Cie

[Island Drive]

Swipe

Termonology I never hear when talking about ball collisions is ''swipe''. I used this allot during my teaching years. I found it visually communicates almost across the board to whomever you talk too, the action of one ball coming across the face of another to cut it in, and its effects. Outcomes of the shot....boy do they change dramatically with dirt/humidity and horizontal plane (3 & 6 o'clock) applied english.

 

[Bob Jewett]

lol. Mike, actually I was asking because of what I was observing and trying to refine for position play.

But now that you've brought it up (and since it's my thread):
Who out there believes in "get-in" english? AND if get in english exists does that mean get-out english also does?

Lou Figueroa

In a column many years ago I proposed an experiment to test the idea. In spite of the offer of lavish prizes, no one responded. It would take 4 to 8 hours to do a good test.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Who out there believes in "get-in" english?

Sidespin on the OB can certainly make a few bobblers drop that wouldn't otherwise - but shooting with sidespin must cause a lot more misses than are saved that way.

pj
chgo

 

[CreeDo]

If you imagine a steep cut into the side (like from south of the head spot, but without much distance involved)... it seems to me that if the object ball hits the opposite facing, the shot is no good.

Maybe I'm just sheltered but in that situation I'm not sure if I've ever seen a ball rattle in, where it hits both facings and then drops. It only seems to drop if it misses the opposite facing entirely.

Over the length of a whole table, spinning a bank can cause the object ball to move several feet off its natural course. But this object ball is only travelling maybe 2.5 inches before it hits the opposite facing, so it's only going to be off its intended course by... what, maybe an inch at best? Is that enough to make a ball miss the opposite facing and hit the plastic?

As for stay-up english... I've seen a lot of 1-pocket trick shots that seem to rely on it. A ball that seems doomed to find your opponent's hole mysteriously jars out.

 

[Banks]

Who out there believes in "get-in" english? AND if get in english exists does that mean get-out english also does?

Of course it exists.

Sidespin on the OB can certainly make a few bobblers drop that wouldn't otherwise - but shooting with sidespin must cause a lot more misses than are saved that way.

Yeah, but that's pushing to create the spin in a way that compromises the chances of the shot. Cutting a ball and creating pocket spin is an example, right along the lines with the post's question. The last thing I want to do is try to use outside spin to send it in, as those tend to rattle a lot more.

At least, that's what I think I may or may not have figured out a while back. Isn't that part of the reason some shots that hit rail-first don't fall, they get a little extra spin that helps grab the inside of the pocket?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Of course (get-in English) exists. ...

OK, but if you can't put a number on it the fact that it simply exists is useless.

For a ball 3 diamonds from the pocket and half a ball off the cushion, how much larger does "get-in" make the pocket? If the pocket is 3 degrees wide for that object ball position and a particular shot speed, how much does side spin increase the width? For which speeds is the technique effective and by how much?

If get-in only increases the pocket width from 3 degrees to 3.001 degrees then it's not worth it. You should instead use the side spin that helps get more precise position.

 

[iusedtoberich]

.....
If get-in only increases the pocket width from 3 degrees to 3.001 degrees then it's not worth it. You should instead use the side spin that helps get more precise position.

I don't think that's the point. If you know one way is more likely to accept a shot, you can play position for that method. For example, when an OB is 5" from the end rail, on the middle diamond, and you need the CB on the opposite end rail, you can position the CB to go forward two rails out of the corner with inside, or draw two rails out of the corner with outside. IMO, shooting that shot with outside draw, will bobble frequently (relatively speaking), but shooting it with inside follow, will never bobble.

 

[lfigueroa]

In a column many years ago I proposed an experiment to test the idea. In spite of the offer of lavish prizes, no one responded. It would take 4 to 8 hours to do a good test.

Bob, I don't recall the challenge. But let me just say this: my experience has been that on some high speed shots down the rail, on certain tables in St. Louis, you cannot use the wrong (get-out) english or the ball will bobble and not drop. It's just the way the pockets are cut. So you have to shoot softer or if you're going to shoot at speed, use no english or with get-in english.

Lou Figueroa
or sumthin'
like that

 

[Bob Jewett]

... For example, when an OB is 5" from the end rail, on the middle diamond, and you need the CB on the opposite end rail, you can position the CB to go forward two rails out of the corner with inside, or draw two rails out of the corner with outside. IMO, shooting that shot with outside draw, will bobble frequently (relatively speaking), but shooting it with inside follow, will never bobble.

My experience is the opposite of yours. I have more trouble with inside english on that shot. I prefer to do as Mike Sigel advised and play the ball with outside english, but that is just my preference for the current state of my game. I think we both need to practice our weaknesses.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, I don't recall the challenge. But let me just say this: my experience has been that on some high speed shots down the rail, on certain tables in St. Louis, you cannot use the wrong (get-out) english or the ball will bobble and not drop. It's just the way the pockets are cut. So you have to shoot softer or if you're going to shoot at speed, use no english or with get-in english. ...

OK, but I would describe the pockets as broken. Also, your observations are not quantified. It's a great deal of work to provide objective quantitative info, and I don't fault you for not doing that, but if I'm ever in STL we will have to try a little challenge on those tables.

 

[Banks]

OK, but if you can't put a number on it the fact that it simply exists is useless.

I'm a math person normally, but to me it's worthless in pool.. unless I'm thinking, "I have a 50% chance for the shot or 90% for the safety." Like fudging a bank for a breakout or leave.. I don't ask myself if I need to hit it with 20psi and 15mph at 40 degrees.

I don't think that's the point. If you know one way is more likely to accept a shot, you can play position for that method. For example, when an OB is 5" from the end rail, on the middle diamond, and you need the CB on the opposite end rail, you can position the CB to go forward two rails out of the corner with inside, or draw two rails out of the corner with outside. IMO, shooting that shot with outside draw, will bobble frequently (relatively speaking), but shooting it with inside follow, will never bobble.

What he said. If the pockets are playing tight, I'd be better off cutting with the CB going towards the pocket to create pocket spin or playing it real light so that it's got a natural roll going in.

 

[lfigueroa]

OK, but I would describe the pockets as broken. Also, your observations are not quantified. It's a great deal of work to provide objective quantitative info, and I don't fault you for not doing that, but if I'm ever in STL we will have to try a little challenge on those tables.

The ugly truth of the matter is that across the land many, many tables are set up less than perfectly and it is good for the player to know how to deal with imperfection.

If you make it this away dinner is on me.

Lou Figueroa

 

[dr_dave]

So last question, just to be clear: is it fair to say that a 30 degree cut shot will impart the most collision induced english on a CB hit without english?

... yes, in general, but it varies with speed some. The induced sidespin is also greater when the CB has stun (not top or bottom spin). Speed is a tricky thing concerning throw and spin transfer. With more speed, you can get less spin transfer, but the spin will wear off slower (e.g., on the way to a rail). When there is a large distance to a rail, a faster speed will result in the greatest induced sidespin effect (e.g., with spin transfer bank shots). You don't get quite as much transferred spin at the faster speed, but more will be retained on the way to the rail. When the ball (CB or OB) is close to a rail, slower speed will create the greatest sidespin effect.

This is an interesting twist (get it?)...

Dave - I'm curious what you think about this spin-rubbing-off friction. In particular we normally think of cloth as having slickness, resistance to sliding, and speed, resistance to rolling.

Which of these relates best to spin-rubbing-off?

Mike,

Sorry for the late response. I took the day off and went skiing. The weather was awesome; although, the snow could have been better.

Sidespin slowing is due to a rotational sliding effect, so I would think it is more related to cloth slickness than speed.

I can see it both ways. Slickness is important because it is an actual sliding friction force/torque that is acting. Speed is important because what makes cloth fast is that the ball doesn't sit in a deep hole (and thus isn't constantly climbing a big hill). When the ball IS sitting in a deeper hole (slow cloth) the friction is acting further out from the base of the ball, where it does more damage...

Good points, but I think the slickness is more important since the effective radius of the frictional torque probably doesn't vary much among typical cloth conditions. Regardless, a "fast" cloth is often "slick" also, so it might be a moot point.

Catch you later,
Dave