This thread is getting fun. :smile:
Can you transfer side spin to an OB?
- Thread starter softshot
- Start date
Kiss that money goodbye.
pj
chgo
I have done the shot a 100 times. Didn't transfer once so I like my odds! I can't post the video at moment the USB ports stopped working. Going to get another computer and post. OB will not spin unless hit across face or off center. You should be a little more open minded and try it first.
I have done every shot listed and can cheat angles and found hitting 100% full ball doesn't transfer spin! I would like to make it simple and just agree with posters here, but it just doesn't work. People not trying it will continue thinking the same until the see for them self.
I think if you don't try it with rails to guide for a full ball hit, you shouldn't post!
Do you know how to read? As I clearly stated in my post, the "off center" hit in shot two (forty seconds in) would have put LEFT english on the object ball (referring back to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1), but as you can clearly see in the video, the object ball clearly has RIGHT english. This right english could only have come from the transfer of the spin from the cue ball. It picked up so much of that right english in fact, that it actually first had to overcome and cancel out the collision induced left english that was actually working against it. The fact that the object ball was cut slighly to the right (which imparts left spin) actually helped to prove beyond any doubt that the object ball got all of it's right spin from the transfer of the cue ball's spin.
Hitting off center on the left side of the object ball (cutting it to the right) imparts left english, and hitting off center on the right side of the object ball (cutting it to the left) imparts right english. You keeping crying about how the object balls are being cut, but what you can't seem to get is that half the time (depending on which side you hit) cutting the ball is not helping you and is actually working against you (and putting the opposite english that was desired). Shot two (forty seconds into the above video) is just such as example of where the cut is putting the wrong (opposite) kind of english on the object ball and is working against you. Shot one in the same video (about 20 seconds in) is a good example of a cut that was working for you in helping to put the correct english. See the difference? No offense intended, but if you aren't even knowledgeable enough to know what type of spin is put on the object ball by a cut shot then you have no business being in this thread.
And let's attempt to put our common sense hats on once again here. You already admit to believing in collision induced spin. What causes it? Friction. When the moving cue ball hits the stationary object ball there is friction as it moves across it, and that friction is just enough to grab onto the object ball and spin it a bit. It's the same thing that happens when a spinning cue ball hits a stationary object ball, even head on. Because the cue ball is spinning the face of it is also moving across the object ball and there is friction there, and that friction is just enough to grab onto the object ball and spin it a bit. No real difference, the surface of one ball is moving across the other in both cases.
I promise you that Tyler Edey and Edwin Montal both know that side spin can be transferred to the object ball. All good players know this.
And yet MORE proof in this video posted by MitchAlsup (as if there wasn't enough proof already). The cue ball hits the object ball head on and stops dead. You can clearly see in super slow motion that the spin is transferred to the object ball. People get to see it happen (again) with their own eyes and yet some of them are still arguing that it isn't possible and didn't happen. Unbelievable. People never cease to amaze me...
Last edited:
So what you are saying then is that it IS possible to transfer sidespin to the object ball but not enough to make your diagrammed shot?
I thought you wanted to bet that it's impossible to transfer sidespin.
If you want to bet that it is impossible to transfer sidespin then I will be happy to show you a shot that shows clearly that it is.
I thought the argument was that the original poster claimed that it's impossible and you agreed with him. This isn't a debate about how effective spin transfer is and under what conditions although that information comes out as a byproduct of the discussion.
I am going to try your shot for free anyway and if I can make the ball then I will let you see that information for free.
Try the shot I posted. In that shot there is no possible way to hit the object ball on the side it needs to be hit on for collision induced spin without moving the ball frozen to it.
The ONLY way to hit the object ball and have it spin back below the frozen ball is to hit it dead center because hitting it on the far side will cause the object ball to get spin in the wrong direction.
This shot illustrates perfectly the fact that a spinning cue ball will transfer spin to the object ball.
You might instead invest that money on the "Banking with The Beard" DVD.
When I noticed that this thread ran to multiple pages, it made me curious. How could a seemingly innocent question (can you transfer spin to an OB?) with a patently obvious answer (YES) generate pages of posts?
I just finished reading the entire thread to this point and I am still curious. Did the OP, who was well aware of the correct answer to his question, just post to generate some discussion? Was there actually any desire to understand what Dr. Dave and others presented?
It seems that the posters arguing FOR the possibility of transfer of spin are winning the day, finally, but it sure has taken a lot of time and effort.
This reminds me of the debates over whether a baseball really curves as it travels from the pitcher's mound to home plate. Yes, believe it or not, back in the 1940s and earlier people did debate this question with considerable intensity. Photographic evidence finally settled the issue. Strangely, photographic evidence doesn't seem to be adequate for some in this thread.
I just finished reading the entire thread to this point and I am still curious. Did the OP, who was well aware of the correct answer to his question, just post to generate some discussion? Was there actually any desire to understand what Dr. Dave and others presented?
It seems that the posters arguing FOR the possibility of transfer of spin are winning the day, finally, but it sure has taken a lot of time and effort.
This reminds me of the debates over whether a baseball really curves as it travels from the pitcher's mound to home plate. Yes, believe it or not, back in the 1940s and earlier people did debate this question with considerable intensity. Photographic evidence finally settled the issue. Strangely, photographic evidence doesn't seem to be adequate for some in this thread.
Started reading this and seems there's a bunch that believe that throw is the reason and not a transfer. So if throw is the cause then how do you explain this shot?
Check out this video. Go to the middle around 4:10
This is confusing to me. He says you cannot transfer side but then he shows in my opinion how it DOES transfer. I guess there's something else going on. You got me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnVWAMXFsqE
Check out this video. Go to the middle around 4:10
This is confusing to me. He says you cannot transfer side but then he shows in my opinion how it DOES transfer. I guess there's something else going on. You got me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnVWAMXFsqE
Last edited:
You should be able to make the shot that I posted then. Maybe we should define "Transfer"
What I believe happens to the OB during contact, if siding played on CB, is very little friction on the vertical axis causing the OB to have a wobble (if stripe was vertical). I don't believe hitting the CB with loads of spin and having it hit the OB full will transfer spin allowing the OB to roll down table with noticable horizontal spin (like a top) that will allow the OB to bit a rail and change angle (hitting rail straight on).
What I believe is OB transfer! When the CB (with vertical spin) contacts the OB off center. I think this offset hit and the spin adds force to that contact point in a straight line through the contact point (not a vertical spin transfer) like a tip does. This contact causes the OB to spin (not the CB spin). Usually playing spin on the CB for a "transfer" shot has the CB arcing to the OB. Even if it appears to hit full the CB didn't travel in a straight line. The arce will apply force at an angle different than a full ball hit.
I have been playing pool for a number of years; you will not do a bank and get a wow outta me... or, how did you do that it didn't go?... I can play the banks and have a different understanding of what is putting spin on the OB. I think that rails cause way more spin than what you guys believe to be "CB Tranfer" ever will.
It is a simple test to prove something other than just CB transfer may happen. The CB is travelling a perfectly straight line and contacting the OB 100% dead middle. I have to ask, will the CB transfer spin to the OB in my diagram (noticable transfer that will have the OB change the natural straight path)? I say no it doesn't! I am not saying that all of those diagrammed shots won't go, I think they do.
Even the video that shows the OB getting the "Transfer" doesn't show the CB path or what happens to the OB after a foot of roll. That little bit of spin would be all forward roll in inches. You can see it start to tumble end overr end in the ball length it travels and by the time it reaches a rail it would be all vertical spin.
Started reading this and seems there's a bunch that believe that throw is the reason and not a transfer. So if throw is the cause then how do you explain this shot?
Check out this video. Go to the middle around 4:10
This is confusing to me. He says you cannot transfer side but then he shows in my opinion how it DOES transfer. I guess there's something else going on. You got me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnVWAMXFsqE
This is nothing more than a "gear shot". This shot transfers bottom on the cueball to a little top spin on the first object ball. Side spin has little to do with this shot....SPF=randyg
When I noticed that this thread ran to multiple pages, it made me curious. How could a seemingly innocent question (can you transfer spin to an OB?) with a patently obvious answer (YES) generate pages of posts?
I just finished reading the entire thread to this point and I am still curious. Did the OP, who was well aware of the correct answer to his question, just post to generate some discussion? Was there actually any desire to understand what Dr. Dave and others presented?
It seems that the posters arguing FOR the possibility of transfer of spin are winning the day, finally, but it sure has taken a lot of time and effort.
This reminds me of the debates over whether a baseball really curves as it travels from the pitcher's mound to home plate. Yes, believe it or not, back in the 1940s and earlier people did debate this question with considerable intensity. Photographic evidence finally settled the issue. Strangely, photographic evidence doesn't seem to be adequate for some in this thread.
The baseball can't curve its gravity
No one won yet, not done arguing. When we do finish, someone else will start up again a few months down the road and this thread will be posted probably within the first 4 posts.
I am off to the tournament now, hope I don't get a transfer shot.
FYI, I have a video of this shot, with an explanation and slow-motion footage, here:
Details about how you aim this type of shot can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
Looking at the shot I posted with the two balls frozen, how can you hit the top ball and make it go to the rail and bounce back below the bottom ball if you aren't doing it with spin transfer? If you were to cut the object ball then the bottom frozen ball would move and you will NEVER get the object ball to pass below it.
I will GIVE you $50 if you can post a video of you setting the cueball up at any angle other than dead straight in line with the object ball and you make the object ball pass below the bottom ball WITHOUT moving the bottom ball
I think you should try listening to somebody other than yourself for a change. Or you can remain stubbornly dumb about things you think you know. Your choice (which you seem to have already made).
And by your own criterion, if you don't try the other tests here you shouldn't post.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Still waiting for Jason to offer an explanation for this case where the "off-center" hit on the OB in shot two would have put LEFT English on the OB and yet the OB clearly ends up with RIGHT English.
regardless of if you hit 2% of the object ball or 100% of the object ball, if you transfer spin, you transfer spin. Therefore, Jason lost. Though, it doest really matter how much you hit.
Its really simple. Watch dr. dave's slowmo shots. You can CLEARLY see the spin transfer. Its clear as day.
Its really simple. Watch dr. dave's slowmo shots. You can CLEARLY see the spin transfer. Its clear as day.
I agree RANDYG.
The point I was trying to make is if side spin is cannot be transferred, how is this shot possible? We know it is. Answer is there is a transfer. Therefore if low CB transfers high OB spin then it stands to reason that right hand English transfers left to the OB and throw is not the reason for a change in rebound angle.