Helping side

[jrc750]

Better off not talking about it !! get on the table and play some shots differently to see for yourself what happens

[DandyA]

Oh no just to confuse things a bit more running side isn't always the outside of the cueball, say you are just high on the black and( potting it into the bottom green bag) following through round the angles ,running side would be the inside of the cue ball( or the side nearest the black) if you played top and the outside of the cueball that would be check side in that situation( as it would check off the cush) I hope I have that right.

yes I agree with that ... also to note in both cases helping side is the "outside" side - so running side in your previous example and check side in the example above ...

[Pedantic Stroke]

now I'm getting confused ... I think itsnoteasy was correct in his example above ... I call it "outside" side, the cue is on the other side of the cueball to the object ball ...

You're spot on. A cut to the left - helping side is right hand side on the white. Cut to the right - helping side is left hand side on the white.

Its worth noting that helping side that eliminates cut induced throw and ultimately a thick contact is only a small amount. People tend to think you need a lot when its not the case. You need to barely hit outside of centre cue ball on a firm stun shot for example. The thicker the pot the less you need. Also the firmer the shot the less helping side is required. I had a tendency to hit soft blues into the middle too thick. When I started to use some helping side on them I was sending them right into the heart of the pocket. If a player doesn't have this issue then helping side will not help your game at all. It should be left for slow stuns to take doubt of the mind imo.

[itsnoteasy]

So if you are always hitting the outside side , the cue ball is always arcing in to out, ( if it's arcing)and not out to in, so it can't arc into the contact point from a diferent angle can it? Sorry if I'm getting this all wrong.

[Pedantic Stroke]

So if you are always hitting the outside side , the cue ball is always arcing in to out, ( if it's arcing)and not out to in, so it can't arc into the contact point from a diferent angle can it? Sorry if I'm getting this all wrong.

I personally don't believe the arc is of any real amount. On a firm shot with side the cue ball originally deflects off line due to two rounded objects, the tip and white, coming into contact. The distance on a firm shot for the white to arc or swerve down table would be almost towards the far cushion so call it 11 ft-ish. On your average shot distance in snooker between white and object ball a firm shot wouldn't have any arc at all, unless the butt was severely raised and you were applying a lot of side. The Americans, especially the likes of Dr Dave, Bob Jewett and Patrick Johnson have put in countless hours on these types of subjects and I tend to go with the evidence they have openly provided on this matter.

The cue ball doesn't arc on a short distance and firm shot when applying aide with a level as possible cue. The potting angle appears to change (this may be why some think the cue ball has appeared to contact the object ball from a different angle) because side throws the ball. Right hand side on the white causes the object ball to throw to the left and visa versa for left hand side. Ball condition comes into play and dirtier balls can seem to throw more with side.

[DandyA]

So if you are always hitting the outside side , the cue ball is always arcing in to out, ( if it's arcing)and not out to in, so it can't arc into the contact point from a diferent angle can it? Sorry if I'm getting this all wrong.

no you're not getting it wrong ... Pedantic Stroke (PS) has explained very well the theory in his last couple of posts ... he got me confused in his post #87 when he said you use right hand side for a cut to the right - by which I think he means the CB hits the OB on its right hand side ... I personally would call that a cut to the left because the OB goes to the left ...

but we're now clear that helping side is outside side, the side opposite to where the OB is relative to the line of aim ... it's a theory and I personally think it's true although I don't use it, I prefer to aim the pot a little thinner which achieves the same effect (hopefully) ...

ok, that's helping side sorted but now we have another effect of side-induced throw where you are trying to make a potting angle that you can't get to because it's blocked by another ball ... here you would use inside side - at low to medium weight and not too much side ... it's exactly the same theory, a small amount of left hand side on the CB causes the OB to throw slightly to the right and vice versa due to gearing of the balls ... the problem here is this inside side is exactly the side which vmax would use for his swerve hypothesis ... I definitely use this when necessary and believe it is throw rather than a swerved CB ...

please note I am talking about side-induced throw ... I am not interested in trying to use transmitted side (ie side transmitted from the CB to OB) as I think it's way too small (if it happens) to be of use, and anyway it wouldn't cause the effects that can clearly be seen with side-induced throw ...

the simple rule is, if you believe in side-induced throw, that left hand side on the CB causes the OB to throw slightly to the right of the path it would take with a plain CB and vice versa ...

[Ramon]

I personally don't believe the arc is of any real amount. On a firm shot with side the cue ball originally deflects off line due to two rounded objects, the tip and white, coming into contact. The distance on a firm shot for the white to arc or swerve down table would be almost towards the far cushion so call it 11 ft-ish. On your average shot distance in snooker between white and object ball a firm shot wouldn't have any arc at all, unless the butt was severely raised and you were applying a lot of side. The Americans, especially the likes of Dr Dave, Bob Jewett and Patrick Johnson have put in countless hours on these types of subjects and I tend to go with the evidence they have openly provided on this matter.

The cue ball doesn't arc on a short distance and firm shot when applying aide with a level as possible cue. The potting angle appears to change (this may be why some think the cue ball has appeared to contact the object ball from a different angle) because side throws the ball. Right hand side on the white causes the object ball to throw to the left and visa versa for left hand side. Ball condition comes into play and dirtier balls can seem to throw more with side.

Some great posts from you Pedantic !!!! ,
but don't you think that most of theories and conclusions of these guys is based on their experience on the US pool table?
Even on the pool table they use sometimes the side (not for transfer it to the OB), but to reach the right point of contact area of the OB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsIGuEVAF8

do'nt u agree ??

You have this also with snooker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuv6ne-vLuM

Some players (and coaches) believe that this happened to reach the right point of contact area of the OB. Some players believe that, this way you can transfer the side to the OB. (in this case from a distance of approximately 2.5 meters).
Anyway,, imo, the most important thing is the result. To pot the ball and get the position that you had planned in your mind.


If you wch this video , you can see that Bob J uses a 314 pool shaft.
(if I'm not mistaken)
I really wonder, Is he able to do the same shot on a snooker table (with a snooker cue and a regular shaft) ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaSKh1PSqok

do'nt get me wrong, I'm not here to condemn these guys, but, imo, most of their conclusions, are based on their experiences on the us pool table. Not snooker.

[itsnoteasy]

Oh, dear I have been under the illusion it was all the same thing we were on about, no wonder I got confused, think I will bow out now, it's all too much for me lol. Thanks for the help though it's been very interesting to read all about it.

[Pedantic Stroke]

Some great posts from you Pedantic !!!! ,
but don't you think that most of theories and conclusions of these guys is based on their experience on the US pool table?
Even on the pool table they use sometimes the side (not for transfer it to the OB), but to reach the right point of contact area of the OB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsIGuEVAF8

do'nt u agree ??

You have this also with snooker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuv6ne-vLuM

Some players (and coaches) believe that this happened to reach the right point of contact area of the OB. Some players believe that, this way you can transfer the side to the OB. (in this case from a distance of approximately 2.5 meters).
Anyway,, imo, the most important thing is the result. To pot the ball and get the position that you had planned in your mind.


If you wch this video , you can see that Bob J uses a 314 pool shaft.
(if I'm not mistaken)
I really wonder, Is he able to do the same shot on a snooker table (with a snooker cue and a regular shaft) ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaSKh1PSqok

do'nt get me wrong, I'm not here to condemn these guys, but, imo, most of their conclusions, are based on their experiences on the us pool table. Not snooker.

I agree with everything they have written where evidence is overwhelming. Obviously American pool and snooker differ in the equipment used but they are fundamentally the same, lots of balls, 6 pockets and a cue. The basic theories behind their physics mumbojumbo transfer to all pocket billiards. Especially on topics such as spin induced throw, squirt and swerve and cut induced throw. Due to differences is balls, cloth, cushions, playing area, cues etc the differences can sometimes be great for some of their theories. For example swerve - they don't take into account the nap of the cloth on a snooker table and this can sometimes cancel any swerve you try putting onto the white.

[Ramon]

I agree with everything they have written where evidence is overwhelming. Obviously American pool and snooker differ in the equipment used but they are fundamentally the same, lots of balls, 6 pockets and a cue. The basic theories behind their physics mumbojumbo transfer to all pocket billiards. Especially on topics such as spin induced throw, squirt and swerve and cut induced throw. Due to differences is balls, cloth, cushions, playing area, cues etc the differences can sometimes be great for some of their theories. For example swerve - they don't take into account the nap of the cloth on a snooker table and this can sometimes cancel any swerve you try putting onto the white.

fair enough, that is what I was talking about. !!!

[vmax4steve]

they don't take into account the nap of the cloth on a snooker table and this can sometimes cancel any swerve you try putting onto the white.

What you don't take into account is that their videos are filmed in such a way that you don't really see how they're strking the cue ball, you don't really see what is being put on the cue ball, you don't really see what exactly is happening and you're taking at face value whatever they tell you is happening is fact..................................then they bring up the subject of low deflection cues and mention a brand name.

The good old US of A, the united states of advertising. You get nothing for free in the land of the free.

Another point I would like to make is how come those who learned their craft on an english billiard table have had such success over the pond playing US 9 ball, when the yanks have all these little secrets of side to bamboozle them.

[golferson123]

what success and who

[jonny66]

Ladies 9-ball is dominated by ex-snooker players

[golferson123]

only know two

[jonny66]

I only know two as well, I can't even remember their names :biggrin-new: just fanning the flames Alison Fisher?

Darryl Peach is an ex snooker pro though, Darren Appleton looks like he played quite a bit of snooker too, just from his cue action, I have no facts to back that up.