kick" as a shot with excessive cut-induced throw (CIT) due to a more-than-normal amount of friction between the balls (i.e., "cling").

See here:

http://idlex.freeserve.co.uk/siphon/analytics/snooker.html

Thanks for the link. FYI, I've added the following to the "cling" resource page:

In the snooker world, the term "kick" is sometimes also used to refer to CB hop and its effect on OB motion. For example, see: Snooker Ball Bounce ... yet another explanation of snooker kicks. The effects of CB hop, along with video demonstrations, can be found on the ball hop resource page.

Please review the info on this site -- it has descriptive pictures of what a snooker "kick" is. When you do, you'll see that it has nothing to do with pool's "skid" or "cling."

Snooker folks apparently use "kick" to refer to two different effects ("cling" and "ball hop").

Again, please review, before answering again with links to your site. It's the very information on your site, in fact, that I'm disputing.

I think the info on my site is accurate, and the links clearly explain the different interpretations of snooker "kick." Regardless, the main point of the resource page is not what snooker people think, but what "cling" is, what causes it, and how it affects different types of shots. I think the resource page does an excellent job explaining and demonstrating all of these things.

Methinks you're going to have to modify your site to remove "kick" from the general lumping-in that you've done with "skid" and "cling."

Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree.

I'd still like to know what other terms (besides "kick") snooker people use to describe excessive cut-induced throw (CIT) due to "cling."

Thanks for the link and for helping me make the "cling" resource page even better.

Best regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

There is this very common orientation between OB and CB that is pretty obvious as a high risk of skidding at a certain speed. But it is a lot more complicated than just this specific common obvious ball orientation.

Skids also happen when you're trying to play position at a lot of different angles when you add things like inside english, drag draw that decays before it reaches the OB.

I think most good players can recognize that obvious ball orientation that is high risk for a skid, its the other less obvious ones that get ya. :smile:

I still don't understand.

If skid is just greater throw than expected then how does it occur?

I mean we have one set of folks who say it's ONLY caused by debris, mostly chalk that, allows the balls to cling together for an instant longer than planned for, and another set of folks who say it can happen with perfectly clean balls.

My thought is that in the first instance there is no way on the planet that anyone would ever be able to reliably predict that the contact would have a piece of chalk or something else that would cause a skid.

And in the second instance then it's not skid if it's simply a miscalculation in how much a ball will throw. That's a mistake on the shooter's part imo.

So we should not be confusing the two things. If as a player you think a ball will throw less and it throws more and you miss then you missed because of chalk on the ball then it's not your mistake. If you have clean balls which will throw as expected to and you miss then it's your fault and not a "skid".