$100 Spin Challenge

[mikepage]

The PJ truth-squad is only scratching the surface. Over in the Ask The Cuemaker forum there is the following post.



What's more, the cuemakers are agreeing with him, kinda.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=124621

I think the

"You'll get more spin from

--this soft tip
--this hard tip
--this stiff shaft
--this whippy shaft
--this laminated shaft
--this follow through
--this wrist snap
--this blah blah blah"

kind of self-fulfilling delusional nonsense will be with us forever. Many pro players and cuemakers will say this, and many of those will swear to it.

It's still nonsense.

 

["T"]

In PJ's defense, that Meucci ad seems to be about deflection, not spin.

Plus you can't FF or RR the ad. What's up with that?

However, personally, I suspect that smaller, lighter tipped shafts may spin the ball more a little, (Relative to speed) simply because a cue ball struck with a heavier cue will travel slightly faster than a lighter cue. I wouldn't be surprised if the speed of the rotation in real time probably stays the same.

 

[Jal]

Not spin and speed. Just spin - in other words, a greater spin/speed ratio.

If the same thing can be accomplished by simpy hitting harder, then it isn't more spin; it's just more force.

pj
chgo

Technically, more speed and spin should produce an ever so slightly increased spin/speed ratio. And this is with a fixed amount of stroking force. However, I realize that it is splitting hairs and not in the spirit of your challenge. I guess my family will have to make do with the bag of fruit again this Christmas. When I first saw your post, I was so sure this one would be different.

Jim

 

[shakes]

You're making this way too complicated. I've posted (more than once) a simple test that anybody can do on any pool table with no special equipment. It would just have to be done carefully so that the controls and results could be verified on video.

pj
chgo

Can you link to one of these tests you mentioned? I might be interested just to do it.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
However, personally, I suspect that smaller, lighter tipped shafts may spin the ball more a little, (Relative to speed) simply because a cue ball struck with a heavier cue will travel slightly faster than a lighter cue. I wouldn't be surprised if the speed of the rotation in real time probably stays the same.

But the reason the ball travels faster is the heavier cue over each small time interval of contact pushes harder. And that same harder push generates more torque (spinning force) in exactly the same proportion. So if the ball moves away 10% faster, it will be spinning 10% faster as well.

 

[UGOTDA7]

Even if it were possible, $100 is NOT worth the aggravation of trying to prove something to you. Why anyone would go through the trouble, only to have you trash them, is beyond me.

All the same, happy holidays.
Koop - back to lurking

Yep..........

 

["T"]

But the reason the ball travels faster is the heavier cue over each small time interval of contact pushes harder. And that same harder push generates more torque (spinning force) in exactly the same proportion. So if the ball moves away 10% faster, it will be spinning 10% faster as well.

You may be right, but I'm kind of wondering why 3 cushion players prefer slightly lighter, stiffer cues with smaller tips if it doesn't spin the ball more when they need it?

 

[Cuemaster98]

I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another.

pj
chgo

Hi Patrick,

Why would you want to proof something like that?? Your challenge is first of all, kinda vague...not even sure what you're proposing. Are you trying to proof that different shafts with different variable (different weight, size, material) doesn't affect cue ball spin or does not spin the cue ball more than another shaft at same speed? If you challenge was clearer and more precise, I'm sure someone can take the challenge. Not necessarily for the $100 but for the fun.

Why throw money on the line...just present your theories on why you think this is the case and let us comment as you are the one trying to disproof or enlighten us . Remember this is for the sake of science. So, please enlighten us first and maybe someone will step up to the plate to dis-proof you.

Not sure what's your objective on this one (stir discussion or really trying to learn something)? what's the scientific important on this again?

Btw, I still think Spider won the pivot bet your proposed just because your statement was generalized and it gave room for spider to proof his point and it met your requirements for winning the bet.

Anyhow, Happy Holidays.
Duc.

 

[td873]

And besides, proving Patrick wrong certainly in itself has value for some people.

Proving him wrong assumes that he was right to begin with. In this instance, PJ is assuming that all shafts already create the same amount of spin.

Why not put the onus back on PJ to prove that all shafts have identical spin? He's even mentioned the test he's contemplating. And testing every shaft in existence should keep him occupied for a while...

In the spirit of challenges, I'll give PJ $100 if he can prove every shaft has the same spin.

-td

 

[Burns]

Im sure someone out there has done something more pointless, with nothing on the line. look at those guys that built that broomstick deflection test thing. Nobody questions why they bothered to do that, but if the OPs challenge was "Ill give 100 to anybody who proves a broomstick hits better than a meucci" or whatever, eeryone would shoot it down.

 

[BRKNRUN]

I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another.

pj
chgo

any shaft?

I don't know the scientific formulas, but I don't really think they are necessary for proof. We can just use common sense and a severe exaggeration of a CB and shaft component.

Lets call a 16 pound bowling ball the cb and lets call a straw and a broom stick the two shafts.

It would seem farily obvious that if the two shafts struck the CB at the exact same impact speed of an human achievalbe 5mph that the broom stick would put more spin on the bowling ball (err CB)

I would suspect that the straw may barely get the ball spinning at all.


I would suspect that between an 18oz shaft and a 19oz shaft on a CB the difference would be fairly small and may be undetectable by the human eye... but a 15oz shaft and a 21oz shaft (struck at the same speed) may possibly be dectectable....Even if not dectectable I think the science would probably show that the higher mass shaft would procuce a stonger displacment on the CB generating more spin.

After all this though...I suspect you will not allow a common sense exaggeration be allowed as proof...:wink:

 

[Cuemaster98]

Not spin and speed. Just spin - in other words, a greater spin/speed ratio.

If the same thing can be accomplished by simpy hitting harder, then it isn't more spin; it's just more force.

pj
chgo

Hmm...so how do you know it's not force that causing the differences in spin? You would think different tips on a different shaft is enough of a variable to cause different spin even if the shaft contact the cue ball at the same force. The property differences on the tips alone will have a total different re-action to the spin of the object ball. Soft tips grab more of the ball vs hard tips that deflect from the cue ball faster. I think there are slow motion videos on youtube that looks amazing when cue tip contact cue ball. So if this is true, won't it prove that spin on the cue ball will be different no matter how minute? How exact are we talking about...mathetically? How would you even measure it? If what i saying is true..why would this be even a challenge?

I remember a bump of us were trying to see who can spin the ball the longest....Ball on center spot, extreme center english (Left or right). (robert bryne..did this in his video) It's was fun...wondering what's the longest someone was able to spin a ball.

I'm interested in hearing the other side of the arguement....alright..I'm bored...looking for another thread.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[SPINDOKTOR]

no comment on this thread, the proposal is just ridiculous....but hey thats how I feel about it... -.-

 

[jay helfert]

You may be right, but I'm kind of wondering why 3 cushion players prefer slightly lighter, stiffer cues with smaller tips if it doesn't spin the ball more when they need it?

Stiffer shafts with smaller tips? Sounds familiar. But what do these guys know?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hi Patrick,

Why would you want to proof something like that??

I see constant claims on here that "x cue produces more spin". I want to demonstrate that there's not a shred of factual support for that.

... please enlighten us first and maybe someone will step up to the plate to dis-proof you.

The fact that nobody can step up to the plate is what I'm demonstrating. It's very likely that nobody will even try. The claims will continue (several a month, I think), but some readers will remember that nobody is able to offer the slightest real support for them.

... what's the scientific important on this again?

Don't you think it's worth knowing if some cues can or can't produce more spin than others?

Btw, I still think Spider won the pivot bet your proposed just because your statement was generalized and it gave room for spider to proof his point and it met your requirements for winning the bet.

That's nice.

Anyhow, Happy Holidays.
Duc.

You too, and everybody else here.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

T:
I'm kind of wondering why 3 cushion players prefer slightly lighter, stiffer cues with smaller tips if it doesn't spin the ball more when they need it?

Spinning the ball more is the only reason you can think of to want a shaft of a certain design?

Jay:
Stiffer shafts with smaller tips? Sounds familiar. But what do these guys know?

Probably the same thing I know with my 10mm stiff shaft. I had it made for the benefits it gives, none of which are more spin.

pj
chgo

 

[SUPERSTAR]

So wait, is that to say that you can DISPROVE that one shaft can generate more spin then another?

Proof please.

$100 might be waiting for you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Cuemaster98:
...how do you know it's not force that causing the differences in spin?

What differences?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So wait, is that to say that you can DISPROVE that one shaft can generate more spin then another?

Proof please.

$100 might be waiting for you.

There's no way to prove that every shaft is the same except to demonstrate that nobody can show a difference. All it takes is once.

This offer stands until somebody collects. How long do you think it will take?

pj
chgo

 

[BRKNRUN]

There's no way to prove that every shaft is the same except to demonstrate that nobody can show a difference. All it takes is once.

This offer stands until somebody collects. How long do you think it will take?

pj
chgo

Please review post #51. Why is that not proof of your OP?


It is common knowledge that if you get hit by semi truck going 50mph vs a go kart going 50mph....the semi truck is going to propel you (aka send you spinning) a much greater distance.....

Did you ever see the video of the chick that steps in front of a train?

A heavier shaft (I would think) qualifies as a different shaft...although they look identical they would produce different results striking the CB at the same speed.....The force has to be applied somewhere....if it is a direct hit to the center of the CB there is no argument that the heavier shaft will propel the CB at a higher rate of speed....(assuming both cues are traveling the same speed at impact of the CB).....So why would this not apply to the amount of spin applied to an off center hit?

Perhaps this could be part of the reason why you always hear people wanting denser shaft wood...It is a bit heavier due to the density of the shaft and thus with the same cue speed will produce more spin.

You could even take it step furthar and say that this could be the best test of proof since you could make the tip size and taper the same......This would also eliminate the argument of the smaller tip being able to strike a different part and less of the CB.