Will potting angles change with the use of stun, follow or screw?

[ace man]

I'll just leave this hear to rile up the anti science crowd.
https://youtu.be/-jUL_8aZ2LU

First of all this isn't science. The effects he describes are there, but they will be heavily dependent on conditions, table type, cloth, clean/dirty balls...etc.
What he did was give some acronyms for effects that are intuitively known to players since the dawn of cue sports.
Such heavy usage of acronyms is an American thing, is it not?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I think pottr is right Mr. Big. In terms of real world physics maybe not, but as far as playing the game is concerned he is spot on.
For sure if you did experiments you'd find that angles do change slightly as friction is different depending of stun, screw and follow, different speeds, different spins, cloth...etc. How does that help playing the game?
Real player on real table need not fill his head with such unimportant information. Come on.
With such clutter of information players head would explode. Snooker is hard enough. Not need to have paralysis by analysis.
Remember, this is a snooker forum for snooker players, not physics majors.

I'm confused. Is he right or wrong? You started out by saying he's right, then ended with saying he's wrong, but that's right anyway.

So, do potting angles change depending on how you play the shot or not?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Sure they don't know what's happening and use wrong terminology, but put a cue in their hands and they can do it, which is what matters.

Who is 'they'? You? Blusts? Whole lot of mediocre snooker players around, even some on the telly.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

In reply to the original post, the answer is no, it's the angle of the cue ball off the object ball that the player can change when striking up and down the vertical centre of the cue ball.

Sidespin is different.

As for biggie telling you you need to know what happens when balls collide, that might be beneficial to some, but really you need to see the result of the deviation of the cue ball after your attempt at sidespin and compensate for it.
If you miss thin then aim thicker or vice versa until you get it right. Alex Higgins wasn't a physics major, but no one else played with side like he did.

I answered the question truthfully and honestly. Nowhere in my reply did i say there was a 'need' to know.

Perhaps you haven't noticed this before but whenever someone is proven to be wrong about something, they merely shift the nature of the debate. It's a straw man. Both you and ace man have done this already, and I've not even got to bottr's diatribe yet.

Good Lord.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

First of all this isn't science. The effects he describes are there, but they will be heavily dependent on conditions, table type, cloth, clean/dirty balls...etc.
What he did was give some acronyms for effects that are intuitively known to players since the dawn of cue sports.
Such heavy usage of acronyms is an American thing, is it not?

What do you mean this isn't science? Balls are balls. Tables are tables. Side is side. Results are results.

You need to get some consistency to your thought processes- you're all over the place on this one.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Would you like me to get my opponent to recount the day that's more important to you than it is to me on youtube?


Played Imran once and smashed him to pieces. Daryl and Mick are far superior pool players to me. Both have beat me at pool more than I have beat them although I only ever played DP at 9 ball in a round robin where I won 4:1, lost 4:0 and 4:1 in our group. Winner breaks format saw me not get a visit following the lag in the 4:0


Never played him or met the man


The angle never changes. Your aiming changes when you use side to compensate for the white being thrown off the line of aim, a temporary swerve effect or something similar.

Stun, screw and follow... all hitting the middle of the ball so you should not be imparting side which means there is nothing to compensate for if you cue well enough. The angle of the pot is always the same unless the object ball has the ability to move?

If I draw a 90 degree angle on a piece of paper it is always 90 degrees... Just because I move the view of the angle or even the part of the pencil I use to draw it, the angle is still 90 degrees.

I hope this clears it up for you.

Not Mike segal then...who was the American you said you'd beaten and were as good as? And I'd rate Imran above peach...

As for the rest, still absolute bollox I'm afraid. Pay more attention at the table. By all means advise people to learn through practice alone, but misleading people serves no purpose.

The FACT is, the potting angle can change dramatically depending on how you play the shot. This is beyond dispute and is as daft to argue against as saying below centre striking doesn't cause screw.

That many players are unaware of it - even pros - is neither here nor there.

[pottr]

Not Mike segal then...who was the American you said you'd beaten and were as good as? And I'd rate Imran above peach...

Never heard of him. Find the quote where I say that and I'll wire you some money

As for the rest, still absolute bollox I'm afraid. Pay more attention at the table. By all means advise people to learn through practice alone, but misleading people serves no purpose.

Whatever, I'm a much better player than you at every cue sports discipline so I don't really care... This is the internet, not real life... I imagine you'd simmer down pretty quickly if you weren't hidden behind your anonymity and your keyboard.

The FACT is, the potting angle can change dramatically depending on how you play the shot. This is beyond dispute and is as daft to argue against as saying below centre striking doesn't cause screw.

Well, if you use the word FACT, it must be right

That video explaining the cut/throw... Never seen it before, interesting... And absolute clap trap... The guy cues straight when he wants to and misses when he wants to... Also, it's edited...

Christ, at least when I post a video it's warts and all... Given a day and some editing I could prove anything.

[tomwalker147]

Popcorn at the ready for this one

[pottr]

No point mate... The guy's flogging a dead horse... Can't believe I bit...

Just look at the Mosconi cup team... All of them lads play 8 ball and snooker and it's 6 years in a row now, lol

[jonny66]

I knew this would happen. Guy comes on here to ask if topspin or stun/screw will change the potting angle. Boom! 4 page argument about sidespin and who's better at pool, bang on topic.

[pottr]

I knew this would happen. Guy comes on here to ask if topspin or stun/screw will change the potting angle. Boom! 4 page argument about sidespin and who's better at pool, bang on topic.

I PM'd him yesterday with an apology saying exactly the same.

[jonny66]

Good man Pottr

BTW if the OP is still reading this, I think the answer to your question is no.

[tomwalker147]

Good man Pottr

BTW if the OP is still reading this, I think the answer to your question is no.

This comment made me laugh Jonny!

[vmax4steve]

I answered the question truthfully and honestly. Nowhere in my reply did i say there was a 'need' to know.

Perhaps you haven't noticed this before but whenever someone is proven to be wrong about something, they merely shift the nature of the debate. It's a straw man. Both you and ace man have done this already, and I've not even got to bottr's diatribe yet.

Good Lord.

The problem is biggie you don't prove anything, you link to pool videos that you 'believe' in, super slo mo showing a miniscule amount of side being transfered to the object ball on contact and you 'believe' that this makes a difference to a pot into a five inch wide pocket six feet away, and we all know that you can hit the cushion two feet before the five inch wide pocket and still make the pot.

Meanwhile us snooker players are playing every day/week on tables with a pronounced nap on the cloth and knocking in the balls. What we do know is that when we put a quick one in, decelerate, move on the stroke, then we cue across the ball, impart a little side and miss the pot; what we also know is that when we want to use side we adjust our aim accordingly and 'voila' the pot goes in even though we aimed to miss it.

The 'they' I was referring to is the commentators, the ex pros and world champions who use terminology like 'turn the red over' when using side to pot a ball that is partially blocked by another. Put a cue in their hands and they can do it despite not knowing what's going on in the world of physics, and you knew this very well, just wanted to antagonise us snooker players, which is your MO and your whole reason to be on this forum.

I heard Hendry say when a player was wanting to split the pack off the yellow, "What he's doing is playing with left hand side, aiming the yellow to hit the cushion just before the near jaw" what he didn't do is go into the physics of spinning balls, inertia, friction correlation and the relationship between that and the cloth conditions because it just isn't neccessary.

But going back once again to the original post, the potting angle doesn't change when striking the cue ball up and down the vertical centre unless of course you bounce the cue ball on an angled pot, get a kick or don't cue straight.

[pottr]

Very succinct.

Tom, have I ever mentioned a chap called Mike Segal?

Is he that fat guy with the pony tail who does the kung fu movies? :/