Smaller balls

Andrew Manning

Andrew Manning

Aspiring know-it-all
Silver Member
So in another thread about English 8-ball, or Blackball, or whatever, there was talk about the pockets being cut tougher, making it difficult to pocket balls, but nobody mentioned ball size as being a big difficulty factor. Here's what it seems like to me:

a) A smaller cue ball means a slight deviation from the intended tip placement would produce more spin and more squirt than the same deviation on a larger ball.

b) A smaller object ball means a slight deviation in aim would produce a much larger deviation in cut angle.

It seems to me that regardless of pocket size, smaller balls would be much tougher to play on and demand much more precision, because if you're off by the same absolute amount, say 3 mm, in either tip placement or OB contact point, those 3 mm are a much larger percentage of the ball diameter, and produce a much larger error in OB angle.

Thoughts?

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
So in another thread about English 8-ball, or Blackball, or whatever, there was talk about the pockets being cut tougher, making it difficult to pocket balls, but nobody mentioned ball size as being a big difficulty factor. Here's what it seems like to me:

a) A smaller cue ball means a slight deviation from the intended tip placement would produce more spin and more squirt than the same deviation on a larger ball.

b) A smaller object ball means a slight deviation in aim would produce a much larger deviation in cut angle.

It seems to me that regardless of pocket size, smaller balls would be much tougher to play on and demand much more precision, because if you're off by the same absolute amount, say 3 mm, in either tip placement or OB contact point, those 3 mm are a much larger percentage of the ball diameter, and produce a much larger error in OB angle.

Thoughts?

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Interesting topic. For a real World answer, it may be best to have someone experienced with both balls/tables to give an answer.
 
My inlaws have a 7 foot brunswick with small balls and and rounded corners and i've played on it a lot.

a) first of all you should be using a cue with a smaller tip, I've used my regular cue with a 12.75mm tip and I do much better with the cues my (ex)father inlaw has with the smaller tips. Since the smaller tips are in scale with the smaller balls it's more like using a regular cue with regular balls.

b) I don't really think this is true. you're still using exact geometry, the contact point on the CB is still always going to be the exact opposite of the contact point on the OB, it doesn't matter what size the balls are.

I think the thing that really makes these tables harder to play on is the cut of the pockets. with the rounded corners it's almost impossible to run a ball down the rail and have any kind of chance of pocketing it.

I do know that after playing on this table for a couple of hours then going to a 9 foot table with regular balls and pockets it's almost like you can't miss.
 
supergreenman said:
a) first of all you should be using a cue with a smaller tip, I've used my regular cue with a 12.75mm tip and I do much better with the cues my (ex)father inlaw has with the smaller tips. Since the smaller tips are in scale with the smaller balls it's more like using a regular cue with regular balls.
Click to expand...

That would make it a lot easier to apply english correctly, but a 3 mm "miss" in tip placement is going to be significantly more "side" on a 2" ball than a 2.25" ball. Those 3 mm are a larger portion of the ball radius, and thus should cause more of a difference in spin and deflection than the same error on a larger ball.

supergreenman said:
b) I don't really think this is true. you're still using exact geometry, the contact point on the CB is still always going to be the exact opposite of the contact point on the OB, it doesn't matter what size the balls are.
Click to expand...

I disagree because we're not talking about theoretical pool, we're talking about the real world where there's no such thing as exact. Aiming is an art of approximation. You're always going to miss the contact point by some amount (although sometimes that amount may be infinitessimal). On a shot where you're aiming the object ball to center pocket and it squeaks into one side of the pocket, you've made some absolute amount of aiming error. If you'd made that same error shooting at a smaller ball, you'd have missed the contact point by a larger percentage of the ball radius, and thus missed the pocket completely. Or so it seems to me.

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
On a shot where you're aiming the object ball to center pocket and it squeaks into one side of the pocket, you've made some absolute amount of aiming error. If you'd made that same error shooting at a smaller ball, you'd have missed the contact point by a larger percentage of the ball radius, and thus missed the pocket completely. Or so it seems to me.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

I can't explain why, but your logic is flawed. the only thing different is the scale, that doesn't increase or decrease the margin of error. Inversely if you made the same error with larger than normal balls you would still miss by the same amount.
 
supergreenman said:
I can't explain why, but your logic is flawed. the only thing different is the scale, that doesn't increase or decrease the margin of error. Inversely if you made the same error with larger than normal balls you would still miss by the same amount.
Click to expand...

But the scale is the thing: the scale of the balls changes, but the scale of your arm and your stroke and your stroke flaws does not. The directional inconsistencies in the way you stroke to ball should be basically absolute, in my view. I would think that if you can put a CB within 3 mm of on target, that number would still be 3 mm even with smaller balls, because the error is not in the balls, but in your stance, alignment, and arm motion, none of which change size. So smaller balls should go further off target due to the same directional flaw.

-Andrew
 
I think you're right Andrew, i may not have huge experience in this, but i'm pretty sure the smaller balls make for a tougher game. From playing on English tables with smaller balls, and Amercian table with larger ones, the American table is MUCH easier to play on, partly because of the way the pockets are cut, and partly the size of the balls. If you think about it, you've got a slightly bigger area of a contact point to play with to make the shot sucessful, and thus easier. It makes logical sense too.
 
Andrew Manning said:
But the scale is the thing: the scale of the balls changes, but the scale of your arm and your stroke and your stroke flaws does not. The directional inconsistencies in the way you stroke to ball should be basically absolute, in my view. I would think that if you can put a CB within 3 mm of on target, that number would still be 3 mm even with smaller balls, because the error is not in the balls, but in your stance, alignment, and arm motion, none of which change size. So smaller balls should go further off target due to the same directional flaw.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
I totally agree with what you said, and I see nothing wrong with your logic here. But things get more complicated if you're working with a fixed pocket size.

I do agree with you that your room for error goes down if the OB's size goes down...but IF you assume you want the center of the OB to be aimed at a given spatial window for each case. If you want to pocket the OB for a fixed pocket size, then this "spatial window" changes as the OB's size changes. More specifically, the aiming window goes down as the OB size goes up, given that the pocket size remains the same. Think of the margin for error in Russian billiards...with the huge balls and relatively smaller pocket sizes.

I haven't worked out all the details, but it seems for a given pocket size, you have two competing factors. As you decrease the OB's size, you do decrease your room for error for the OB's center to hit a given aiming window, but your aiming window increases given a fixed pocket size. I don't know which factor wins out. I'm sure there have been studies on this. Anyone know?
 
jsp said:
I totally agree with what you said, and I see nothing wrong with your logic here. But things get more complicated if you're working with a fixed pocket size.

I do agree with you that your room for error goes down if the OB's size goes down...but IF you assume you want the center of the OB to be aimed at a given spatial window for each case. If you want to pocket the OB for a fixed pocket size, then this "spatial window" changes as the OB's size changes. More specifically, the aiming window goes down as the OB size goes up, given that the pocket size remains the same. Think of the margin for error in Russian billiards...with the huge balls and relatively smaller pocket sizes.

I haven't worked out all the details, but it seems for a given pocket size, you have two competing factors. As you decrease the OB's size, you do decrease your room for error for the OB's center to hit a given aiming window, but your aiming window increases given a fixed pocket size. I don't know which factor wins out. I'm sure there have been studies on this. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

You're right about the competing factors; a smaller OB has more room to spare fitting into the pocket.

As far as which factor wins out, I would think that depends entirely on distance. The OB's extra room becomes a smaller difference in directional leeway if the OB is not close to the pocket. The OB's higher sensitivity to contact point deviation affects it directional error equally regardless of distance from the pocket.

So if the OB is close to the pocket, you may possibly have a larger margin of error with a smaller OB, because at that distance, you can hit it in a very large range of angles and still pocket it. But at a longer distance from the pocket, the smaller ball still has to be going a pretty precise direction to make it into the pocket, so I would think you'd have a smaller margin of error with a smaller ball.

Colin Colenso, I'm calling you out. Having renowned abilities to analyze pool physics, and extensive experience playing with 2" and 2.25" balls, what's your take on this issue?

-Andrew
 
Well just from experience, I'd say that the pocket shape has more to do with the difficulty than the size of the balls. I don't have a problem picking my aiming points. to me an angle is an angle.
 
My local pool hall has old Premier balls.
They also polish them every week.
They're so freakin small now, they look like snooker balls.
Then the owner tried Measles cue balls last year.
It was funny to say the least ( the combo of bigger/heavier balls and small set of Premier balls ).
 
I have two regular weekly snooker games: One uses 1 7/8" balls, the other standard snooker balls.

When I play 8 ball or 9 ball, I use the 2 1/4".

The size of the cue tip and the weight of the balls require adjustment. The first time I encountered the small balls they kept rolling further than I intended.

The aim for the point of contact of cue ball and object ball do not change. All that is needed is precision. I have it ... sometimes.:D
 
Andrew Manning said:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,smaller balls would be much tougher to play on and demand much more precision, because,,,,,

Thoughts?

-Andrew
Click to expand...

unless you grow up playing the game.
 
Andrew Manning said:
You're right about the competing factors; a smaller OB has more room to spare fitting into the pocket.

As far as which factor wins out, I would think that depends entirely on distance. The OB's extra room becomes a smaller difference in directional leeway if the OB is not close to the pocket. The OB's higher sensitivity to contact point deviation affects it directional error equally regardless of distance from the pocket.

So if the OB is close to the pocket, you may possibly have a larger margin of error with a smaller OB, because at that distance, you can hit it in a very large range of angles and still pocket it. But at a longer distance from the pocket, the smaller ball still has to be going a pretty precise direction to make it into the pocket, so I would think you'd have a smaller margin of error with a smaller ball.

Colin Colenso, I'm calling you out. Having renowned abilities to analyze pool physics, and extensive experience playing with 2" and 2.25" balls, what's your take on this issue?

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Things are a bit slow here at work, so I took it upon myself to solve this problem. :)

First a couple of things. I'm analyzing a straight-in shot. I'm assuming the shot will not go in if the OB touches the edges of the pocket. Both the CB and OB are the same size.

Given these assumptions, the maximum amount of lateral error (measured in absolute distance as opposed to OB diameter percentage) the CB can have for it to still pocket the OB can be solved by the following equation...

e = d * sin {arctan [ (p - d) / (2 * z) ] }

where...

e = distance of lateral error
p = pocket size
d = ball diameter
z = distance OB away from pocket
sin = sine function
arctan = inverse tangent function
(You can simplify the trigonometric functions, but I was too lazy to do so)

If you graph the error e with respect to the ball size d (for a given p and z), you'll find that the graph looks like an upside down parabola that crosses the x axis (or d axis if you want to be particular) at 0 and p, and e reaches a maximum value exactly at p/2.

In other words, your margin for error reaches a maximum value when the ball diameter is exactly half the width of the pocket. If the ball's diameter is any bigger or smaller than half the pocket size, then you'll have less room for error to pocket the ball.

Also, this maximum for e is always located at p/2 and doesn't depend on the OB's distance away from the pocket z. Of course, z affects the overall magnitude of e.

...if anyone cares at all. :p
 
Last edited:
Having played a lot with the small CB and in recent years moreso with the large balls, though there is some mathematical sense in Andrew's assertions, in practice it is not really noticeable.

There is some adaptation required for CB control and aiming wider for cuts with the larger balls, but after some time both small and large balls can be controlled equally I think.

The most significant difference I notice is the awful effect that skids have on the small CB will slow follow shots.
 
As someone who plays primarily UK 8ball, I would say that on a standard UK 7ft table 8 ball is a lot harder than the same game on an American pool table. On a UK table I can break and finish about 1 in 8 frames (my break is consistent and I porbably have about 6 out of 8 breaks giving me a chance of a clearance but I am not good enough to convert them), on an American pool table I find it more difficult to pot from the break but find that due to the bigger bags and differnet cut of the corner bags I would be disappointed not to finish within 2 visits my current break and clearance rate on an American table is about 1 in 5 (would be higher if I could pot off the break consistently).

My UK 8ball cue is 57" long, weighs 17.5 oz (back weighted due to joint in butt so feels heavier) and has a tip size of just under 8mm.
 
Small cue ball

If you want to get the feel of the small English cue ball...just try a snooker cue ball on a table with our 2 1/4 object balls...you might get the true feel of the smaller ball NOT going where you intend. I found this the most difficult to get used to.
I have played "Yankee" pool for over 30 years (maybe shot over 5 million balls..REALLY! [I played lotsa straight pool].

And I play "English" eight ball almost every year when I go to Australia. My friends own a pool room so I get to play many hours of English type pool. Playing on the small tables is not much of an adjustment because I play often on snooker tables also . Rail shots are quite difficult on the small tables.
I played in pool leagues in Perth and Melbourne. I use a 12.75 and 13mm cue tip for my Yankee pool and I go down to a 11.5 > 12mm tip for the English type. Any smaller and it is very difficult for me to get used to the way the ball takes off when I hit the cue ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top