Maximum Throw at Different Speeds and Angles Video

[dr_dave]

Below is a plot I made a long time ago about throw versus speed and angle. It was included in my June, 1995 Billiards Digest article which you can find here:
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html

I think you will find a lot of additional info on Dr. Dave's website along with the theory that explains the very strange shape of the curves and the speed dependence.

View attachment 503617

Diagram 1 in my September 2006 BD article shows a graph of throw vs. cut angle for different speeds, as predicted by the math/physics analysis in TP A.14 - The effects of cut angle, speed, and spin on object ball throw.

The experimental results match the theory very well.

Here's the diagram:

​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

If you have a link to Dr. Dave's test, I'd love to see it.

Links to all of my throw videos, articles, analyses, and experiments can be found under "Throw" on the squirt, swerve, and throw effects resource page. Throw is very complicated, with the effects list including 25 different items (16-40) representing separate throw effects!!!

Fortunately, players really only need to know about 10 basic things about throw in their game. They are listed at the bottom of the online throw tutorial page.

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I found an article on Dr. Dave's site dated September 2006.
https://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/sept06.pdf

His graph looks very similar to both Bob's and mine, but the three graphs have their differences. For soft shots, both Bob and Dr. Dave peaked at 6° or more throw, whereas I barely got over 5°. Theirs subsided, whereas mine remained very near 5° for all angles from just above 30° all the way up to 80°. Maybe it had to do with the gap I left between the balls?

It looks like the two angles with the most throw for both Dr. Dave and me were 35° and 40°. And Bob's were about 28° and 37°. Averaging this data suggests that the 3/8-ball hit has more throw potential than 1/2-ball for soft shots.

I suspect speed differences explain most of the discrepancy. You, Bob, and I probably didn't use the same shots speeds for "slow," "medium" and "fast."
As you have learned, throw effects change a lot with shot speed. Also, as you point out, the gap does affect the actual cut angle (especially at larger angles).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Cloth has nothing to do with it.

Cloth has no direct effect on throw, but cloth properties can affect the small amount of OB swerve that can occur with follow shot throw, per item 24 on the effects list:

Effective throw (combined effect of throw and OB swerve) can be slightly larger with follow vs. draw shots, especially at slower speeds (and with cling/skid/kick).

Regards,
Dave

 

[336Robin]

Embrace throw not Cancel out

Sadly I don't remember the man's name but a fellow once told me that he
knew that certain speeds missed the pocket so he knew to adjust the aim instead of the
shot speed. I think more people tend to adjust the shot speed and end up in trouble
position-ally. I think most of us develop a feel for this end of the game and don't think much about it.

It took me a couple of months to put this together. I wanted to find out what throw ranges to incorporate into my printable practice tools, so I recorded this experiment. I finally finished editing it tonight and got it up on YouTube. I actually learned a few things, and I think you'll be surprised at the results as well. Check it out!

https://youtu.be/IF-xJ953hBc

View attachment 503630

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There is static friction with or without a gap at small cut angles, because the balls "gear" together during contact. That's why all of the "throw vs. cut angle" curves are straight at small cut angles for all shot speeds. At larger cut angles, the gap does have a small effect on throw (and on the amount of cut), but not nearly as much as some people might think, per the results in the following video:

NV D.17 - Does a pool and billiards frozen combination throw more than a small-gap stun shot?

FYI, much more information on this topic, including detailed explanations of the physics, can be found on the frozen-ball throw resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave

Does this mean that the gap isn't necessary for this test?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Sadly I don't remember the man's name but a fellow once told me that he
knew that certain speeds missed the pocket so he knew to adjust the aim instead of the
shot speed. I think more people tend to adjust the shot speed and end up in trouble
position-ally. I think most of us develop a feel for this end of the game and don't think much about it.

For shots where throw is a concern, I adjust my aim for throw and squirt/swerve (AKA CB deflection) separately, as demonstrated in:

NV J.9 - "Got English?" – How to Aim Using Sidespin, With Game-Situation Examples

The only time I adjust my speed for throw is when using faster speed (where throw is less) has no bearing on the shot (e.g., the case ball in a game), or if I need to get the most throw possible to create an angle that is not there, or to spin a ball in. Good examples of this are in the "throw" section at the 5:01 point in this video:

NV J.10 - Top 10 Pool Shots Every Player Must Know!!!

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

There is static friction with or without a gap at small cut angles, because the balls "gear" together during contact. That's why all of the "throw vs. cut angle" curves are straight at small cut angles for all shot speeds. At larger cut angles, the gap does have a small effect on throw (and on the amount of cut), but not nearly as much as some people might think, per the results in the following video:

NV D.17 - Does a pool and billiards frozen combination throw more than a small-gap stun shot?

FYI, much more information on this topic, including detailed explanations of the physics, can be found on the frozen-ball throw resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave

Does this mean that the gap isn't necessary for this test?

I wouldn't say it "isn't necessary" because all testing is good. However, I have tested it both ways to show that it doesn't make much difference concerning the amount of throw (although, the gap does introduce a slight potential error in cut angle at larger angles).

Another good thing to do (which I learned from Bob), is to use a line of frozen balls between the CB and OB to mostly prevent aim and sidespin effects from corrupting results. It's just a lot more work to do this.

Regards,
Dave

 

[bstroud]

Dave,

Have you done any testing with clay balls or Centennials?

I remember only a few skids with the C and none with the clay balls.

There didn't seem to be near the throw on the older nappy cloth (Brunsco).

Bill S.

 

[Saturated Fats]

I’m pretty sure clay balls threw more than modern ones.

Sounds to me like another experiment is in order.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave,

Have you done any testing with clay balls or Centennials?

I remember only a few skids with the C and none with the clay balls.

There didn't seem to be near the throw on the older nappy cloth (Brunsco).

Bill S.

Bill, when you talk about throw, do you mean the normal throw that we get on most shots or the unusual amount we get with occasional "skids"? Which are you comparing with clay vs. Centennial balls?

pj
chgo

 

[CueAndMe]

Diagram 1 in my September 2006 BD article shows a graph of throw vs. cut angle for different speeds, as predicted by the math/physics analysis in TP A.14 - The effects of cut angle, speed, and spin on object ball throw.

The experimental results match the theory very well.

Here's the diagram:

View attachment 503711​

Regards,
Dave

Dave, thanks for including my video link on your website. After working on this video I realize just how much time and effort you've put into your videos over the years. Thanks for all you've shared with us!

This math/physics prediction graph is impressively accurate.

You've probably done this, but I was wondering... have you ever set up a "minimum throw" experiment showing the effects of throw shots at several angles and speeds with top and bottom but no side-spin? I realize this is harder to set up than the stun throw experiments, because the shooter's flaws become a factor.

 

[dr_dave]

Dave,

Have you done any testing with clay balls or Centennials?

I remember only a few skids with the C and none with the clay balls.

There didn't seem to be near the throw on the older nappy cloth (Brunsco).

Bill S.

Sorry, but I have not.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Diagram 1 in my September 2006 BD article shows a graph of throw vs. cut angle for different speeds, as predicted by the math/physics analysis in TP A.14 - The effects of cut angle, speed, and spin on object ball throw.

The experimental results match the theory very well.

Here's the diagram:

View attachment 503711​

Dave, thanks for including my video link on your website. After working on this video I realize just how much time and effort you've put into your videos over the years. Thanks for all you've shared with us!

This math/physics prediction graph is impressively accurate.

You've probably done this, but I was wondering... have you ever set up a "minimum throw" experiment showing the effects of throw shots at several angles and speeds with top and bottom but no side-spin? I realize this is harder to set up than the stun throw experiments, because the shooter's flaws become a factor.

I've done the theory and some limited experiments on this. Everything I have on this topic is here:

throw draw/follow effects resource page

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[CueAndMe]

I've done the theory and some limited experiments on this. Everything I have on this topic is here:

throw draw/follow effects resource page

Catch you later,
Dave

Thanks. I'll read up on it. And I'll go ahead and do the one I was planning just to round things off before moving onto the much less scientific videos that I really wanted to focus on. I'll leave the science to you and Bob.

Take care.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I started playing pool 73 years ago.

I started playing with clay balls and later Centeniels.

Object ball throw did not seem to be an issue until Arimath balls and Simonis cloth was introduced.

Do you have any opinion about that?

Bill S.

As others have mentioned, I would think (but haven't tested) that clay balls would not have been as smooth/polished, and because of that increased ball/ball friction they would have had more throw than modern balls.

Two factors occurred to me for why it may not have been noticed much at that time. We know for a fact that players subconsciously adjusted for it but they may not have even noticed throw much on a conscious level (or in many cases may not have even known it even existed) until it became "a thing" that became commonly known and talked about among players, which for some people may have roughly coincided with about the time frame that Aramith and Simonis were introduced or becoming popular.

Another possibly factor is that on the old equipment with slow cloth and clay balls people tended to shoot harder because they had to, and higher shot speeds minimize the effects of throw and so it may not have been as noticeable since the shot speeds reduced the effective throw.

It may also be that these same two factors (that it wasn't a fully known and understood commonly discussed thing yet, and also that shot speeds tended to be higher on the equipment of the time), may also account for why there may have been less (or less severe) skids and/or that whatever skids occurred just weren't noticed as much.

It was common back in the day for people to not be consciously aware of things like throw, or only vaguely aware of them without a full understanding, even though everybody was obviously subconsciously adjusting for such things. In fact many of us who have been playing long enough can probably remember a time when we didn't fully consciously know about and have a full understanding of throw prior to when it was brought to the public's mainstream attention through books and magazines and the internet. I remember that even as late as the early 90's no less that world champion Mike Sigel was arguing in print that cut induced throw did not exist and essentially that beliefs otherwise were silly. Such thought was common prior to that time and I think we tend to forget about that because of how conscious everybody is of those concepts today and how truly second nature they are to us now.

 

[DWreckTheBoss]

I suspect speed differences explain most of the discrepancy. You, Bob, and I probably didn't use the same shots speeds for "slow," "medium" and "fast."
As you have learned, throw effects change a lot with shot speed. Also, as you point out, the gap does affect the actual cut angle (especially at larger angles).

Regards,
Dave

Hey Dr. Dave, one thing I have always wondered is why you don't use some kind of ramp so that you could take some of the speed variables out of the equation when you do some of your vids.

Like this but with some way to hold the ball at different heights. I've seen something like it, I would imagine it would be pretty easy to make or find something like this. (Sorry this pic was the closest thing I could find to the device I had seen before)

 

[dr_dave]

Hey Dr. Dave, one thing I have always wondered is why you don't use some kind of ramp so that you could take some of the speed variables out of the equation when you do some of your vids.

Like this but with some way to hold the ball at different heights. I've seen something like it, I would imagine it would be pretty easy to make or find something like this. (Sorry this pic was the closest thing I could find to the device I had seen before)

I've tried this sort of thing in the past, but it was more trouble than it was worth. Instead, I just do a bunch of trials and keep only the shots with the desired speed (by watching how far the balls travel).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've tried this sort of thing in the past, but it was more trouble than it was worth. Instead, I just do a bunch of trials and keep only the shots with the desired speed (by watching how far the balls travel).

Regards,
Dave

Not to mention for fast speed you'd need a ramp so high it could only be used outdoors.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Not to mention for fast speed you'd need a ramp so high it could only be used outdoors.

pj
chgo

10m/s (22 MPH) is one second of vertical acceleration, so the height would be 5 meters, or a little over 16 feet. Any billiard room with a 20-foot ceiling should do nicely. :smile: