What's the fuss about "back cuts?"

BRussell

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I often hear pool players talk about back cuts, and how they are harder than other shots. I'm skeptical. Yes, thinner cuts are usually harder than straighter shots, and shots in the middle of the table can be harder because the visual of the rail is missing. But back cuts? I don't think the average pool player even really has a clear definition of what they are.

Is this just one of those pool myths that bangers talk about, or is there there there?
 
Back cuts are tough because you can't see the contact point. What I like to do on those is totally whiff on the hit on thin back cuts, it really shows off your skill let me tell you LOL.
 
You also don't have the pocket in your line of site most of the time. I personally believe that this is the "biggest deal" when back cutting a ball.
 
Not A Big Deal

you cant see the target for the OB, its not a big deal after you get the feel of the equipment IMO. They were hard for me for a while, then i figured it out, they are still a lower % shot but not that big of a deal(unless they are very thin) for that matter any thin cue is a bit more difficult than a full hit on the OB.
 
Consider these two cut shots:

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1374534055.016908.jpg

They both have the same cut angle, so theoretically, they are the same degree of difficulty.

However, realistically, the 2-ball is a tougher shot because your field of vision (as you're looking over the CB towards the 2B) only includes one of the two rails that intersect at the pocket, and there is no other direct visual reference as to which direction the 2B must travel in order to reach the pocket. It is my belief that this is what defines a back cut, and also explains why they are usually more difficult.

When you're shooting the 1-ball, you have the luxury of seeing both the long and short rails in your peripheral vision, as well as having the long rail as a direct reference. Assuming the 1B is frozen, you don't really even need to know where the pocket is. Just move the 1B down the rail and it will reach the pocket.

-Blake
 
Actually on most back cuts, the object ball is away from the rail, which makes the opening larger. There's no fuss really, it jst takes a little more practice to be able to properly visualize back cuts because like others said, the pocket is outside your field of vision.
 
I was not thinking of the 2 ball as a 'back' cut because it is not that far from a normal cut with the CB closer to the center of the table.

To me the 1 ball is more of what I would think to be a back cut as it is coming form the out side of the table instead of the inside of the table where the pocket openings face. While it is relatively easy for an experienced player. Novices usually have trouble with them due to the angle of the pocket opening being smaller from that angle.

I guess the 2 ball is a back cut as I would tell someone to cut it back in[/U] the left top corner vs into the right bottom corner.

A vernacular lesson.
 
Last edited:
The definition I see people use is basically when you must cut a ball into a blind pocket,
and also it's implied that the object ball is further from the long rail than the cue ball.

Guess you also sort of can apply the term to side pocket shots (where OB is further from a short rail)
But it's rare to have to shoot into a blind side pocket.

These shots actually have a lot of subtle issues. One is blind pocket. The angle is one
where natural throw can easily undercut the ball... half ball hits are where you get maximum throw without spin.
Then for position I often find situations like blake's 2 ball where you must hit with inside or even low inside,
a very unnatural feeling spin.

Lots of feel/experience needed for shots like that.
 
SloMoHolic said:
Consider these two cut shots:

View attachment 285964

They both have the same cut angle, so theoretically, they are the same degree of difficulty.

However, realistically, the 2-ball is a tougher shot because your field of vision (as you're looking over the CB towards the 2B) only includes one of the two rails that intersect at the pocket, and there is no other direct visual reference as to which direction the 2B must travel in order to reach the pocket. It is my belief that this is what defines a back cut, and also explains why they are usually more difficult.

When you're shooting the 1-ball, you have the luxury of seeing both the long and short rails in your peripheral vision, as well as having the long rail as a direct reference. Assuming the 1B is frozen, you don't really even need to know where the pocket is. Just move the 1B down the rail and it will reach the pocket.

-Blake
Click to expand...



I understand what you're saying, but practically the two ball is more difficult in this setup because you have less room for error if the ball isn't frozen. If it is then there are other things involved not in the discussion.
These are both back cuts I suppose to a right handed player.

If the 1 ball were on the other end of the table equal to the two ball the entrance angles to the pocket would be the same, but they would have a different success rate for most players depending on which hand they play. (Directed more towards English)
 
CantEverWin said:
I understand what you're saying, but practically the two ball is more difficult in this setup because you have less room for error if the ball isn't frozen. If it is then there are other things involved not in the discussion.
These are both back cuts I suppose to a right handed player.

If the 1 ball were on the other end of the table equal to the two ball the entrance angles to the pocket would be the same, but they would have a different success rate for most players depending on which hand they play. (Directed more towards English)
Click to expand...

Sir,

How do you figure that there is less room for error if the ball isn't frozen?

I'm not sure that I understand your new placement for the 1 ball that makes the pocket opening the same, but I am not one that buys into different success rates right vs left at least not for an experienced or proficient player. If so it is a minimal difference, at least for me.

Can you clarify the 1 ball thing?

Regards,
Rick
 
Actually a Backwards Cut Is The Topside (R) Pocket

In the illustration, the 1 ball is a normal cut shot straight down the rail played with inside English. The 2 ball played to the lower right hand corner pocket is a normal cut shot and you can play it with no English and either with opposite or running English.

When you try to cut the 2 ball to the upper right hand corner pocket, that's when you are cutting a shot backwards. It's a very hard shot to begin with and the difficulty is increased because these shots seldom come up in a match. More often than not we're cutting the object ball at an angle outside the object ball rather than being inside the object ball or straight-on perpendicular to it which, depending on the pocket selected, can become a backwards cut shot . So our eyes, not our assessment of how to play the shot, becomes the biggest challenge because we have to really focus more on the aim point, especially since these shots are typically played using horizontal English.

As most readers will know, horizontal English creates deflection, or "squirt" on the cue ball's path and that combined with a different aim point you really can't see aside from than just picking how much of the object's ball outside edge to hit, heck, backwards cut shot are just flat out hard. You could play for days and never have to play that type of shot. And more often than not this type shot comes up when you've gotten on the wrong side of the last or next to last object ball or else a critical game winning shot that you know if you miss it's over. You either have to call the backwards cut or else play a safety which means surrendering control of the table to your opponent. Ugh.....that's why backwards cut shots are hard because they don't come up unless you've screwed up cue ball position. I observe this all the time with less skilled players that fail to anticipate the run-out lay of the table on the last 5-6 balls when they're only thinking 2-3 shots ahead. And suddenly on the last couple of balls, the shots became harder because they didn't have the right table map and they got long or short on a critical object ball. Usually it's not short-side position on the object ball as much as it is winding up on the long side that results in a backwards cut shot selection. The old expression goes " Cue Ball Long is Cue Ball Wrong".

Depending on where the player calls the object ball, like the 2 ball in the illustration, that's how and when a backwards cut shot can arise. The 2 ball played to the bottom right hand corner pocket is a normal cut shot. It would have to be played to the top right corner pocket to be a "backwards" cut shot.
The 1 ball is a normal cut shot straight down the rail or it's played as a normal bank shot to bottom right corner pocket or even as a normal 3 rail bank to the top side pocket. But there's no backwards cut shot on the 1 ball but there is a backwards bank shot if you bank the 1 ball to the bottom side pocket.

p.s. English got it right but he misreferred to the top left corner pocket in his post rather than the top right pocket....he described it correctly from the shooter's perspective.

My reference/explanation relies upon the diagram as it appears directly before your eyes when viewing it, i.e., the 1 ball can be cut straight down the rail to the top right corner pocket in the diagram or be banked to the bottom right corner pocket in the diagram.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^

I totally agree with bava. The two is the only back cut and only if pocketed into the top right corner. Aiming to the inside can help with the throw effect of the cue on the two. Just my 2 cents.
 
Yes, in the diagram, I intended to demonstrate both cuts into the "upper right" corner pocket.

-Blake
 
They come up in snooker all the time, especially on the black. Best bit of advice I ever got as a kid on this type of shot was to completely commit to the shot. Always accelerate through and don't move your head to watch the OB travel toward the pocket.

Infact what I do now is find a spot on the table 6 inches infront of the OB that the ball has to pass over in order to pocket it and concentrate on that spot after contact as you would with a pocket that was in your line of sight. When you practice place a small chalk mark on the table 6" infront of the OB, its suprising how well it works.
 
Bava,

Good post & thanks for clarifying my statement. I am the cue ball & almost always 'speak' from 'my' point of view.:wink:

Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick
 
I'd say what defines a back cut is when there is an option to cut the ball into at least 2 pockets (if not blocked) and you choose the option that cuts the ball back to the same side of the object ball the cue ball started from.

For myself, I much prefer a back cut into a corner pocket than the other option of shooting it across the bulk of the table into the other corner pocket. So much easier to visualize for me.
 
Hi everyone,

it s really interesting that kind of shots are called harder than other shots- and how it is varying from player to player. How we all (usually :p ) know, the game of pool billiards is a game of perception. Perception is everything in this game ( not talking here about fundamentals etc.!).
In the last summer I held a bootcamp with 4 players-- With 3 guys who can play on a very high level, very strong players (1 plays at pro-speed, 2 guys which are able to run big packs in 9b and 8b, and the fourth I would rate as a B player ) /

So I let the guys play a *shotmaking* exersize over 3 hours. With several different shots – but each shot had the same angle-without any exception.
After a longer time I asked if nobody would have *recognized*/*detected* something…….nobody did.
So (of course just for me, don t want to speak for other guys) for me it s clear, that this just is a result caused by perception (or no perception? :p )
It was kind of funny- after knowing that all would have same angle…………….the percentage of shotmaking increased by 25 to 35 %.
Strange, hm? :p

Also I don t want to discuss here about what kind of aiming system would have helped- or maybe worked perhaps better. Fact is, that *your brain* is the keyfactor in this game. It is all about how you are able to visuals you are receiving—and how you are able to work with these.
Even if some humans have called me wrong: But I always try to get a student away from rating a shot in easy or difficult. No matter what kind of shot—it has to be executed perfect.

The sentence Stan often uses is one of my all time favourites--
“Let the eyes lead and the body will follow” But you have to give the student the key to follow this super worthful advice 
Best wishes from overseas, and a smooth stroke.

Ingo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top