Potting With Side

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Over the length of an 8-foot table the cue ball will throw in feet not inches? Really?! Wow, you must be one bad player to miscue that severely.
You really are a muppet. More hyperbole rot.

I will use snooker terminology the minute you bother to invent it. In the meantime, I'll stick to traditional cue sport terminology, understood the world over for centuries.

Actually, I'll have a go at using your jabbering nonsense:

"I can turn the red over feet, rather than inches"
"I can create the angle with side over feet, rather than inches"
"I can straighten the ball over feet, rather than inches"
"I can pluck some nonsense out my arse and leave everyone going 'WTF is that walrus lookalike Willie Thorne on about now' over feet, rather than inches.

And so on and so forth. But yes, you can throw balls for feet, quite easily - even on a snooker table.

[focus]

I will use snooker terminology the minute you bother to invent it. In the meantime, I'll stick to traditional cue sport terminology, understood the world over for centuries.

Actually, I'll have a go at using your jabbering nonsense:

"I can turn the red over feet, rather than inches"
"I can create the angle with side over feet, rather than inches"
"I can straighten the ball over feet, rather than inches"
"I can pluck some nonsense out my arse and leave everyone going 'WTF is that walrus lookalike Willie Thorne on about now' over feet, rather than inches.

And so on and so forth. But yes, you can throw balls for feet, quite easily - even on a snooker table.

You've made all that nonsense up, I've never seen anyone type that baloney. It's throw, always has been and always will be. It's a snooker term is throw, we used it first and we still use it. Are you on drugs?! Also, have a go at understanding the rules of snooker. You do look a tit when you don't even know these basics. I bet you've never played in your life.

You wrote this:
'Throw is much larger on an american pool table, as you're fond of pointing out, so can be much more than aiming at one side of the pocket and hitting another. Balls throw in feet, not inches.'

Show me a video of a CB throwing feet rather than inches please, I'd love to see that. You're just making it all up. Sir Nonsense, along with your other account Sir Marmite.

ROFL!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Then we have the difference in throw from different tips, a Kamui black throws a lot less than an elk. Thick walled brass ferrules throw more than thin walled ferrules (TD has knowledge of this) which throw more than fibre ferrules which throw more than blackspin. Steel throws differently to brass. The throw on a 6811 C cloth is different to a Precision Pro and there are a myriad of cloths on tables out there. Chalks grip to different degrees, so there's another variable. How about the heat of the cloth and balls, another factor. Result: lots of factors that simply aren't in Dr. Daft's model that do affect throw. That's why they're called models, they're a simplification of what happens, and they're never completely accurate in predicting what will happen. No model produces an R squared of 1 (100%), so no model including his could ever be relied upon to accurately work out how to pot a ball with side, too many extraneous variables at work. That's why players on here and every legend and champion learned the same way; play to miss and see if you pot it, allow for the throw. Rinse and repeat 100,000 times. Very simple, because accuracy is paramount. It's not a seminar, it's winning or losing.

On a US pool table, throw is pretty easy to deal with as VMax points out, the pockets and cut are so large, you can play to pot and the throw error will be cancelled out by a gift of a pocket. Why anyone wants to play with side on a US table is beyond me, the pockets are so large, you can make up angles that you wish and simply move the CB with stun, run through, top and bottom. Side isn't really needed. You can turn a straight pot into one off straight by simply playing the OB towards the knuckle such is the hugeness of the pockets and cut. As long as you miss the corner knuckle the cut will take the ball down, so you've got about 5 inches to play with. EASY!

Lol. You don't need spin to play 9 ball? Lol! I guess that's why every 9 ball pro uses english on virtually every shot- why don't you tell them where they're going wrong - they could learn a lot from you blasts.

"Hey Daz, there's this 30 break troll on some obscure snooker forum who reckons we're doing it wrong, pal."
"Well that's me convinced, Karl, let's follow him, pal".

You should also tell Dr Dave where he's going wrong, I'm sure he'd appreciate your insightful input. He's exceptionally accommodating when it comes to crediting other people's work on his website and always encourages players to challenge his methodology or improve his results.

Off you pop then, lad.

[itsnoteasy]

I will use snooker terminology the minute you bother to invent it. In the meantime, I'll stick to traditional cue sport terminology, understood the world over for centuries.

Actually, I'll have a go at using your jabbering nonsense:

"I can turn the red over feet, rather than inches"
"I can create the angle with side over feet, rather than inches"
"I can straighten the ball over feet, rather than inches"
"I can pluck some nonsense out my arse and leave everyone going 'WTF is that walrus lookalike Willie Thorne on about now' over feet, rather than inches.

And so on and so forth. But yes, you can throw balls for feet, quite easily - even on a snooker table.

Dates and links to references please for your centuries old claim of terminology.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

You've made all that nonsense up, I've never seen anyone type that baloney. It's throw, always has been and always will be. It's a snooker term is throw, we used it first and we still use it. Are you on drugs?! Also, have a go at understanding the rules of snooker. You do look a tit when you don't even know these basics. I bet you've never played in your life.

You wrote this:
'Throw is much larger on an american pool table, as you're fond of pointing out, so can be much more than aiming at one side of the pocket and hitting another. Balls throw in feet, not inches.'

Show me a video of a CB throwing feet rather than inches please, I'd love to see that. You're just making it all up. Sir Nonsense, along with your other account Sir Marmite.

ROFL!

Awww, he STILL doesn't understand what's being discussed. Bless. Seriously,this is why it's important - snooker players simply do not know what happens when balls collide. Of there's no standard terminology, how are they going to know?

As for evidence, you want me to direct you to Dr dave's site now, do you? Thought that was a big no no around these parts? But there's tons of great evidence all over the place if you're afraid of visiting big bad dave. Try YouTube for starters.

But there is no need and you can even do it on a snooker table. Set 2 balls together on about the pink shot and aiming directly at the brown spot ie straight down the table. Put the CB on the black spot and hit the extreme edge of the first ball just hard enough for the second ball to hit the baulk cushion. Then measure how far from the centre of the baulk cushion the ball lands. I'd bet it's more than a foot. That is throw, the reaction of friction on the OB following collision with another ball.

Even without the squeeze shot, It's possible to throw a ball on a snooker table in terms of feet. I'd say the faucette shot would throw the OB more than a foot, easily, and i reckon i can do it through spin induced throw alone, with a parallel cue.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Dates and links to references please for your centuries old claim of terminology.

Is it fair to say i can add 'ignorance of cue sports history' to the ever lengthening list of things the blaster knows absolutely nothing about?

Consider it done.

[itsnoteasy]

I will try again, can you provide evidence that the terminology you use is centuries old and has been used all over the world during that time, as you have claimed.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I will try again, can you provide evidence that the terminology you use is centuries old and has been used all over the world during that time, as you have claimed.

Oops, automatically assumed it was the blaster, apologies. Easy mistake to make, mind, but Google is your friend, my friend. I suggest you start with 'the history of cue sports' and see how you get on.

[culraven]

Don't insult me, it was 96

But yes, I really couldn't get on with my MW. For long pots it was a dream, couldn't miss a thing. But for the shots in and around the balls, the amount that the white was thrown when playing shots with side felt greatly reduced. As a result, I would find myself missing balls as a result.

Sure, I could have adapted in time, but I wasn't prepared to go through all that effort when I was getting on just fine with my MAC cue at the time.

When the TW came, it felt spot on from the very first shot.

I've got a bit lost on this one, are you saying that you use the throw to essentially widen the potting angle, or is it just that your brain has adjusted for the throw automatically over the years?

[itsnoteasy]

Oops, automatically assumed it was the blaster, apologies. Easy mistake to make, mind, but Google is your friend, my friend. I suggest you start with 'the history of cue sports' and see how you get on.

Cue sports ,fifteen hundreds, nine ball ,nineteen twenties, where is your evidence that the terminology you use has been used by the whole of the world for centuries, it's just not true is it, or post some evidence, it's not a tough question.
Sorry should read cue sports fourteen hundreds( fifteenth century)

[j6uk]

side or no side that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the countless bad positional shots from out outrageous side, or take up cues against a sea of practice routines and by oposing play center ball

[pottr]

Potting With Side

Culraven - Yes. Over years of playing I've worked out how the white will behave when I hit it in certain places etc...

Through practice.

[culraven]

Culraven - Yes. Over years of playing I've worked out how the white will behave when I hit it in certain places etc...

Through practice.

So if you're already at a decent standard all this low deflection innovation is pointless as you would have to effectively retrain your brain and lose what has become ingrained over the years. So would you say MW is aiming more at the sub 50 breaker, and is it really going to improve their game not learning the ability to adjust for throw?

[vmax4steve]

side or no side that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the countless bad positional shots from out outrageous side, or take up cues against a sea of practice routines and by oposing play center ball

Side or run away to baulk ? that is the question, whether 'tis nobler in the mind to stagnate against a sea of positional possibilities or take up your cue against an ocean of small time Eddie Charltons, and by opposing them become english men.

note the US pool term there biggie

[tomwalker147]

I practised blacks off the spot last night by playing the black then trying to get back on it for another black. Repeating the process until I missed. I potted 92 consecutive blacks before missing and can honestly say I maintained position on the black by using centre ball striking only (up and down the cue ball) 99% of the time. I can only remember using side once and that was when I finished low on the black and needed to go in and out of baulk.

My point is you can maintain position without using side, of course there are certain shots that require side which have already been mentioned in this thread but it's certainly not something a lesser player should be thinking about until they've mastered centre ball striking. Just my opinion.