Skid

[JB Cases]

I will take one shot at this and one shot only: Chalk, on the CB or OB, causes skids when there is chalk on one of the balls at the contact point between the two balls. Skid causes increased "throw" causing the OB to travel on a straighter path than the shooter intended, usually, depending on the amount of skid, resulting in a miss.

IME, there are certain shots where the potential for skid is greater. Why? Because when a CB is struck with a chalked tip, that is the time when the greatest amount chalk is likely to be on the CB at a given spot on the ball. And, on some shots, such as the one I described earlier, skid can be predicted *to be possible* because, at slow speed and given a short distance between CB and OB, the chalk A. does not rub off much as the CB rolls to the OB, and B. the CB will rotate just the right number of rotations for the chalk mark to come up at the contact point.

When I say skid is predictable, all I'm saying is that after years of play you come to recognize *the possibility* that skid will manifest itself. It's just an intuitive feeling and usually, I'm not thinking of it. But in certain critical situations, say a high run and I start to approach 100, I'm more likely to tune in on that feeling and take care to hit shots that look to me like skid shots, with a firmer stroke, or as someone else has suggested, with some outside english to reduce the probability of that happening.

None of this makes me any better than anyone. It's just my experience that I am sharing.

Lou Figueroa

So, Chris says that skids are more likely to happen at slow speeds with inside english. This is exactly the type of shot he missed against Ko. So since he had already played many matches and experienced lots of skids wouldn't he be able to predict this at least as well as you can?

I am sorry Lou but I kind of have to call BS here. I honestly do not think that you play this way. If you do then maybe it's a reason you are not a better player than you are. Which is not a knock really, you're an intermediate player as a lot of us are. I think players play with the expectation that the balls will do exactly what they plan on them doing and when they don't then that is classified as a skid a lot of the time unless the player knows full well that they hit the cue ball badly.

Which brings up another point in all this. If chalk is indeed the culprit for more than expected throw then what does it mean when the cue ball is struck a little bit off the intended target?

So for example if you absolutely MUST hit the cue ball at say 9:30 and you actually hit it at 9.35 won't that cause a different reaction without you realizing that you didn't hit the cue ball in the right spot? I think that such a difference in the hit is too small to notice but PERHAPS just enough to throw off the result in an unfavorable way.

This, I think, manifests itself in those shots where you hit the ball badly and you know it and yet the object ball still goes in. The shots where you say either to yourself or alound, "I should have missed that one".

 

[Petros Andrikop]

A small nit about this description: I think the contact time is not important. I think the friction at the contact point is the important decider of what happens to the balls.

Thanks, possibly the description should include "(compared to contact duration when skid does not occur)"..
If friction is increased this should result in a minor but significant increase in contact duration, presented with the two balls separating from each other a bit "later" than normal at a "straighter" path.
This should be closer to "excessive throw" described by instructors.

 

[bstroud]

After all this discussion about the balls skidding perhaps we should be looking at the Simmonis cloth?

Forty years ago on nappy cloth skids seldom if ever happened.

Bill S.

 

[peter_gunn]

After all this discussion about the balls skidding perhaps we should be looking at the Simmonis cloth?

Forty years ago on nappy cloth skids seldom if ever happened.

Bill S.

Im sure that mhaimi won't skid any with YOUR cue :angry:

 

[sfleinen]

I "feed" links when the links directly support or demonstrate what is being debated or questioned.

No, you feed links when it serves your purpose of driving people to your website.

I didn't just "feed" back your link. I also provided another link which provided reputable info that disputed your claim.

No, you didn't. Go back to the part of your post that I quoted. You say, and I quote:

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.

Where in any of this are you "disputing" the information with a countering link? In fact, you *added* my link to your own site -- as you call it -- a "resource."

No, what you're doing is spewing links, because, just like that folk tale about the scorpion stinging the turtle while the turtle is trying to help the scorpion cross the river, you "can't help it, because it is just your character."

I have read all of the information in all of the links that you and I have posted.

You have? Then why did you regurgitate the link I gave you back to me with the instruction to me to "see" it as an example of cue ball hop (see your verbiage that I quoted above) -- when it is the very thing I'm trying to say deserves a separate little section on your site away from the pool anomaly of cling and skid?

Let me boil it down for you. It's roughly analogous to you and I have a conversation, and I tell you about this interesting book I just read, and "oh here, I'm done with it, you can have it now" as I hand my copy to you. And then you accept the book, but then hand it right back to me, saying, "you should read this, it has an example I want you to see."

Have you reviewed my entire "cling" resource page, including the information at the links and in the video demonstrations?

<..face palm...> This lockjawed advertising for your site could be very funny, if it weren't so sad. Yes, I have read and viewed all of that. Why else would I come to the conclusion that the snooker "kick" deserves its own little section away from pool's cling and skid?

I think if you did, you would mostly agree with the information. If you don't, I am done trying to convince you.

And I don't agree with your "information." Like many previous instances where someone disagrees with information on your site, you like to deluge that person with continuous links back to your site, instead of just reading and digesting what the person has to say. Not *once* in our discourse on this matter have you explained *why* the snooker kick is the same as pool's cling and skid. If your method of "convincing" the person is drowning that person with links back to your site, of course that's not going to work. Maybe it is best you are done with this -- for as that turtle/scorpion story goes, it is your character.

Did you also read Bob Jewett's recent post about the link you posted? I certainly agree with him.

Yep, I certainly did read Bob's post in response to the link I gave you. Here's the difference between Bob's response and yours:

* Bob's response was a simple nit-pick about some of the "explanation" given on that site as to what the snooker cue ball bounce is about, and offered the example of the cue ball's multiple bounces depicted in that site's pictures. I can certainly see Bob's explanation, and -- to me -- no response back to him is necessary. I agree with him, and let Bob's response sit as-is. Bob has the last word, and I have no need to reply or to take away from his response.

* Bob doesn't deluge the reader with links like you do. Bob simply states his case -- very succinctly, I might add -- and seems to have a greater effect than you do.

Disputes with your link-deluging methods aside, let's see if we can finally spell out why I think the snooker kick is not the same as pool's cling or skid:

1. In pool's cling or skid, the "effect" doesn't happen until the cue ball strikes the object ball. As the word "cling" implies, the "effect" is noticed when the cue ball contacts the object ball. The result -- the reason why someone complains about the "effect" in the first place -- is a missed shot due to an undercut.

2. In the snooker kick, the "effect" is noticed as soon as the cue tip contacts the cue ball -- the cue ball hops, and depending on the severity of the "effect," this hop can be transferred to the object ball, making it also hop. The result is different from the cling or skid effect in pool, because most often with the snooker kick, the ball is successfully potted. The difference is that the spin that was intended to be applied to the cue ball doesn't take, and the cue ball's path dies prematurely -- the player doesn't get the position he/she wanted.

Do those two things sound the same to you? Just because you think a contributing cause might be the same -- i.e. the chalk on the cue ball thing -- doesn't mean kick is the same as cling or skid. In fact, I would offer that it would be extremely rare for chalk to be a contributing factor, because in snooker, the balls are fastidiously cleaned, unlike in pool. The refs are constantly cleaning the balls with their white gloves when the colors are respotted back onto the table, and a good ref always cleans the red balls, too, at the beginning of each frame when the balls are racked onto their spot -- each red ball gets the white glove treatment. And, obviously snooker players will ask the ref to clean the cue ball periodically if any kind of foreign matter is seen on it. This is especially so these days, since the snooker kick seems to observed with increasing regularity as compared to yesteryear.

Rather, there is some other factor in play here to cause that immediate hop by the cue ball upon contact from the cue tip -- an effect that is being seen more and more these days. Detritus on the table? The fact that the nap on today's snooker cloth is much finer (i.e. the smoothness is closer to worsted cloth) than yesteryear's cloth? (I tend to agree with this latter notion, because snooker balls are lighter than pool balls, so any downward force -- such as applied follow/top spin -- could result in a bit of a hop due to the fact that today's cloth is less likely to cushion the downward forces.)

I certainly agree with Bob that snooker's "electrostatic theory" is a bunch of bunk. I've only seen one real-world situation where a static charge absolutely results in a fairly heavy object (i.e. much heavier than a strand of hair) being moved or taking motion. That's with the recycling industry, where pulses of static electricity are used to induce eddy currents to eject aluminum cans from the conveyor belt into the air, and into a separate container. (Links about and demonstrating this are easily found on YouTube.) We know there's no metal in snooker balls (especially aluminum), and the static electricity forces with cause e.g. hair to stand on end when a charged comb is brought near are too weak to cause a heavy object like a snooker ball to bounce.

Here's another difference with the snooker kick vs pool's cling or skid: it's unreproducible. Whereas you can absolutely reproduce a cling or skid by applying chalk to the contact point between the cue ball and the object ball in pool, the snooker kick can't be reliably reproduced. (Or at least someone hasn't been demonstrably able to as of yet.) It just occurs out of the blue, and the conditions seem to be very particular to how the player cues the ball and the conditions of the table at the time.

-Sean

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

No, you feed links when it serves your purpose of driving people to your website.



No, you didn't. Go back to the part of your post that I quoted. You say, and I quote:



Where in any of this are you "disputing" the information with a countering link? In fact, you *added* my link to your own site -- as you call it -- a "resource."

No, what you're doing is spewing links, because, just like that folk tale about the scorpion stinging the turtle while the turtle is trying to help the scorpion cross the river, you "can't help it, because it is just your character."



You have? Then why did you regurgitate the link I gave you back to me with the instruction to me to "see" it as an example of cue ball hop (see your verbiage that I quoted above) -- when it is the very thing I'm trying to say deserves a separate little section on your site away from the pool anomaly of cling and skid?

Let me boil it down for you. It's roughly analogous to you and I have a conversation, and I tell you about this interesting book I just read, and "oh here, I'm done with it, you can have it now" as I hand my copy to you. And then you accept the book, but then hand it right back to me, saying, "you should read this, it has an example I want you to see."



<..face palm...> This lockjawed advertising for your site could be very funny, if it weren't so sad. Yes, I have read and viewed all of that. Why else would I come to the conclusion that the snooker "kick" deserves its own little section away from pool's cling and skid?



And I don't agree with your "information." Like many previous instances where someone disagrees with information on your site, you like to deluge that person with continuous links back to your site, instead of just reading and digesting what the person has to say. Not *once* in our discourse on this matter have you explained *why* the snooker kick is the same as pool's cling and skid. If your method of "convincing" the person is drowning that person with links back to your site, of course that's not going to work. Maybe it is best you are done with this -- for as that turtle/scorpion story goes, it is your character.



Yep, I certainly did read Bob's post in response to the link I gave you. Here's the difference between Bob's response and yours:

* Bob's response was a simple nit-pick about some of the "explanation" given on that site as to what the snooker cue ball bounce is about, and offered the example of the cue ball's multiple bounces depicted in that site's pictures. I can certainly see Bob's explanation, and -- to me -- no response back to him is necessary. I agree with him, and let Bob's response sit as-is. Bob has the last word, and I have no need to reply or to take away from his response.

* Bob doesn't deluge the reader with links like you do. Bob simply states his case -- very succinctly, I might add -- and seems to have a greater effect than you do.[/B][/COLOR]

Disputes with your link-deluging methods aside, let's see if we can finally spell out why I think the snooker kick is not the same as pool's cling or skid:

1. In pool's cling or skid, the "effect" doesn't happen until the cue ball strikes the object ball. As the word "cling" implies, the "effect" is noticed when the cue ball contacts the object ball. The result -- the reason why someone complains about the "effect" in the first place -- is a missed shot due to an undercut.

2. In the snooker kick, the "effect" is noticed as soon as the cue tip contacts the cue ball -- the cue ball hops, and depending on the severity of the "effect," this hop can be transferred to the object ball, making it also hop. The result is different from the cling or skid effect in pool, because most often with the snooker kick, the ball is successfully potted. The difference is that the spin that was intended to be applied to the cue ball doesn't take, and the cue ball's path dies prematurely -- the player doesn't get the position he/she wanted.

Do those two things sound the same to you? Just because you think a contributing cause might be the same -- i.e. the chalk on the cue ball thing -- doesn't mean kick is the same as cling or skid. In fact, I would offer that it would be extremely rare for chalk to be a contributing factor, because in snooker, the balls are fastidiously cleaned, unlike in pool. The refs are constantly cleaning the balls with their white gloves when the colors are respotted back onto the table, and a good ref always cleans the red balls, too, at the beginning of each frame when the balls are racked onto their spot -- each red ball gets the white glove treatment. And, obviously snooker players will ask the ref to clean the cue ball periodically if any kind of foreign matter is seen on it. This is especially so these days, since the snooker kick seems to observed with increasing regularity as compared to yesteryear.

Rather, there is some other factor in play here to cause that immediate hop by the cue ball upon contact from the cue tip -- an effect that is being seen more and more these days. Detritus on the table? The fact that the nap on today's snooker cloth is much finer (i.e. the smoothness is closer to worsted cloth) than yesteryear's cloth? (I tend to agree with this latter notion, because snooker balls are lighter than pool balls, so any downward force -- such as applied follow/top spin -- could result in a bit of a hop due to the fact that today's cloth is less likely to cushion the downward forces.)

I certainly agree with Bob that snooker's "electrostatic theory" is a bunch of bunk. I've only seen one real-world situation where a static charge absolutely results in a fairly heavy object (i.e. much heavier than a strand of hair) being moved or taking motion. That's with the recycling industry, where pulses of static electricity are used to induce eddy currents to eject aluminum cans from the conveyor belt into the air, and into a separate container. (Links about and demonstrating this are easily found on YouTube.) We know there's no metal in snooker balls (especially aluminum), and the static electricity forces with cause e.g. hair to stand on end when a charged comb is brought near are too weak to cause a heavy object like a snooker ball to bounce.

Here's another difference with the snooker kick vs pool's cling or skid: it's unreproducible. Whereas you can absolutely reproduce a cling or skid by applying chalk to the contact point between the cue ball and the object ball in pool, the snooker kick can't be reliably reproduced. (Or at least someone hasn't been demonstrably able to as of yet.) It just occurs out of the blue, and the conditions seem to be very particular to how the player cues the ball and the conditions of the table at the time.

-Sean

Were you praising Bob Jewett above on how succinct he was?

best,
brian kc

 

[sfleinen]

Were you praising Bob Jewett above on how succinct he is?

best,
brian kc

I was hoping to bring that to a final conclusion, since Dr. Dave does seem to thrive on details, but now that I think about it afterwards...

 

[Ron Swanson]

After all this discussion about the balls skidding perhaps we should be looking at the Simmonis cloth?

Forty years ago on nappy cloth skids seldom if ever happened.

Bill S.

Good point. I think new balls/cloth are more responsible that anything else.

 

[lfigueroa]

So, Chris says that skids are more likely to happen at slow speeds with inside english. This is exactly the type of shot he missed against Ko. So since he had already played many matches and experienced lots of skids wouldn't he be able to predict this at least as well as you can?

I am sorry Lou but I kind of have to call BS here. I honestly do not think that you play this way. If you do then maybe it's a reason you are not a better player than you are. Which is not a knock really, you're an intermediate player as a lot of us are. I think players play with the expectation that the balls will do exactly what they plan on them doing and when they don't then that is classified as a skid a lot of the time unless the player knows full well that they hit the cue ball badly.

Which brings up another point in all this. If chalk is indeed the culprit for more than expected throw then what does it mean when the cue ball is struck a little bit off the intended target?

So for example if you absolutely MUST hit the cue ball at say 9:30 and you actually hit it at 9.35 won't that cause a different reaction without you realizing that you didn't hit the cue ball in the right spot? I think that such a difference in the hit is too small to notice but PERHAPS just enough to throw off the result in an unfavorable way.

This, I think, manifests itself in those shots where you hit the ball badly and you know it and yet the object ball still goes in. The shots where you say either to yourself or alound, "I should have missed that one".

Memo to self: the next time your gut tells you not to waste your time responding to John... listen to your gut.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I have been noticing more skid shots the last year in the bigger tournaments and using different pool balls. Dont know with the changing off pool balls has anything to do with all the skid shots but using different pool balls from a company in major tournaments is not right. Does anybody really know how long Cyclops balls been in business making pool balls. Maybe next tournament get pool balls made from a company that makes their first set of pool balls for the tournament.

The Cyclop balls have been in development for five years and come from a recipe and equipment favored by many -- the old Centennials. And, these balls are coming out of the factory with tighter tolerances than what has been the industry standard. They play pretty good, IMO, a lot of the pro players seemed to like them.

I agree that the timing was a bit awkward and more info could have been released prior to their introduction, but somewhat obviously, the horse is out of the barn on that one.

Lastly, IMO, the issue nowadays with more skids is: at big tournaments there's just more chalk on the CB. Guys are careful about roughing up their tips, chalking their tips every shot, using tips that hold chalk better, and some guys are using chalks that adhere to tips (and perhaps the CB) more than in the old days. Contrary to some claims: it ain't the balls, or an electrostatic charge, or Jedi mind tricks. There's just more chalk on the balls.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JoeW]

Here are some thoughts.

It seems obvious to me that residual chalk left on a cue ball from striking with a well chalked tip would drive the OB forward when that chalked surface strikes the OB. I doubt that anyone would disagree with this happening occasionally.

Assume that chalk on the balls is the basis for pushing a ball forward before it takes the intended line of travel.

How much chalk is needed to cause this to happen? Seems like that question could be answered by some enterprising soul.

Assume that there is chalk on the table that falls off the cue ball and the cue sticks during play.

How much chalk does a cue ball and object balls collect as they roll over the chalk on the table? Perhaps this depends upon the composition of the balls and the current level of humidity.


Would this be a sufficient amount of chalk to force the object ball forward before it moves on the intended line?

I suspect that Bob Jewett has a good idea when he states that one should test the cue ball (and object balls?) for the tendency to collect chalk.

 

[3andstop]

After all this discussion about the balls skidding perhaps we should be looking at the Simmonis cloth?

Forty years ago on nappy cloth skids seldom if ever happened.

Bill S.

Absolutely. The cloth is merely another contributing factor. Where dirt on the balls may increase friction to enhance the possibility of skid, the OB still has to be able to turn into the CB. The reduced friction of certain type clothes allows this to happen more easily.

John, it is so obvious to realize certain shots as high probability to skid that I'd be more surprised to hear that a seasoned player doesn't feel that probability. I don't think Lou's statement is at all BS. In fact, I'm becoming more inclined to think you are merely instigating conversation than not understanding skid.

Shit.... if you can understand thar CTE stuff, you should be able to grasp this. :wink:

It's the not so obvious skids can get you like a longer slow roller with a slight angle. I call these "thumpers".

Even the dead straight shots can thump, but luckily are far less likely to cause a miss.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here are some thoughts.

It seems obvious to me that residual chalk left on a cue ball from striking with a well chalked tip would drive the OB forward when that chalked surface strikes the OB. I doubt that anyone would disagree with this happening occasionally.

Assume that chalk on the balls is the basis for pushing a ball forward before it takes the intended line of travel.

How much chalk is needed to cause this to happen? Seems like that question could be answered by some enterprising soul.

Assume that there is chalk on the table that falls off the cue ball during play.

How much chalk does a cue ball and object balls collect as they roll over the chalk on the table? Perhaps that depends upon the composition of the balls and the current level of humidity.


Would this be a sufficient amount of chalk to force the object ball forward before it moves on the intended line?

Based on my experiments with intentional skids, just a spot of chalk such as tips leave on balls is plenty. I think that the transfer of chalk between ball and cloth usually runs from ball to cloth. I think the cloth would have to be pretty dirty to turn that tide.

One thing I discovered recently is that that use of phenolic break tips seems to put scuffs on the surface of the cue ball that tend to attract and keep chalk. That this happens shouldn't be a big surprise. Chalk is made from ground up sand. With a leather tip, I imagine that the sand particles trapped between ball and tip at the contact patch will mostly be pressed into the softer leather with just small tips sticking out into the ball. With a phenolic tip, which is the same hardness as the ball, the sand particles will be pressed equally into the ball and the "tip" causing far more scuffing and abrasion of the ball's surface.

The abrasions can be clearly revealed by the technique I described above of lightly rubbing a chalked finger over the ball. The abrasions can be removed with Aramith polish, but you have to work at it.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Based on my experiments with intentional skids, just a spot of chalk such as tips leave on balls is plenty. I think that the transfer of chalk between ball and cloth usually runs from ball to cloth. I think the cloth would have to be pretty dirty to turn that tide.

One thing I discovered recently is that that use of phenolic break tips seems to put scuffs on the surface of the cue ball that tend to attract and keep chalk. That this happens shouldn't be a big surprise. Chalk is made from ground up sand. With a leather tip, I imagine that the sand particles trapped between ball and tip at the contact patch will mostly be pressed into the softer leather with just small tips sticking out into the ball. With a phenolic tip, which is the same hardness as the ball, the sand particles will be pressed equally into the ball and the "tip" causing far more scuffing and abrasion of the ball's surface.

The abrasions can be clearly revealed by the technique I described above of lightly rubbing a chalked finger over the ball. The abrasions can be removed with Aramith polish, but you have to work at it.

There are other games that don't use a break cue, phenolic or not. They must experience bad contacts?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Lastly, IMO, the issue nowadays with more skids is: at big tournaments there's just more chalk on the CB. Guys are careful about roughing up their tips, chalking their tips every shot, using tips that hold chalk better, and some guys are using chalks that adhere to tips (and perhaps the CB) more than in the old days. Contrary to some claims: it ain't the balls, or an electrostatic charge, or Jedi mind tricks. There's just more chalk on the balls.

Firstly, virtually the only thing that has remained constant throughout the age of cuesports is the chalk. The cloth, the balls et al have evolved.

Secondly, the people who continually mention electrostatic charge appear to do so to prove whatever theory they themselves are pushing. In the snooker world, it was briefly considered as a possible cause, along with many others, but quickly discounted. To hear some people talk around here, you'd think it is a popular theory. It isn't, nor has it ever been.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes bad contacts. NOBODY. All I know for certain is, players at the top of their game get fewer than those that are struggling. Why that should be, I don't know.

 

[lfigueroa]

Based on my experiments with intentional skids, just a spot of chalk such as tips leave on balls is plenty. I think that the transfer of chalk between ball and cloth usually runs from ball to cloth. I think the cloth would have to be pretty dirty to turn that tide.

One thing I discovered recently is that that use of phenolic break tips seems to put scuffs on the surface of the cue ball that tend to attract and keep chalk. That this happens shouldn't be a big surprise. Chalk is made from ground up sand. With a leather tip, I imagine that the sand particles trapped between ball and tip at the contact patch will mostly be pressed into the softer leather with just small tips sticking out into the ball. With a phenolic tip, which is the same hardness as the ball, the sand particles will be pressed equally into the ball and the "tip" causing far more scuffing and abrasion of the ball's surface.

The abrasions can be clearly revealed by the technique I described above of lightly rubbing a chalked finger over the ball. The abrasions can be removed with Aramith polish, but you have to work at it.

So, Bob, put another way: if the CB in use at any given tournament had been previously used in an 8ball, 9ball, or 10ball event where phenolic break tip were allowed, then those CBs would have surface abrasions that might produce more skids?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Firstly, virtually the only thing that has remained constant throughout the age of cuesports is the chalk. The cloth, the balls et al have evolved.

Secondly, the people who continually mention electrostatic charge appear to do so to prove whatever theory they themselves are pushing. In the snooker world, it was briefly considered as a possible cause, along with many others, but quickly discounted. To hear some people talk around here, you'd think it is a popular theory. It isn't, nor has it ever been.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes bad contacts. NOBODY. All I know for certain is, players at the top of their game get fewer than those that are struggling. Why that should be, I don't know.

Uno, chalk has also evolved and there are players that swear by Kamui chalk and similar chalks with high adhesion characteristics.

Dos, I thought when the BBC said something, it was gospel ;-)

Tres, there is plenty of evidence that supports the theory that chalk causes skids. Bob and Dr. Dave have done experiments and links to slo-mo video are posted further up the thread. I believe other respected figures have also written about the phenomena and the chalk-skid connection.

And cuatro, some professional player don't know squadoush about skid and blame new balls when some lesser players know about skid and take steps to reduce it's occurrence. After watching Bernie Pettipiece, an amateur, play several games at The Open, I am willing to bet that he got fewer skids than many pro players. (Anyone care to guess why?) Apparently, even I was able to reduce my number of skids below the number experienced by more skilled, but perhaps less informed, players.

Go figure.

Lou Figueroa

 

[sheffield6]

There are other games that don't use a break cue, phenolic or not. They must experience bad contacts?

you mean, like snooker, Ron

 

[dr_dave]

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").

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.

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

Where in any of this are you "disputing" the information with a countering link?

Sean,

You seemed to be claiming that the word "kick" is just used to describe the ball hop effects that occur when the CB hits the OB while airborne. I apologize if I misunderstood you. The Snooker Ball Bounce link you provided describes this interpretation of the word "kick." I don't have a problem with that; however, I have also read and heard the word "kick" being used by snooker people to describe what pool players describe as a "bad hit" or "skid" or "cling." The Englishbilliards.org link on my resource page clearly backs this up.

Again, the point of my "cling" resource page isn't to insist that "kick" only refers to "cling," as you seem to be suggesting I am claiming. The point is to explain what "cling" is and what causes it, to demonstrate it with online videos, and to provide additional resources that back up all of the claims. I'm sorry you don't like it when I link to resources on my website, but I thought the link was definitely appropriate in this thread since the page directly answers and provides supporting information and demonstrations for most of the things that have been debated and discussed in this and similar threads

For those people who don't like links or don't want to bother clicking on them to see the information, here is a direct quote of the entire resource page so the full information can be here on AZB (I've included the link here to be clear where the information is coming from. Again, I am sorry if that offends you.):



"cling," "skid," and "kick" resource page contents:
-------------------------------------------------------------

"Cling" (AKA "skid" or "kick") refers to a "bad hit" resulting from an excessive amount of throw, well beyond what is expected for a given shot. When the CB hits an OB with a cut angle or non-gearing spin, there is friction between the CB and OB at the point of contact that resists the relative motion between the balls. This is what causes throw (CIT or SIT), which is normal. A "bad hit" occurs when the amount of friction is greater than normal (e.g., because there is a chalk mark at the point of contact). In this case, the amount of throw (or ball hop and topspin loss in the case of a nearly straight follow shot) is larger than the typical amount.

People sometimes mistake a naturally large amount of throw as cling, especially if they are unaware of how throw varies with the type of shot (see throw effects and maximum throw). Again, cling is an amount of throw much greater than should be expected for a given shot and conditions. People also sometimes think that a "bad hit" results from the CB and OB actually clinging together for a longer time than normal. This is not the case, even though it might seem this way based on the reaction of the balls.

Cling can occur more often with old, beat up, scuffed, and dirty balls, where portions of the ball surfaces might create more friction than other portions (especially when the suspect portions collect and hold chalk easily). However, cling also occurs with new, clean, and smooth balls. The primary cause for cling is a chalk mark or smudge (or a significant amount of chalk dust) appearing at the contact point between the CB and OB. Anytime you see chalk smudges on the CB, you should wipe them off (or ask for a referee to wipe them off if you are in the middle of a tournament game). Definitely wipe off he cue ball before each break shot or any time you have ball in hand. We have enough reasons to miss shots as it is without having to worry about excessive and unpredictable throw due to cling caused by chalk smudges.

Some people have suggested that cling can be caused directly by static electricity, but this is highly questionable. Although, a possible explanation is that static (resulting from the balls sliding across the cloth) could indirectly cause cling by somehow allowing chalk dust to collect on and stick to the balls more easily (but this is also questionable). Throw could also be larger (for all shots) if the balls are "cleaned" or polished with a substance that alters the ball surface (e.g., by leaving a residue behind or by chemically etching or altering the surface), creating more friction. Some polishes/waxes or aggressive chemical cleaners (e.g., acetone) could have these effects. Some people have suggested that oils, from human hands, deposited on the balls as they are handled can help minimize the effects of cling (e.g., see englishBilliards.org's "kick" page). This could be the case, especially if the balls were previously "cleaned." However, an excessive amount of oil could make it easier for chalk smudges to remain on the cue ball, which would result in more frequent cling. It has also been suggested that cling can occur more frequently on cloth that is new, thin, and slick because chalk smudges on the CB might tend to wear off less easily under these conditions (although, this is probably a very small effect). Cling might be more noticeable when playing with new and clean balls (e.g., in televised tournament conditions), where the amount of throw is less than with older and dirtier balls. Because the amount of throw can be less with ideal conditions, when cling does occur it can be strikingly noticeable.

George Onoda wrote an article (see pp. 13-14 here) illustrating how cling might be more likely with low-inside and high-outside english shots, where a new chalk mark might be more likely to end up at the ball contact point, but cling is probably more random than this suggests (due to previous chalk marks or smudges on the balls that happen to end up at the ball contact point, on any shot).

Throw, including cling, can be avoided by using a "gearing" amount of outside english. For more info, see: using outside english to limit or prevent throw and cling.

Cling is often talked about in relation to excessive throw of the OB with a cut shot, but it can also create a lot of trouble for slow-roll follow shots. The CB won't follow the OB near as much as you would expect when there is cling. This video illustrates the effect:

HSV B.46 - CB and OB hop and spin transfer during follow shots

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.

Here's an example of purposely creating cling (with a chalk smudge) to help create a reverse bank angle:

HSV A.142 - Vernon Elliott cross-side bank with chalk on the object ball to increase throw and spin transfer

The shot is demonstrated in Shot 731 here:

NV B.92 - "Impossible" cut shots, from VEPS V

Here's a fun proposition shot utilizing chalk-induced cling in a devious manner:

NV B.91 - Frozen-throw-down-rail proposition shot, from VEPS V

Other interesting shots utilizing cling can be found in Bob Jewett's April '09 BD article.

------------------------------- end of quote -----------------------------------------------------

 

[dr_dave]

I certainly agree with Bob that snooker's "electrostatic theory" is a bunch of bunk.

Finally, we have something on which we can totally agree. I put this "theory" in the Bob Jewett "pixie dust" category.

Here's another difference with the snooker kick vs pool's cling or skid: it's unreproducible. Whereas you can absolutely reproduce a cling or skid by applying chalk to the contact point between the cue ball and the object ball in pool, the snooker kick can't be reliably reproduced. (Or at least someone hasn't been demonstrably able to as of yet.) It just occurs out of the blue, and the conditions seem to be very particular to how the player cues the ball and the conditions of the table at the time.

I don't think the CB-hop variety of "kick" is that difficult to demonstrate. The CB hops on almost every pool and snooker shot, especially at faster speed, with an elevated cue, and/or when follow is being used. There is a resource page out there somewhere that demonstrates several different types of shots where CB hop comes into play (... I won't link to it at the risk of offending you again). The videos might not show exactly what you are hoping to see (and they deal with pool, not snooker), but they do show how the CB hops very easily. They also show how CB hop can have big effects on different types of shots.

Regards,
Dave