The softer the tip, the more spin you can get? is this accurate.

ShootingArts said:

Oddly enough, what you find not supported and flying in the face of science I find just the opposite, and I made a living using that science as a mechanical designer. I had typed up a long response I choose not to post. What you find silly I find to be fact. If we go much further at least one of us is going to get irritated.

Click to expand...

Believing something to be fact is not what make things facts. Facts don't care what you believe. Evidence (and its indisputability and preponderance) is what makes things facts.

You claimed that slippage between the cue tip and cue ball must occur with any offset hit (as quoted below).

ShootingArts said:

There is slippage with any off center hit to the cue ball. How much is just one of the unknowns we deal with.

Click to expand...

When asked for the evidence you are using to claim this as being a fact, you claim that there will be slippage when any stationary object is hit at an angle with a moving object and that this is a scientific law and as sure as gravity (quoted below) yet you don't give any evidence for this either.

ShootingArts said:

As for some slippage when hitting a stationary object at an angle with a moving object, that is a basic mechanical property. Trying to claim that there will be absolutely zero slippage during contact between a cue tip and cue ball when using side is much like arguing gravity doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Attempting to back up one unsubstantiated claim with another another unsubstantiated claim isn't really what would be considered reliable evidence either, it is just you continuing to make unsubstantiated claims. Evidence would be linking us to the applicable scientific laws or principles that you say you are relying on for your conclusions of "fact", and explaining why they govern tip/ball interactions and necessitate that slippage must occur.

When you were again asked to present some evidence, any evidence whatsoever, you essentially said "you just have to trust me because I know about these things". (quoted below).

ShootingArts said:

I could trot out my background to justify my beliefs but I find people that don't believe these things more surprising than my knowing they are basic mechanical principles. I move between a chuckle and wanting to bang my head against the wall when people insist that the pursuit being discussed is outside the realm of physics and mechanical properties that govern the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Well surely you understand why "trust me, I know about these things" can't be considered proof or even really evidence for that matter, particularly when we have no reason to believe you to be an expert in the field of physics. Even more so when no less than Bob Jewett, widely regarded as the most knowledgeable person on earth regarding the physics of pool, has said he disagrees with your slippage must occur assertion (post 74, linked below).
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6582735&postcount=74

On a side note, I would also be very interested in hearing what evidence leads you to the conclusions you state in the quote below:

ShootingArts said:

Slippage and/or tip distortion create different results when we hit out towards the edges of miscue limits with hard and soft tips. There are other variables too. Some cancel each other out to some degree, some are additive.

Click to expand...

And for shots that are not extremely soft, I am still interested to hear what evidence leads you to suspect that upwards of 50% slippage (or even 33% slippage if you like) could even be a remote possibility (per the quote below).

ShootingArts said:

If all tips we play with all grab with less than ten percent slippage at some point in the stroke, then most of the things we are discussing don't matter a whole lot, we learn how to play with our favorite tip. Now suppose that the slip factor is more like fifty percent at the minimum rate of slippage for a tip. Now quality of hit and the time a tip stays on a cue ball matters a great deal more.

Click to expand...

asbani said:

Ok, these are not my words, and I won't write a very long thread, but they are the words of Florian "Venom" Kohler, he's a pro trick shot player, some people call him the artist when it comes to trick shots, and here's what he said and I quote "The softer your tip is the more spin you can get, or at least you can reach more extreme side of the ball"

he also said "With a hard tip, I cannot hit very far on the left, I would just miscue, so the softer you get the least miscue you will get"

Now my question is, with all the threads I have read on azbilliard, I think azbilliard disgree with him?

Btw, here's the reference for proof, watch the first 40 seconds of the video, he said it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fcrc5Xa-KA

Click to expand...

I disagree. I was in Vegas. I think it was BCAPL at the Riviera. I was passing Dr Cue doing his show. He said does anyone have a question. I stopped shot my hand up. He said yes? I asked ,does a soft or hard tip impart more spin? This was his answer. A hard tip puts more spin on a cue ball. People prefer softer tips because they are more forgiving and dont miscue as much. It might be counter intuitive but anecdotal experience and the confirmation by Tom Rossman make me confident that is the case.

00john said:

I disagree. I was in Vegas. I think it was BCAPL at the Riviera. I was passing Dr Cue doing his show. He said does anyone have a question. I stopped shot my hand up. He said yes? I asked ,does a soft or hard tip impart more spin? This was his answer. A hard tip puts more spin on a cue ball. People prefer softer tips because they are more forgiving and dont miscue as much. It might be counter intuitive but anecdotal experience and the confirmation by Tom Rossman make me confident that is the case.

Click to expand...

What about the opposite anecdotal experience of others here and the confirmation by Florian Kohler? Do you think they’re lying? Or could it be neither of you are correct?

pj
chgo

Poolplaya9 what exactly do you mean by “Slippage”? And shooting arts could maybe say what he means by slippage. I don’t know anything about physics as I’ve said often but I’m wondering if you guys are maybe talking about different things. Is it the loss of energy somewhere along the way or the actual slipping of the tip off the cue ball?

Psi: my anecdotal evidence says the same double oh John. But that’s probably because I use and prefer harder tips so I have more memories of good action while using them

Snooker Theory said:

"Soft tips will absorb more impact causing the tip to stay on the cue ball for a split second longer than harder tips. his will result in more cue ball spin, commonly referred to as “English”, when struck off the center of the cue ball." Pooldawg site

Click to expand...

You can't always believe what you read on the Internet, especially on a commercial site trying to sell products.
.

Snooker Theory said:

I guess this is something that is generally thought, but is apparently wrong?

Click to expand...

Bingo. This is a very common misconception. See #3 on the Top 100 Pool Myths list. For an explanation for why it is a myth, see:

cue tip hardness effects

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave said:

You can't always believe what you read on the Internet, especially on a commercial site trying to sell products.
.
Bingo. This is a very common misconception. See #3 on the Top 100 Pool Myths list. For an explanation for why it is a myth, see:

cue tip hardness effects

Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

So I am curious, if we look at studies in golf, do you think there could be any comparisons made? I would assume there has been more studies done with much higher framerate cameras.
A golf ball with a soft cover stays on the club face longer, thus more spin. I remember reading about a patent for a soft attachment that goes onto the face of the golf club and was removable which increases spin due to increased contact time (at least from my understanding), so why is pool different?

Thanks for your insight...

Gobush (1996a) measured the coefficient of friction between both soft covered three-piece
and hard covered two-piece balls and a club insert that was mounted on a force transducer.
The coefficients of friction were determined from both the ratio of the measured transverse and
normal forces and from calculations using measurements of the velocity components of the
balls before and after impact. For a relatively high angle of incidence of 70˚ and an incoming
tangential speed of 12.8 m s−1, both methods gave a value of approximately 0.38 for the three-
piece ball and 0.16 for the two-piece ball. The rebound spin rates were found to be 66.2 rps
for the three-piece ball and 25.5 rps for the two-piece ball. For a greater incoming tangential
speed, 26.8 m s−1 for the three-piece balls and 25.9 m s−1 for the two-piece balls, the average
coefficient of friction decreased to approximately 0.29 and 0.075 respectively."



" It was found that the polyurethane covered balls (lower hardness) showed greater backspin than the ionomer covered balls (higher hardness), and showed higher friction values during the pin-ondisc testing."

Snooker Theory said:

dr_dave said:

You can't always believe what you read on the Internet, especially on a commercial site trying to sell products.
.
Bingo. This is a very common misconception. See #3 on the Top 100 Pool Myths list. For an explanation for why it is a myth, see:

cue tip hardness effects

Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

So I am curious, if we look at studies in golf, do you think there could be any comparisons made? I would assume there has been more studies done with much higher framerate cameras.
A golf ball with a soft cover stays on the club face longer, thus more spin. I remember reading about a patent for a soft attachment that goes onto the face of the golf club and was removable which increases spin due to increased contact time (at least from my understanding), so why is pool different?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't know enough about golf ball/club-head physics to draw comparisons or explain the differences. However, the cue tip hardness effects resource page explains why cue tip hardness does not affect the amount of spin that can be applied.

Regards,
Dave

longhorns2 , first of all , I did not come here to brag or start any kind of drama. I know there are probably many many here that have skills beyond what I have.

And I know I am new here, but, it's kind of rude to be calling someone a Liar. I understand if you don't believe or doubt me, that's your choice, but alas, it is a game, there is no need for that.

I have done it, and I am not Lying. -- I said almost 3 full table lengths , I am not exactly sure of how many but I know it was way over 2 easy as I watched it. -- I don't want, or expect and apology, because to be honest, I don't care what people think.

I have attempted and made called crazy shots during league play in stressful situations that were amazing that I am sure many Pro's or anyone else for that matter would have a hard time making with crowds erupting and Billiard's Hall Owners going crazy. - It matters not to me if someone on the internet saw it or believes me. I was there and enjoyed the moment and that's all that matters.

I'm sorry if you all don't believe me, but I have done it, and no, I'm no Pro but played many years on leagues for fun, always practicing with others around who have seen it also. -- I have never video'd anything but I wish I had now. --

I will have a table back up within 2 months, (waiting for move into new home). -- I have not played nor practiced in many many years. But I can guarantee you within 1 or 2 months of practice I will be able to do it again and I PROMISE, I will video it and post it. -- I had no idea by saying that, that soo many people would not believe me....

Again, I am here to make friends, learn more, and share anything I can. Simple as that. Happy Shooting!

dr_dave said:

Sorry, but I don't know enough about golf ball/club-head physics to draw comparisons or explain the differences. However, the cue tip hardness effects resource page explains why cue tip hardness does not affect the amount of spin that can be applied.

Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

I read that earlier after you posted it, it just seems to contradict the studies I have read in golf. Granted two vastly different games and many variables.

At the end of the end of the day by my logic, you have the golf ball in contact with the club face and the cue tip is in contact with cue ball for just a fraction of a second. I don't understand why cue a soft cue tip wouldn't impact more spin in that millisecond, the way more spin is imparted using a golf club with a softer face or a softer ball.

With so many studies done on golf compared to pool, it certainly would be interesting to compare the results.
Thanks for the response.

Stickin2it said:

longhorns2...

Click to expand...

Just curious if you’re talking about a regular sized table or a 7’ when talking 2+ table lengths? That could make a big difference: )

Jazzy Jeff87 , I was talking about an 8' table, which is what I primarily played on. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.
I haven't spent much time studying. While others stand around and talk I keep on running racks over and over for practice, that's all I know.
In my experience, some go to pool halls to Socialize and some go to improve their game with as little waste of time as possible. I fall in the latter category.

Stickin2it said:

Jazzy Jeff87 , I was talking about an 8' table, which is what I primarily played on. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.
I haven't spent much time studying. While others stand around and talk I keep on running racks over and over for practice, that's all I know.
In my experience, some go to pool halls to Socialize and some go to improve their game with as little waste of time as possible. I fall in the latter category.

Click to expand...

Don’t take the doubting personal. You could be able to run 626 balls in a row but folks on the internet will want to see proof. Check out the 2020 ghost challenge at the top of the main board and bust out your smart phone next time you’re playing. Sometimes people show up just saying things so it’s hard to tell what’s what on the interwebz without seeing a show.

I don’t mean to toot my own horn but I did recently juggle 237 times in 1 minute...thank you, thank you all...the video is floating around somewhere

I believe that the most significant variable is not the density of the tip, but the skill and experience of the player. In the final analysis, everything I have read here seems very subjective.

Dr. Dave, I think there may be a very easy way to prove the hypothesis.

Drill a hole straight through a cue ball. Install a shaft. Control for spin resistance and friction.

Using precise and uniform striking force (replicable), hit the cue ball on a slightly glancing (replicable) blow with a cue with a soft tip. Count the number of revolutions the cue ball makes. Repeat the experiment using a cue with a hard tip. Repeat the process one hundred (arbitrary) times. There will either be a difference in the number of revolutions or there will be no difference.

Valid conclusions may or may not be drawn, but the presence of the existence of a difference can be proved.

lol.. I don't Jazzy, I'm too old to give a rats fart what people think, -- and it's actually crazy funny to me that you said that about the juggling because I was thinking after my last post when I was walking away from computer that I learned to juggle when I was 12 and practiced hard for many years to get better, I started thinking that "maybe that's why I can draw the Cue Ball so well, just because of this".. idk. LMAO! what a coinkingdink that was!

Dr. Dave,

I just remembered the Meucci "deflection experiment" that was online back when he was introducing low deflection shafts. A similar setup could be made using that apparatus. Using a soft tipped cue, strike the cue ball and measure the complementary angle when the cue ball comes off the opposite cushion. Repeat with a cue with a hard tip. The only variable, other than squirt, should be the angle on the which the cue ball returns.

Boxcar said:

Dr. Dave,

I just remember the Meucci "deflection experiment" that was online back when he was introducing low deflection shafts. A similar setup could be made using that apparatus. Using a soft tipped cue, strike the cue ball and measure the complementary angle when the cue ball comes off the opposite cushion. Repeat with a cue with a hard tip. The only variable, other than squirt, should be the angle on the which the cue ball returns.

Click to expand...

I mentioned something to this effect in an earlier post. You don't need a machine. I've done it using two shafts, each with a different tip. IF there is any difference in amount of spin it is so tiny as to be of no concern playing pool. The ONLY reason i could see for some scientific/mechanical test would solely be so one side or the other in this debate could say "Na-na-na-na i was right". Seriously, that's where this is going.

garczar said:

I mentioned something to this effect in an earlier post. You don't need a machine. I've done it using two shafts, each with a different tip. IF there is any difference in amount of spin it is so tiny as to be of no concern playing pool. The ONLY reason i could see for some scientific/mechanical test would solely be so one side or the other in this debate could say "Na-na-na-na i was right". Seriously, that's where this is going.

Click to expand...

In Shotgun Sports, we call it "7 1/2's or 8's." It's gonna be a LONG winter.

Bob Jewett said:

I've seen two others get two lengths but each of them spent a lot of time working at it.

Click to expand...

How is this measured? Probably my top end is one of two. I sometimes practice with the object ball adjacent to the 1st diamond on the side rail by the far corner pocket, and the cueball about a diamond and a half away from that, both about a ball off the rail. I draw back to the head rail, then all the way down table to foot rail. I've got almost 2 diamonds coming back up from there. Maybe 1, I forget.

The other one I did in a recent tourney. Object ball in same location, but cueball about 6 feet away, straight in. Drew back to the rail and out, and about 5 diamonds up table to get shape on a ball on the other side rail.

Very rare to have a situation come up where I really can benefit from a maxed out draw shot. Nice to have when needed. Tip happened to be a Kamui black soft. But really any decent tip is fine.

KMRUNOUT

SFC9ball said:

As an instructor keeping it simple is the best way for most people to learn.

Debunking myths like tip hardness has affect on how much spin you can put on a cue ball or one of my favorites is if you want more draw on the cue ball "follow through more or farther" is part of my job.

Click to expand...

The path from accuracy to simplicity, without sacrificing accuracy, is the mark of genius. As an instructor, accuracy is primary. long horns is correct that you oversimplified at the cost of accuracy. "Speed of stroke" will never mean "speed of stroke plus mass of cue stick". Not a biggie, but probably best to just own the error in choice of words.

KMRUNOUT