Potting With Side

[alabadi]

Check side on 9 ball table, aim for the near jaw and you'll pot it centre pocket, aim centre pocket and you'll still pot it off the far jaw. It ain't so on a snooker table as that far jaw will be the cushion because it's a smaller pocket, so aim to miss is the old adage and it works.
No need for any video evidence, you'll see the results with your own eyes, adjust your aiming to suit and try again until it starts working.

I have been struggling for some time hitting high blacks thick, i think i have mentioned this on numerous threads before. a few weeks ago after a coaching session again, we decided to try and aim to miss on the the thin side not much just the far jaw. although the shot looked and felt so wrong i just committed and found out i was potting a lot better.

i have now been practicing this for the last few weeks and i have to say it does work (for me), i still have to force my self to trust that this is the right line and it is going well so far

[tomwalker147]

92 blacks is good.

after a while throtts the counting became harder than the potting

[throtts]

92 blacks is good.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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)

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.