The OP suggested inside spin to counteract collision-induced (transferred) CB spin - that's what I was responding to. He's right that it can do that, but it's nothing new in principle or practice.
pj
chgo
Problem With Our Understanding Of Side
- Thread starter Imac007
- Start date
pj
chgo
Happy to use the word “spin” instead of “throw,” and to consider the concept of “collision induced spin” rather than “collision induced throw” (or CIT, as Dr. Dave calls it). But, respectfully, I don’t think the distinction makes a difference, and my question remains: Doesn’t inside necessarily add to the collision-induced spin being imparted to the OB, whereas outside - depending on how much outside spin is applied to the CB, and on how thick or thin of a cut shot is involved - will either add some spin to the collision-induced spin, add no spin, or even (I’ve read) add some spin in the opposite direction?
Yes this is a correct diagram, as you say, discounting the size of the torque line size.
Remember, we're talking about spin being imparted to the CB - that would be outside spin on the CB, so putting a little inside spin on the CB counteracts that.
You're right about inside spin adding outside spin to the OB - unless you add too much inside, which can actually reduce the amount of outside that's transferred to the OB (because of "excess slippage", like a tire peeling out on pavement when you hit the gas too hard).
pj
chgo
The mint labels were width and diameter, take it up with a Donald. Lol
I agree.
If people want useful information instead, I recommend:
squirt, swerve, and throw effects (it can be useful to know and understand these)
10 things you need to know about throw in your game (at the bottom of the page)
how to compensate your aim when using sidespin
Most top players aim instinctively based on countless years of successful practice and experience. That's what I tried to do for many years, but I was often disappointed by my lack of perfect intuition. That's why I developed and now use the System for Aiming with Sidespin (SAWS) instead. I first adjust my ghost-ball target or cut or required CB line (or whatever else you want to call it) for throw, when appropriate. Then I aim center-CB very carefully (which is easier for me to do reliably). Then I use my memorized BHE/FHE % calibration numbers to pivot the cue the right amount for the given shot speed and distance (to automatically compensate for CB deflection, the net result of squirt and swerve). I am much more effective with this system, and I feel like I don't need to think (or "feel") as much. Separating the throw and CB deflection adjustments helped me a lot. Before, it was too much to process all at once, and my intuition often failed me. Now, I don't need to use any judgement or intuition at all. I just do what the system tells me and I trust it (because it works).
Regards,
Dave
Thanks for the replies, and I’m glad to get confirmation about something I had felt confident about (your second paragraph above).
But I’ll admit to being confused by your first paragraph above. Yes, certainly, it all starts with side spin being imparted to the CB. So if we are talking about a shot with “outside spin on the CB” (note - I wasn’t talking about that; I was talking about inside being imparted on the CB, but ignore that fact), how can one put a little inside spin on the CB to counteract the outside being put on the CB? By definition, you can put one or the other on the CB, but not both. Right? I must be misunderstanding you.
The sequence of events is:
1. We put inside spin on the CB (with the cue).
2. The CB collides with the OB at an angle (a cut shot).
3. CB/OB rubbing friction causes the CB to "roll across" the OB's surface, putting outside spin on the CB, counteracting the inside spin we put on it initially.
Net result (if the amount of initial inside spin was estimated correctly) = no after-collision side spin on the CB.
pj
chgo
Now I see what you were getting at. All makes sense.
lol - I'll bring it up at the next Cabinet meeting.
I only mentioned it because the first drawing we saw after your post showed two dimes laying flat side by side - so I wanted to clear up any confusion.
pj
chgo
Whew.
pj <-
chgo
But since this was an aiming thread (despite all denials), my focus was on spin placed on the CB as it would affect the contact point in the OB, and as it would throw (or not throw) the OB. I didn’t think our concern here was about what spin remained (or not) on the CB after contact with the OB. Obviously that is a major concern in its own right. I just didn’t think it was part of this discussion.
. Anyway, I’m over and out on this thread, and off to give Dr. Dave’s SAWS a shot.Whew.
pj <-
chgo
Herding cats!! Lol
Here's where it came up (and what I responded to):
The reason I responded to that part in particular is that it's a central point in CJ Wiley's "touch of inside" technique that I think this stuff sounds like (and is controversial, to say the least).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
But since this was an aiming thread (despite all denials), my focus was on spin placed on the CB as it would affect the contact point in the OB, and as it would throw (or not throw) the OB. I didn’t think our concern here was about what spin remained (or not) on the CB after contact with the OB. Obviously that is a major concern in its own right. I just didn’t think it was part of this discussion.
Although this thread is about side application the use of the ghost ball line as a reference can be confusing. I tried in the initial part of this thread to point out that the original cue angle, in relationship to the center of mass, determines the amount of side, not an arbitrary aim line. Then I moved the cue off that line and neither the bridge nor the grip were on an aim line. I then pointed the cue in a different direction than previously used relative to their reference aim line to illustrate the difference. Gut me and hang me up as meat for trying to point out the difference. At least with the Dave SAWS you won’t have others telling you it’s all about feel or other reasons they are confused. Thanks for taking the time to try to understand.
By "the original cue angle" do you mean the ghost ball line (i.e., the direction the CB will travel)? If so, then I agree that's how side is measured, and I misunderstood you before. Sorry about that.
I still don't get what that has to do with convergent/divergent cue angles, but that's a sickly horse.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I didn’t mean to be rude. I was following along (with my inherent limitations) and recognized that you were/are attempting to do something constructive. It did strike me that - as best I could understand it - what you were describing was perhaps the beginnings of a full theory or system that might, when fully developed, allow for a calculated identification of the cue stroking line and aim point. Whether there would be any new breaking of ground here I certainly can’t say. But since it didn’t appear that the theory/system is ready for prime time, and Dr. Dave’s system is advertised as just that, my curiosity has been piqued. I’ll continue reading, but won’t bug you all with further dumb questions!
What is the size of the "torque line" in millimeters?
Approximately a dime’s width - 1.35 mm. Basically the idea is to put a minimal amount of side on the ball. The objective was to minimize the effects of side, both throw and deflection. I discovered information in Dr. Dave’s research that points the way to virtually eliminating throw and deflection on most shots. More on that shortly.