JoeyA's Academic Justice
I recall that Johnny Holiday wrote about this in his long-ago instruction books. He seemed to think that the technique gave him some extra-special juice on the cue ball.
I tend to agree with those who don't buy in to this idea, at least at face value. It would seem obvious that the cue ball won't be much influenced by any rotary motion of the tip. The contact point of the tip on the cue ball, in conjunction with the ball's inertia and the resistance offered by contact with the bed cloth, pretty much writes the whole story of how the ball will spin.
What MAY be significant, however, is that the cue tip is likely to deviate significantly from a straight-through path when the shooter twists his wrist. This could significantly alter the direction of the force applied to the cue ball, and might well explain the success that some have claimed for the technique, as jalapus and JoeyA describe above. This is also consistent with Earl's description of "swiping" the cue ball when applying maximum English.
I think that your analysis is right on the money.
I believe that the mere attempt to do certain things, (like accelerating the cue through the cue ball, gripping the cue stick tightly upon impact and yes, twisting the cue stick,)can ALL accomplish something positive for some people that is not otherwise possible for them.
It doesn't matter to me that the cue ball is genuinely only influenced only by a few critical items. There are certain shots that some people can only make if they use certain "techniques". Whether or not that is a deficiency of theirs or a superior capability, that do, does not matter. What matters is whether or not the ball goes in the hole.
The physics guys will tell you that you can't accelerate the cue stick through the cue ball and they're right as they are about most things of the physics nature.
Even though I love to read the physics stuff and view the slow-motion videos to see what is actually happening to the balls, if I thought that using telekinesis would help me play better position, I would be all over it.
The thing that happens on this forum is that the physics guys will say, "No, you're wrong, that isn't possible and that doesn't happen or that has no bearing on the shot or similar things that negate the theory or technique". While they may be right about all of these things, they do a disservice to the billiard community and themselves if they do not add the caveat of "However, the attempt to do this can influence the outcome of the shot". A further academic explanation of why the particular technique seems to work for some players would be akin to something I call JoeyA's Academic Justice.
By itself, by saying that something doesn't work or that it doesn't do what some people thinks it does and having the technical data to back that up isn't just to anyone, the academic community or the billiard community.
Because the academic community in pocket billiards is relatively small, these guys take a lot of heat wherever they go but not necessarily for what they know but what they don't add.
By the same token, the billiard community with some of the their almost mystical techniques, the use of mirages, lights, rotating centers, aiming systems and even lucky clothing take heat for their perspective because it doesn't fit within the confines of academia.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that some of these methods have not been fully explained or demonstrated, players continue to put balls in the hole using these unorthodox but apparently effective methods.
JoeyA
