CB transfers no spin to OB - Steve Davis

pinkisntwell

pinkisntwell

Ball Misser
Silver Member
I just watched a snooker instructional video with Steve Davis. I suppose it's from the 80's. The video is useful for a beginner and Steve is very comfortable with the camera and all.

When discussing english (or side for UK people) he explains most things about it, then he goes on to say that many people think that if you hit the cb with english and it touches an ob the english is transferred to the ob (with reverse rotation). He then goes on to say it's a complete myth and to prove it he takes the cb and a (striped) ob and lines them up on the baulk line and hits the cb with english, the ob appears not to be gaining any side spin.

I have seen a Jeanette Lee instructional explicitly saying that english is transferred and I know I use it when I play and try to bank a ball that looks like I don't have the angle to bank.

What the hell? Steve was a multiple times world champion and multiple times 147 runner at the time. Can he be so wrong?
 
pinkisntwell said:
I just watched a snooker instructional video with Steve Davis. I suppose it's from the 80's. The video is useful for a beginner and Steve is very comfortable with the camera and all.

When discussing english (or side for UK people) he explains most things about it, then he goes on to say that many people think that if you hit the cb with english and it touches an ob the english is transferred to the ob (with reverse rotation). He then goes on to say it's a complete myth and to prove it he takes the cb and a (striped) ob and lines them up on the baulk line and hits the cb with english, the ob appears not to be gaining any side spin.

I have seen a Jeanette Lee instructional explicitly saying that english is transferred and I know I use it when I play and try to bank a ball that looks like I don't have the angle to bank.

What the hell? Steve was a multiple times world champion and multiple times 147 runner at the time. Can he be so wrong?
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember Steve recanting this idea after having learned some tricks from the pool players. esp. Banking with side.
 
pinkisntwell, do u have any info on the new aiming technique steve davis has used in this weeks tournament. He's playing WELL above his regular level, and probably even the best he ever played. He said something vague like: its all in how u see the balls... not sure what he means but ITS working. u got any more info, as u are the snooker pro/lover around?
 
pinkisntwell said:
...and I know I use it when I play and try to bank a ball that looks like I don't have the angle to bank.

What the hell? Steve was a multiple times world champion and multiple times 147 runner at the time. Can he be so wrong?
Click to expand...
Yup, he's wrong...even you yourself have proved so. You're just in denial because Steve is a snooker player. ;)

Maybe that's the reason he hasn't won any pool tournaments of late. :D
 
I'll second what the previous posters have said. In fact, it picks up some sidespin on just about any shot. The exception is when, as Max indicated, you put just the right amount of english on the cueball to eliminate throw.

Jim
 
Also the balls are a different size and weight so the transfer maybe different.

Having played snooker and english pool for many years I know the way the balls react can be very different....

I dont know the answer but I cant imagine he would be wrong even back then............

I am going to ask a snooker coach I know and will let you know.
 
Solartje said:
pinkisntwell, do u have any info on the new aiming technique steve davis has used in this weeks tournament. He's playing WELL above his regular level, and probably even the best he ever played. He said something vague like: its all in how u see the balls... not sure what he means but ITS working. u got any more info, as u are the snooker pro/lover around?
Click to expand...

First of all I'm as far as possible from being a pro. Second of all, I play pool exclusively, I just enjoy snooker because while I was growing up it was the only cue sport I had the chance to watch.

And I think that Steve is 48 now and too old for new techniques. I think it's just his impression.
 
I agree that less spin is transferred using snooker instead of pool balls. The greater mass of pool balls means that the inertial force from spin is greater, and can be transferred easier. A good (and useful) example of the transfer of spin is if you have an ob hanging in a pocket and combo another ob into it, hitting the cb with draw so that the first ob follows the second one in.
 
henho said:
I agree that less spin is transferred using snooker instead of pool balls. The greater mass of pool balls means that the inertial force from spin is greater, and can be transferred easier. A good (and useful) example of the transfer of spin is if you have an ob hanging in a pocket and combo another ob into it, hitting the cb with draw so that the first ob follows the second one in.
Click to expand...
My observation, having played quite a lot of both games is that smaller snooker balls throw more, not less.

Even moreso in English 8-ball with 2 inch balls. The surface friction is similar, yet the weight is lower, such that linear deviation and transference of angular momentum is proportionately larger.

The best evidence I have for this is in throwing touching ball plants. With smaller balls, they seem to throw further off line when the first ball is struck at 1/2 ball angle.
 
Heckler said:
Also the balls are a different size and weight so the transfer maybe different.

Having played snooker and english pool for many years I know the way the balls react can be very different....

I dont know the answer but I cant imagine he would be wrong even back then............

I am going to ask a snooker coach I know and will let you know.
Click to expand...
Also ask the snooker coach how many articles or studies he's read on billiard physics. lol

I've yet to come across a snooker coach / author who has a good grasp of physics. Frank Callan seems to be the guru of snooker coaches, but some of his insights show he doesn't have much understanding of physics.

eg. He claimed extra screw (draw) is achieved by flicking the wrist in the same way one spins a hoola-hoop. That somehow flicking forward and pulling ball increases the spin. :rolleyes: It may increase the speed, and hence the spin, but that is not how he understood it.
 
Colin Colenso said:
My observation, having played quite a lot of both games is that smaller snooker balls throw more, not less.

Even moreso in English 8-ball with 2 inch balls. The surface friction is similar, yet the weight is lower, such that linear deviation and transference of angular momentum is proportionately larger.

The best evidence I have for this is in throwing touching ball plants. With smaller balls, they seem to throw further off line when the first ball is struck at 1/2 ball angle.
Click to expand...

I just want to know one thing Colin......downunder, is the transferred spin opposite the transferred spin in the northern hemisphere?(J/K:D )

Terry
 
Mike Sigel said the same thing in one of his articles in BD a while back. It brought out a lot of experiments proving he was wrong. At least I think they proved he was wrong. Never did hear Mike respond to any questions.
 
jjinfla said:
Mike Sigel said the same thing in one of his articles in BD a while back. It brought out a lot of experiments proving he was wrong. At least I think they proved he was wrong. Never did hear Mike respond to any questions.
Click to expand...
Fact is, a lot of great players hardly have a clue what is going on. They just learn to make the shots they want to by trial and error....many many trials.
 
Colin Colenso said:
My observation, having played quite a lot of both games is that smaller snooker balls throw more, not less.....
Click to expand...

Given the same surface conditions and initial cueball speed and cut angle, both types of balls should throw the same, but the smaller snooker balls should acquire more spin.

Jim
 
Str8PoolMan said:
If there was no transfer of spin, then there would be no "throw" effect.
Click to expand...

throw and imparted spin are two separate phenomena, both of which are effects of the same causes. one cause is cutting a ball. the friction of a cue ball cutting across the face of an object ball causes the object ball both to throw slightly in the direction of the cue ball's initial path (i.e. the cue ball grabs the object ball and takes the object ball with it for a little bit) and to spin with the english of the side that the object ball was hit (i.e. if the object ball was hit on its left side, it will get left english) from brushing across it.

the other cause is putting english on the cue ball, while hitting the object ball fairly full. the effect of the friction caused by the english both throws the object ball off line (to the opposite direction of the english) as well as transfers (opposite) spin to the object ball (like gears). (note that the object ball does not throw because it has english. rather it both throws and spins from the friction.) again, this throw and imparted spin are two separate phenomena, both having two distinct causes from friction, viz. a cutting cue ball or a spinning cue ball.

now the imparted spin from the latter cause (i.e. putting english on the cue ball, thus transferring spin) is not very great, but it is there. if you hit a cue ball with slow to medium speed and "one tip" of english, the cue ball will lose all or almost all of its english as it rolls the length of the table. try it with a spotted cue ball or a striped ball. the slower the cloth, the quicker it will lose its english. since the transferred spin to an object ball is much less than "one tip" it will lose its spin very quickly. combine this with the slow nappy cloth used on snooker tables, i can see why some top snooker players doubt it exists.

finally, the effect of transferred spin is most pronounced when the object ball is close, or frozen, to a cushion. this is because the object ball doesn't have time to lose its spin before it hits the cushion and rubs off it.

william
 
I dont know why this is so hard to understand. When the balls are very clean, spin induced throw is almost non existent. You might get a half ball's rotation of side before it wears off on the OB. As the balls get dirtier, or when the weather gets more damp, spin induced throw is much more noticeable. It's caused by friction. Dampness and dirt/chalk/etc cause friction.
 
Jal said:
Given the same surface conditions and initial cueball speed and cut angle, both types of balls should throw the same, but the smaller snooker balls should acquire more spin.

Jim
Click to expand...
I haven't thought through the math in detail. I was thinking it may be related to the proportional differences we see which vary throw on soft v hard shots.

It may just be that I played a lot with dirty balls in the past. The clubs here wax the balls regularly.

Anyway, interested in how you came up with more spin transference for smaller balls, yet same throw?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top