Video of Maximum Throw/Squeeze at Different Speeds and Angles

[CueAndMe]

It took me quite a while to put this video together, but I finally got it done and it's up on my new YouTube channel. To incorporate into my new printable practice tools I wanted to find the maximum throw (or squeeze as I believe you call it in snooker) one can expect at different shot speeds and angles. Even after playing pool for almost 35 years I learned a few things from this. You might be surprised too. I did the experiment with pool balls, but I'm sure snooker balls would react the same way.
It's a rather long video at 22 minutes, but if you have the time, check it out.
Thanks!
Jeff

https://youtu.be/IF-xJ953hBc

[pottr]

but I'm sure snooker balls would react the same way.

They don't.


Different weights and cloth types... It just simply doesn't translate precisely x

[vmax]

I fail to see what has been proven here. It's clear you're not striking accurately as the cue ball ends up in different places after playing the same shot - that gap between the object balls has a greater impact than you realise - touching balls will squeeze more - top spin on the cue ball will squeeze more again - nap on the cloth will put more resistance between the balls so they grip each other a tad longer and squeeze more again - balls with a rougher surface have more friction between them and the Aramith phenolic resin has been proven on snooker tables napped cloths to make many more kicks and bad contacts than the previously used super crystalate balls which is why there is very little nap on pro snooker tables any more.

We amateur snooker players do not get to play on these super fine almost napless cloths and have to put up with these kicks and bad contacts on our napped club tables, and seeing as we hardly ever play plants and sets because the table is far bigger and the pockets far smaller, ramping up the difficulty, this throw you pool players continue to harp on about simply doesn't matter.

We play for many years and simply get used to the way the cue ball behaves on certain shots, with, along, across and against the nap, and we allow for deflection of the cue ball on sidespin shots, according to pace and nap direction, and on throw with the very few squeeze plants we come across.
I can't for the life of me understand this need to determine this to the nth degree on small tables with five inch wide pockets, the margin of error is vast compared to a snooker table, we do not encounter it, we do not think about it and there will be no one studying this who can take it to a snooker table and become a better player because of it.

Too much information when all you need to do is develope a straight cue action and hit what you're looking at.

[CueAndMe]

Thanks for replying. I can't speak about the influence of snooker table cloth, but I can't imagine why the physics wouldn't be the same for all collisions between equal-weighted and equal-sized balls everywhere in the universe, because friction and imperfect elasticity exist pretty much everywhere in the universe, including on snooker tables. Maybe some of you don't realize why you're missing shots when all else is dead on. Could it be that you blame your cue action and alignment when it was simply the denial of the existence of throw? Up to 5 degrees! 5 degrees on a snooker table with your small pockets is probably enough to miss an object ball only 2 feet away from the pocket?

You "play for many years and simply get used to the way the cue ball behaves on certain shots." Yes, but how many fewer of those many years could it have taken if you simply acknowledged throw's effects? Countless misses were because of throw and nothing more. You did everything right except acknowledge throw's effects.

Mike Sigel, one of the greatest pool players ever, apparently made a comment in the early 90's that throw doesn't exist and that anyone who believes it exists is silly. Someone who had played and dominated for so many years somehow didn't acknowledge its existence. You might suggest that this is a good example of why we don't need to bother with it, but he grew up in a pool room and played millions of shots, feeling his way to this belief. Professor of mechanical engineering Dr. Dave Alciatore as well as corporate engineer Bob Jewett, have shown very similar results to mine.

Someone new just coming into the game should be taught what angles and speeds result in significant throw, and there are many as pointed out in the video. When a new player is confronted with a 30 degree shot, he or she will likely miss if aiming at half ball. If the cue action, aim and alignment are perfectly set up for half ball, he or she will miss, because half ball is not the theoretical 30 degrees. It is anywhere from 25 to 29 degrees, depending upon the spin and speed of the cue ball. This is important stuff to know, and I'm only trying to help others understand it and spare years of frustration and misdirected blame.

[Mark187187]

Unfortunately, throw is one of those topics that doesn't go down well on this forum. I thought the video was interesting, and appreciate it took a lot of time and effort. Thank you for that. I can't see how having more knowledge of something is bad, but prepare yourself for a rough ride.

[CueAndMe]

Unfortunately, throw is one of those topics that doesn't go down well on this forum. I thought the video was interesting, and appreciate it took a lot of time and effort. Thank you for that. I can't see how having more knowledge of something is bad, but prepare yourself for a rough ride.

Thank you! I'm glad you found it interesting. And thank you for letting me know what I'm in for.

[Mark187187]

Put it on Azbilliards for an even rougher ride!

[CueAndMe]

Funny, I posted it last week on AZBilliards, and it was embraced. Go figure.

[DeanH]

Funny, I posted it last week on AZBilliards, and it was embraced. Go figure.

more US pool players on AZ than on here
All I think is that it is not the balls that make the difference but the napped cloth on snooker table that makes the difference in the affect.
Physic is always the same but the physical attributes of the nap cause the difference, coefficient of friction, etc

enjoyed the vid, cheers

[CueAndMe]

Thanks. Okay, well I didn't know how different snooker cloth was to pool cloth. I do look forward to a day where I can spend some time on a snooker table. New Jersey, USA is no snooker haven. And I'm not a traveler, so it may be a while.
Cheers

[DeanH]

maybe you wont have to travel so far?
http://www.findsnooker.com/New_Jersey.html

as long as they are clothed with traditional English cloth and not a US version.

the difference between snooker and US pool cloth can be like wool to silk

[CueAndMe]

Thank you, Dean! I'll have to call around and see what cloth they put on their tables. Also, I wonder if they even use the 52.5mm snooker balls. I've seen larger sized snooker ball sets on billiard supply websites.

[DeanH]

Let us know

[vmax]

Mike Sigel, one of the greatest pool players ever, apparently made a comment in the early 90's that throw doesn't exist and that anyone who believes it exists is silly. Someone who had played and dominated for so many years somehow didn't acknowledge its existence. You might suggest that this is a good example of why we don't need to bother with it, but he grew up in a pool room and played millions of shots, feeling his way to this belief. Professor of mechanical engineering Dr. Dave Alciatore as well as corporate engineer Bob Jewett, have shown very similar results to mine.

I'm with Mike all the way, you need to convince me that this throw happens on every shot as you and Dr. Dave can only 'prove' this when three or more balls are contacting together.

[travisbickle]

I'm with Mike all the way, you need to convince me that this throw happens on every shot as you and Dr. Dave can only 'prove' this when three or more balls are contacting together.

A year has passed and you’re still in denial vmax lol