PDA

View Full Version : Efren Wisdom



dutchboy
02-06-2006, 07:18 AM
Was watching an old 14.1 match between Hopkins and Rempe {good match from 1992} anyway, the two commentators were Grady Mathews and Jack Colavita...Hopkins missed a simple shot because of skidding {simonis surface}, Grady made the comment that he asked Efren how he avoided that...Efren told him he hit all balls with a little inside english and low {just below center}, unless he needed extreme position play...I went back and watched a bunch of tapes on Efren straight pool and eight ball and yeah, he uses that technique great, that with his great pocket speed made his object ball always roll forward with no skidding whatsoever...been trying this out and it works great...I like hitting a little low anyway and play my patterns more with draw or center ball if possible. Thought some of you might enjoy this little tip from the master...that kill english also keeps the cue-ball from travelling to much, an added advantage for straight pool.

I shooting pool Fats, and when I miss you can shoot!

Deeman3
02-06-2006, 07:59 AM
Dutchboy,

I would never argue anything against Efren but I use outisde to make sure I don't skid. In my opinion, the cue ball turning in the direction of the side it hits makes it roll off the object ball with essentially no friction. Inside, could make the skid more enhanced, again in my opinion.

Deeman

SpiderMan
02-06-2006, 08:43 AM
I wonder if he didn't mean to say "a little outside". It seems that inside would minimize the effect of variations in ball-ball friction on skid, while outside would not. Could it just have been a vocabulary slip for someone for whom English is not a first language?

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dutchboy:</font><hr> Was watching an old 14.1 match between Hopkins and Rempe {good match from 1992} anyway, the two commentators were Grady Mathews and Jack Colavita...Hopkins missed a simple shot because of skidding {simonis surface}, Grady made the comment that he asked Efren how he avoided that...Efren told him he hit all balls with a little inside english and low {just below center}, unless he needed extreme position play...I went back and watched a bunch of tapes on Efren straight pool and eight ball and yeah, he uses that technique great, that with his great pocket speed made his object ball always roll forward with no skidding whatsoever...been trying this out and it works great...I like hitting a little low anyway and play my patterns more with draw or center ball if possible. Thought some of you might enjoy this little tip from the master...that kill english also keeps the cue-ball from travelling to much, an added advantage for straight pool.

I shooting pool Fats, and when I miss you can shoot! <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
02-06-2006, 01:38 PM
Spiderman,

Maybe but when he said the English killed the cue ball I figured he was talking about inside. Anyway, I hope I didn't run him off. It was just the way i see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Deeman

Fran Crimi
02-06-2006, 01:53 PM
I think the key here is the "low" part.

I mentioned this before in another thread and was promptly ignored. Maybe now that Efren mentioned it, someone will pay attention.

Fran

Jal
02-06-2006, 02:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>...I would never argue anything against Efren but I use outisde to make sure I don't skid. In my opinion, the cue ball turning in the direction of the side it hits makes it roll off the object ball with essentially no friction. Inside, could make the skid more enhanced, again in my opinion.<hr /></blockquote>I think you're correct.

But I think it's a bit problematical for stun or near stun shots. The amount of throw you get (if any) varies fairly rapidly with different tip offsets for these types of shots, and the range of spins producing either maximum throw in one direction, no throw, or maximum throw in the opposite direction shrinks with cut angle (but you are immune to skid if you get within this range). At least inside english tends to level out the amount of throw, but nasty things happen if skid occurs. Pick your poison.

Jim

SpiderMan
02-06-2006, 02:35 PM
Inside can definitely kill the CB in the right situation.

I use INSIDE in combination with LOW to pull the CB into the rail at less than 90 degrees to kill it. But if the ONLY objective were to minimize cling/skid I'd still choose outside. Guess we'd have to see the actual situations to understand what he was talking about.

SpiderMan

dr_dave
02-06-2006, 02:37 PM
FYI, there have been many past and thorough discussions of throw and the use of outside English. They can be found under "English" and "throw" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Pages 5-11 of TP A.14 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-14.pdf) also show many graphs and conclusions that support many of the claims made in this thread already.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
02-06-2006, 02:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I think the key here is the "low" part.

I mentioned this before in another thread and was promptly ignored. Maybe now that Efren mentioned it, someone will pay attention.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>
Fran,

If by hitting low you mean that the CB will still have backspin at OB impact, then I agree. A CB with bottom spin (or topspin with a rolling shot) will create less throw than a CB with stun. TP A.14 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-14.pdf) has all of the details (and some useful graphs). Basically, bottomspin or topspin changes the direction of the friction force reducing the amount of sideways "throwing" force.

Are you also suggesting that hitting low might help with something else (e.g., helping to ensure a center line hit)?

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
02-06-2006, 02:59 PM
Jim,

You make some excellent points. In fact, TP A.14 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-14.pdf) has lots of graphs and conclusions that back up your claims. The only thing I would add is that inside English can reduce the amount of throw (as compared to a center ball hit) because the relative speed between the CB and OB can be greater as a result of the English, and friction is less at higher speeds. However, for small cut angles, inside English can increase the amount of throw.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>...I would never argue anything against Efren but I use outisde to make sure I don't skid. In my opinion, the cue ball turning in the direction of the side it hits makes it roll off the object ball with essentially no friction. Inside, could make the skid more enhanced, again in my opinion.<hr /></blockquote>I think you're correct.

But I think it's a bit problematical for stun or near stun shots. The amount of throw you get (if any) varies fairly rapidly with different tip offsets for these types of shots, and the range of spins producing either maximum throw in one direction, no throw, or maximum throw in the opposite direction shrinks with cut angle (but you are immune to skid if you get within this range). At least inside english tends to level out the amount of throw, but nasty things happen if skid occurs. Pick your poison.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jal
02-06-2006, 04:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ...The only thing I would add is that inside English can reduce the amount of throw (as compared to a center ball hit) because the relative speed between the CB and OB can be greater as a result of the English, and friction is less at higher speeds. However, for small cut angles, inside English can increase the amount of throw....<hr /></blockquote>Thanks Dr. Dave. You always grant the benefit of the doubt when we are wrong (as with some of my thoughts regarding squirt and cue stiffness a while ago) and are most generous when we're right, or nearly right.

Although I've worked on the physics of throw myself, I wouldn't have much confidence in it without seeing your derivations and conclusions. As throw is obviously a pretty important part of any shot, I think that studying your graphs, not with the intent on memorizing them in detail, but simply getting a qualitative feel, can really de-mystify and help one's game. I think it's probably true that many attribute some missed shots to bad aiming or bad strokes when the vagaries of throw are often to blame.

This can be all be learned at the table, of course, and that is the fun way of doing it no doubt, but it's all there in the graphs for anyone wanting some clarity and to help shorten the learning period.

I agree with your statements regarding inside english, and in doing so expect that this will not help you sleep any better tonight. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jim

dr_dave
02-06-2006, 04:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ...The only thing I would add is that inside English can reduce the amount of throw (as compared to a center ball hit) because the relative speed between the CB and OB can be greater as a result of the English, and friction is less at higher speeds. However, for small cut angles, inside English can increase the amount of throw....<hr /></blockquote>Thanks Dr. Dave. You always grant the benefit of the doubt when we are wrong (as with some of my thoughts regarding squirt and cue stiffness a while ago) and are most generous when we're right, or nearly right.

Although I've worked on the physics of throw myself, I wouldn't have much confidence in it without seeing your derivations and conclusions. As throw is obviously a pretty important part of any shot, I think that studying your graphs, not with the intent on memorizing them in detail, but simply getting a qualitative feel, can really de-mystify and help one's game. I think it's probably true that many attribute some missed shots to bad aiming or bad strokes when the vagaries of throw are often to blame.

This can be all be learned at the table, of course, and that is the fun way of doing it no doubt, but it's all there in the graphs for anyone wanting some clarity and to help shorten the learning period.

I agree with your statements regarding inside english, and in doing so expect that this will not help you sleep any better tonight. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim,

Very well stated. I also thank you for helping me clarify some of my thoughts (and fix some errors) in the past. The CCB is a great forum to help each other learn.

I think I'll sleep just fine tonight.

Regards,
Dave

Bob_Jewett
02-06-2006, 07:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... Are you also suggesting that hitting low might help with something else (e.g., helping to ensure a center line hit)? ... <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not Fran, but .... The earlier thread, if I recall correctly, wss about avoiding the chalked spot on the cue ball landing on the contact point on the object ball. I hope everyone here realizes by now that the cue ball, as it leaves the tip, has a spot of chalk where the tip hit it and maybe also where the tip splattered chalk onto it. Draw can lower the chance that such a spot will land at the contact point.

I have intentionally played to land the chalk spot on the object ball for extra throw, and I think I've succeeded once. It was with inside follow and with a very close object ball.

DickLeonard
02-07-2006, 07:32 AM
Fran I didn't see your post on hitting the cueball low or I would have mentioned that Joe Canton always hit the cueball low even if he was following the ball.

His theory was a ball hit low was more accurate than a ball hit high. He would hit the ball low it would rotate counter clockwise then the weight of the cueball would take over start a clock wise motion and pocket the ball and follow thru for a short distance. Of course for a power follow you must hit the ball high.

The other thing about aiming low is, the cueball is only 3 tips wide at that point. Making it easier to hit left/right or center.####

dutchboy
02-07-2006, 08:17 AM
Like most truth's Fran, if there throwing rocks at you or ignoring you, your probably doing something right. Personally, I'd never ignore anything you said...sorry I missed that post. Great response on this post, thanks guys, I'll try all these qualities you've mentioned, thanks.

Get on me Burt, I can't lose.
Dutch

dr_dave
02-07-2006, 08:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... Are you also suggesting that hitting low might help with something else (e.g., helping to ensure a center line hit)? ... <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not Fran, but .... The earlier thread, if I recall correctly, wss about avoiding the chalked spot on the cue ball landing on the contact point on the object ball. I hope everyone here realizes by now that the cue ball, as it leaves the tip, has a spot of chalk where the tip hit it and maybe also where the tip splattered chalk onto it. Draw can lower the chance that such a spot will land at the contact point.

I have intentionally played to land the chalk spot on the object ball for extra throw, and I think I've succeeded once. It was with inside follow and with a very close object ball. <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks Bob.

Didn't George Onada write an article about this? Did you ever get his permission to post his past articles online? It would be nice to be able to refer to them. I think the important point from the cling article was that cling can be totally avoided with high-outside English or low-inside English.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of the probabilities of having the chalk spot land on the ball impact point for different types of shots. I would think it would be extremely difficult (i.e., almost futile) to try to plan for (or count on) an intentional cling shot, even with the correct English and desirable shot distance.

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
02-07-2006, 12:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... Are you also suggesting that hitting low might help with something else (e.g., helping to ensure a center line hit)? ... <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not Fran, but .... The earlier thread, if I recall correctly, wss about avoiding the chalked spot on the cue ball landing on the contact point on the object ball. I hope everyone here realizes by now that the cue ball, as it leaves the tip, has a spot of chalk where the tip hit it and maybe also where the tip splattered chalk onto it. Draw can lower the chance that such a spot will land at the contact point.

I have intentionally played to land the chalk spot on the object ball for extra throw, and I think I've succeeded once. It was with inside follow and with a very close object ball. <hr /></blockquote>

Right. I think what happens when you use backspin is that the chalk mark is being literally wiped off the ball by the cloth. I don't think it matters whether you use outside or inside. It will get wiped off immediately after impact. I think when you shoot slightly down at the ball, the cb is taking a half-turn, bringing the chalk mark to the cloth. Accompany that with a slide due to impact and voila...you have a chalkless cue ball.

Fran

Fran Crimi
02-07-2006, 12:31 PM
No...thank YOU Dutch, for being so observant of what Efren said and for realizing that it was something significant. Thanks for bringing it to the forum. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Fran

kyle
02-07-2006, 04:37 PM
My impression was that when you expect there may be extra friction at contact you'll have less room for error if you add friction (inside) to the shot in the first place.

cushioncrawler
02-08-2006, 01:26 AM
Despite much of the good stuff mentioned above, i am still confused, as follows..........

How did skidding hurt Hopkin's shot?? Did the object ball cut too narrow or too wide or stop short??

Is skidding due to something that the cueball does before impact, or due to something that happens during impact, or something that the object ball does (after impact)??

How does Simonis affect such skidding?? Is it due to less or more (cloth) friction?? Is it due to less (or more) rolling resistance??

If due to Simonis........Is skid something that always happens on Simonis?? Or only when new?? Or only on some types of shot??

Or is skid related to squirt or kicking or ball-to-ball friction or something else??

cushioncrawler
02-08-2006, 02:05 AM
Is "kill english" efren's term or a standard billiards term or your term??

I havnt had a chance to check, my table is almost 3 hours drive away, but my diary tells me that the way to kill the cueball's travel is to use zero english --- here i am referring to a rolling cueball (stun or screw might be different). I think that my diary is correct --- if so then "kill english" is misleading.

In fact, inside english (check side) allowed the cueball to roll through further than outside english (running side). And running side allowed the cueball to roll through further than zero english (as already mentioned). Or is my diary telling fibs (for the first time)??

But, as we all know (and as mentioned earlier by others), if referring to killing the cueball's pace off the cushion then "kill english" can be an ok term.

Jal
02-08-2006, 02:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Despite much of the good stuff mentioned above, i am still confused, as follows..........

How did skidding hurt Hopkin's shot?? Did the object ball cut too narrow or too wide or stop short??

Is skidding due to something that the cueball does before impact, or due to something that happens during impact, or something that the object ball does (after impact)??

How does Simonis affect such skidding?? Is it due to less or more (cloth) friction?? Is it due to less (or more) rolling resistance??

If due to Simonis........Is skid something that always happens on Simonis?? Or only when new?? Or only on some types of shot??

Or is skid related to squirt or kicking or ball-to-ball friction or something else?? <hr /></blockquote>The reference to the cloth does make me wonder if we're talking about whatever the announcers were referring to, if in fact they mentioned the cloth.

But as normally used, skidding means an abnormally large amount of throw due to (usually) chalk at the contact area between the balls. It affects the direction of the object ball and will typically have the same effect as if you severely undercut it. But if you have sufficient outside english on the cueball, it could cause throw in the other direction as if you overcut it badly.

I don't believe the condition of the cloth can influence the amount of throw, normal or abnormal, in any significant way. The forces between the balls are much greater than between the object ball and cloth. Even if the friction is driving the object ball down into the table's surface, the distance the object ball moves during the brief contact period is so small (on the order of 0.001") that I don't believe any significant force can develop. But there may be some dissenting opinions on this (or worse, proof).

Jim

cushioncrawler
02-08-2006, 05:36 AM
G'day Jim --- Yes, i wonder if the announcers mentioned Simonis. Anyhow, i have a few ideas.

I agree with the good stuff re getting zero throw when u use perfect outside english, ie even when (if) there iz a chalk kick. But, even so, the object ball might stop short of the pocket, koz, chalk will drop the coefficient of restitution from say 0.94 to say 0.88 (i think i did the tests years ago, but i havnt looked for'em --- its past my bedtime).

In fact, i reckon that the object ball stops even shorter, koz, when we say there is zero throw, we are talking horizontally. But, we must not ignore vertical throw, ie the object ball gets some bottom spin (reverse).

I was going to disagree with u regarding the zero affect of the cloth --- then i changed my mind while typing, to agree with u -- but then i moved back half way. This is what i reckon.....

If u take the case of when the object ball is so close to the pocket that a kick (and skid etc) cannot possibly hurt the angle, then the only way u can miss is by the object ball not reaching the pocket (albeit only a few inches away). Now, if u play the shot (on any cloth) just hard enough, any kick will cause the object ball to stop short (on any cloth). Here, on a quick cloth (Simonis??) u would play more slowly than on a slow cloth. If the extra friction arising from the kick is identikal at all (slow) speeds (which i think it is), then the object ball would stop (short) at the same exact spot on all and any cloth(s).

But, i reckon that e is not the same at all (slow) speeds --- at slightly slower speed (ie for say Simonis), e might be i reckon as low as say 0.84. Longer impact time would be partly to blame i reckon for the lower e at lower speeds. The bits of chalk dust are the same size (thickness) no matter what the speed. We all know that, for a clean impact, e increases as impact speed decreases, ie as impact time increases, but here the chalk wins.

Vertical throw (ie friction) would be the same i reckon for all cloths, ie percentage-wise, ie percentage of the impact speed. If so, the only difference (between cloths) is due to lower e.

The longer skidding distance (of the object ball), on a slippery cloth (Bob prefers to call this "sliding" distance, or was it "slipping"), doesnt affect the stopping spot of the ball. The object ball losers 2/7ths (or whatever) of its original speed no matter how slippery the cloth is. Sure, the skidding (slipping) distance is longer for a slippery cloth, but what we forget is that rolling resistance slows a ball no matter whether it is skidding or rolling. Here i am anticipating and correcting possible future mistakes (by others), not anything u said.

dr_dave
02-08-2006, 09:05 AM
FYI, there is a link to a good summary/description of these terms under "throw" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Despite much of the good stuff mentioned above, i am still confused, as follows..........

How did skidding hurt Hopkin's shot?? Did the object ball cut too narrow or too wide or stop short??

Is skidding due to something that the cueball does before impact, or due to something that happens during impact, or something that the object ball does (after impact)??

How does Simonis affect such skidding?? Is it due to less or more (cloth) friction?? Is it due to less (or more) rolling resistance??

If due to Simonis........Is skid something that always happens on Simonis?? Or only when new?? Or only on some types of shot??

Or is skid related to squirt or kicking or ball-to-ball friction or something else?? <hr /></blockquote>

Cornerman
02-08-2006, 11:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>
How did skidding hurt Hopkin's shot?? Did the object ball cut too narrow or too wide or stop short??<hr /></blockquote> In general, when a shot skids, the object ball ends up under-cut. You can also get skid on a non-cut shot.



[ QUOTE ]
Is skidding due to something that the cueball does before impact, or due to something that happens during impact, or something that the object ball does (after impact)??<hr /></blockquote> I think this has been answered. Skidding (or kick) is when there is an abnormally high amount of friction at the collision point. The most likely and logical reason is that the chalk mark is at the contact point.

[ QUOTE ]
How does Simonis affect such skidding?? Is it due to less or more (cloth) friction?? Is it due to less (or more) rolling resistance?? <hr /></blockquote> I think the best theory I've heard or told is that the napless cloth tends to not wipe off the chalk marks off the cueball as readily as a thicker, napped cloth. So, a single chalk mark may last a little longer (two or three shots?) if you're playing on worsted cloth.

[ QUOTE ]
If due to Simonis........Is skid something that always happens on Simonis?? <hr /></blockquote>People have been complaining about the higher skid rate on Simonis since its introduction.

Fred

Cornerman
02-08-2006, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Didn't George Onada write an article about this? <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not Bob,but... Dr. George Onoda did write an article on this in BD about 15 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever get his permission to post his past articles online? <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.sfbilliards.com/onoda_all_txt.pdf

Bob has put several of Onoda's articles into one PDF. The Skid article is included.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to do an analysis of the probabilities of having the chalk spot land on the ball impact point for different types of shots. <hr /></blockquote> I believe he touched on this, using a basic area ratio. If the chalk mark still existed, then the probability of coinciding the chalk mark with the contact point at random is about 200:1.

I'm sure someone given enough crazy practice could do this quite regularly, like throwing cards to knock over a bowling pin. I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

Fred

dr_dave
02-08-2006, 11:40 AM
Fred,

I am Dave, and I thank you for the info.

I had forgetten that I also have a link to George's articles (and Bob's, and mine, and others') in the pool physics resources section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/physics.html).

George's "cling" article (he called it "skid") appeared in the December '91 issue of BD.

Regards,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Didn't George Onada write an article about this? <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not Bob,but... Dr. George Onoda did write an article on this in BD about 15 years ago.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Did you ever get his permission to post his past articles online? <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.sfbilliards.com/onoda_all_txt.pdf

Bob has put several of Onoda's articles into one PDF. The Skid article is included.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>It would be interesting to do an analysis of the probabilities of having the chalk spot land on the ball impact point for different types of shots. <hr /></blockquote> I believe he touched on this, using a basic area ratio. If the chalk mark still existed, then the probability of coinciding the chalk mark with the contact point at random is about 200:1.

I'm sure someone given enough crazy practice could do this quite regularly, like throwing cards to knock over a bowling pin. I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Vagabond
02-08-2006, 09:54 PM
welcome to USA.How are Tamy Cantoni &amp; Johl Younger hitting the balls these days? Cheers /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

cushioncrawler
02-09-2006, 03:30 AM
Hi Vagabond
I am using a satellite to call from my bush hideaway (surrounded by kangarooz &amp; koalaz) about 1/2 hr from Ballarat -- Ballarat is 1 hr west of Melbourne. Unfortunately my table (12' by 6', Duke, made 1871) is at my mountain hideaway about 1 hr east of Melbourne. Thanks for the welcome -- BD is a great site.

I saw Tamy once only, in Melb, practising snooker, over 1 year ago, before she went to Denmark??? But i only play English Billiards, so i dont keep up with the snooker scene, &amp; i dont know where Tamy is playing nowadays.

I heard that Johl is never going to pick up a cue again. I think he is a partner in Hollywoods, a bar-lapdancing joint on the Gold Coast (Queensland). Actually, one night my club was short (for snooker), and they got (conned) me to fill in -- my opponent was Johl -- he killed me -- it was my off season (from billiards), and i never play snooker anyhow. Johl came from Bacchus Marsh, between Ballt &amp; Melb. Thanks again.

cushioncrawler
02-09-2006, 06:52 AM
G'day Fred.
Thanks for your info etc, likewize Dr Dave, etc. I have now (re)visited the old (July 05 mainly) threads, &amp; Dr George's (1991 mainly) article(s), &amp; i am now less ignorant. In fact, i think that i can add a few ideas from a down-under (peculiar) perspective.

When the English (amatuer) Billiards Team visited last year, they said that kicks were a big menace on the double-shaved (almost napless) fast &amp; slippery competition snooker cloths, now standard. Their theory was that balls pick up chalk dust (electrostatically), &amp; bigger chalk bits, mainly as the ball slows &amp; stops, &amp; that this is magnified by the almost napless cloths, because the chalk has less space to hide (in the nap). I dont necessaryly agree with this, but it opens up a few lines of questioning.

Object Balls. The cueball might be the main offender in skidding (kicks), but the object ball is often to blame. I myself am amazed at the amount of chalk dust (&amp; solitary big bits) of chalk that can often be seen on object balls for no apparent reason. I uzually only ask for the object ball to be cleaned when i can see chalk on the exact spot that i want to contact -- which happens at least once a night -- where does it all come from?? I think that much of it is not picked up from the cloth, it is direct splatter from the cue-tip.

Cleaning. We use a special ball marker to mark a ball's pozzy before cleaning. It is shaped to fit snugly under the ball, ie it has a spherical cut-out. No arguements.

Brushing. If the English (Team) is correct, we should be brushing the table between frames.

Wiping. Some players even wipe the table with their hands before some shots -- for instance, they wipe all around The Spot before they pot the red, because the red then goes on The Spot, &amp; it is easier to wipe that area before the red is spotted.

Klunking. After chalking-up, some players klunk the tip-end of their cue on the side or leg of the table, to remove excess chalk from the tip. U should see the amount of chalk that comes off.

I agree with the threads that say that central hitting is a good policy for reducing the incidence of kicks (for cut-shots) -- &amp; that a touch of outside english is a good policy for reducing the affect of kicks (for cut-shots).

I dont much agree with Dr G's ways of controlling a fresh chalk mark, nor of the shots to beware -- Dr G's faithfull will attack me here. This is probably the only bit of Dr G's stuff that i have trouble with -- and it isnt just envy at his wonderfull way with words etc. I suspect that Bob J agrees with me, but Bob is too nice, he only says that the orbit of the chalk-spot is too complicated to analyse. Much of Dr G's stuff would i think be almost ok if he used 3 pages -- in pruning it down to 2 pages, i suspect that he left out things like "at short range", &amp; "when hit hard", &amp; "for cut-shots", etc. But much is a little (or a lot) incorrect anyhow. For instance, the drawn orbits are wrong (mostly). The drawn spin axis is wrong (partly) -- a cue-ball hit with say left spin will allways have left spin, for Dr G's axis to be correct, the spin has to change to ryht spin as skidding changes to rolling (but this cannot happen). Anyhow, it is good ground-breaking stuff. I will spend a few hours doing tests of the orbits, and tests of the actual incidence of kicking (skid) also -- i have already spent hours on this sort of stuff, but for a completely different reason, so i know (and Bob J knows i reckon) what i am in for -- it is very frustrating and taxing.

I agree (with u) that a thicker cloth better cleans the ball(s). There is one more thing that might relate to Simonis. The cueball's rate of decay of screw &amp; stun depends on the balltocloth friction. The cueball's rate of decay of spin depends on the balltocloth friction and the depth of the ball's footprint. Roll resistance depends on the depth of the footprint also (a minor matter). Anyhow, if there is a safe place to contact the cueball, ie a safe place to leave a fresh chalkmark, then this place will be different on a Simonis. I like to test a cloth by spinning a ball by hand, to the max, and timing how long it takes to stop spinning, ie u slowly count -- zero kangarooz, one kangarooz, two kangarooz etc. An old or coarse cloth yields about 8 kangarooz, some tournament snooker (spit) cloths yield 12 kangarooz. Then i screw my cue together, shake hands with my opponent, and get my arse kicked.

Vagabond
02-09-2006, 07:45 AM
you have good humor and with that humor you will be able sail thru the rough waters in the discussion forums.I thank you very much for the detailed information you provided to me.cheers again /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Jal
02-09-2006, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> G'day Jim --- Yes, i wonder if the announcers mentioned Simonis. Anyhow, i have a few ideas.

I agree with the good stuff re getting zero throw when u use perfect outside english, ie even when (if) there iz a chalk kick. But, even so, the object ball might stop short of the pocket, koz, chalk will drop the coefficient of restitution from say 0.94 to say 0.88 (i think i did the tests years ago, but i havnt looked for'em --- its past my bedtime).

In fact, i reckon that the object ball stops even shorter, koz, when we say there is zero throw, we are talking horizontally. But, we must not ignore vertical throw, ie the object ball gets some bottom spin (reverse).

I was going to disagree with u regarding the zero affect of the cloth --- then i changed my mind while typing, to agree with u -- but then i moved back half way. This is what i reckon.....

If u take the case of when the object ball is so close to the pocket that a kick (and skid etc) cannot possibly hurt the angle, then the only way u can miss is by the object ball not reaching the pocket (albeit only a few inches away). Now, if u play the shot (on any cloth) just hard enough, any kick will cause the object ball to stop short (on any cloth). Here, on a quick cloth (Simonis??) u would play more slowly than on a slow cloth. If the extra friction arising from the kick is identikal at all (slow) speeds (which i think it is), then the object ball would stop (short) at the same exact spot on all and any cloth(s).

But, i reckon that e is not the same at all (slow) speeds --- at slightly slower speed (ie for say Simonis), e might be i reckon as low as say 0.84. Longer impact time would be partly to blame i reckon for the lower e at lower speeds. The bits of chalk dust are the same size (thickness) no matter what the speed. We all know that, for a clean impact, e increases as impact speed decreases, ie as impact time increases, but here the chalk wins.

Vertical throw (ie friction) would be the same i reckon for all cloths, ie percentage-wise, ie percentage of the impact speed. If so, the only difference (between cloths) is due to lower e.

The longer skidding distance (of the object ball), on a slippery cloth (Bob prefers to call this "sliding" distance, or was it "slipping"), doesnt affect the stopping spot of the ball. The object ball losers 2/7ths (or whatever) of its original speed no matter how slippery the cloth is. Sure, the skidding (slipping) distance is longer for a slippery cloth, but what we forget is that rolling resistance slows a ball no matter whether it is skidding or rolling. Here i am anticipating and correcting possible future mistakes (by others), not anything u said.

<hr /></blockquote>Hi Cushioncrawler. Before you posted this, it's possible that you were the first and only human being on earth to know the coefficient of restitution when chalk is present! I hope you'll continue to favor us with any other measurements you've taken and if ever you feel like providing a description of how you did it, I'd be interested in that too.

Yes, you've made me reconsider my rash statement that the cloth is irrelevant for abnormal throw too. I guess it's possible that with increased contact time and increased friction, the cloth might play more of a role. But I'm not sure that differences in coefficient correlate to differences in contact time? (I really don't know anything about this.) I think Fred has provided a good explanation for why the cloth does make a difference as to the frequency of occurrences of skid, and why the announcers or Dutchboy brought it up. Live and learn.

I'm not sure I agree that a ball's travel distance is the same regardless of how far it slides. Maybe I don't understand your point (happens a lot with me). If you're pretty confident of your statement and that I'm misinterpreting it, I'd appreciate any further explanation.

Thanks.

Jim

Fran Crimi
02-09-2006, 05:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
People have been complaining about the higher skid rate on Simonis since its introduction.

Fred
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't know which people you're referring to but I can tell you with certainty, going all the way back to the mid 70s, the skid factor on all the new cloths was high, including the thick napped ones. I've played on them all and I've watched the players on them very closely over the years. Balls don't skid any more on brand new Simonis than on any of the other cloths. It depends on how tightly the cloth is pulled. A nappier cloth that's pulled tighter than Simoinis 860 may even produce more skidding the first few days.

Given that the cloths are pulled equally tight, balls will skid on Simonis and Championship and other similar cloths for a longer period of days as opposed to thicker napped cloth where the fibers start to rise quicker, but in those first few days of a tournament, they're all the same.

So if someone says they're skidding more on Simonis than other cloths, on day 1 of a tournament, my contention is that they don't know what they're talking about or they have very poor memories.

Fran

DickLeonard
02-10-2006, 07:09 AM
Fran, I think the balls skidded more in the 60s than today. I haven't had a ball skid on me since I started back playing around 97.

My favorite skid shot was shot by Big Steve Mizerak, playing in the Salt City Open in Syracuse, a tournament he won. He was on the end rail and played a shot in mid table, he overcut the shot but then you could hear the skid, the object ball changed direction and right into the pocket. He then ran out on his opponent Joe Canton.

That was the first and only time I ever saw a skid help the shooter. The skid always benefits the opponent except this time.####

cushioncrawler
02-15-2006, 07:15 AM
G'day cushioncrawler -- i did a few tests of my own this arvo, relating to Dr G's stuff (skidding -- kicks), and relating to Efren's practice of hitting low with a bit of inside english (to avoid skid-kicks) -- i only did 60 minutes of testing, so i dont expect to get a Nobel Prize for billiards, but here we go.

Rule No 1..... If u hit the qball very high, ie at 11 O'clock, or 12, or 1, u will never get a kick (from a fresh chalk mark), unless u are hitting the object ball full.

Rule No 2..... If u hit the qball leftofcenter (high, or low), u will never get a kick (skid) if u are cutting the objectball to the right, if the qball is rolling when it gets to the objectball.

Rule No 3..... If u hit the qball leftofcenter (low), u will never get a kick (skid) if u are cutting the objectball to the left, if the qball is sliding when it gets to the objectball.

Rule No 4..... Rule No 2 is wrong..... if u hit very low and just leftofcenter and slow, a cut to the right might get a kick.

Rule No 5..... For a fine cut, a kick is impossible (for a rolling qball), unless u use a little inside english, and hit a little low.

So, was Efren correct?? I dont know -- i emptied a bottle of 1998 red -- i will have another think in the morning.

tateuts
02-15-2006, 08:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I wonder if he didn't mean to say "a little outside". It seems that inside would minimize the effect of variations in ball-ball friction on skid, while outside would not. Could it just have been a vocabulary slip for someone for whom English is not a first language?

SpiderMan

<hr /></blockquote>

Next time you see them in person, look for it. I've watched Efren and Bustamante do this over and over. Instead of shooting softly at a shot that might skid, they shoot firmer with inside low. Basically, they can hit the ball firm and the cue ball gets pulled into the rail at an angle then the inside spin just kills it.

Outside works too but the cueball runs. With inside you can shoot it firmly and still kill the cueball.

Chris