You were claiming it was a myth, now you’re saying it’s not a myth? But by measuring standards and not actual play it’s a small difference? But by play standards is quite massive. You’re a clown anymore man.
Cue Tip Contact Myth-Busting Truths in Super Slow Motion
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
ouch
don't hold your breath
Yes. The harder has more spin. Without context, it’s a goofy answer.
The easiest answer is, it’s complex. The hard answer is, looking at just tip contact time does not answer the question. The other factors not being looked at are linear cue ball speed after contact, and actual rpm’s of the cue ball. The only thing Dr Dave was looking for was results that matched his idea. A soft tip, can generate more rpm’s than a hard tip. Why, because when you factor in what the cue ball travel distance/speed needs to be. The soft tip is able to generate more spin for the given distance while maintaining a slower cue ball speed. Of course the cue ball strike location is different, but we’re looking for a specific shot result, not stat result. A hard tip has to be stroked differently than a soft to maintain the same results. All tips have a hard ceiling with it comes to maximum spin. If we interpret what’s going on, a soft tip is capable of producing more spin for X cue ball speed. When Y cue stick speed is applied, a hard tip produces the same spin but more speed. That difference is being negated here in the conversation. If my stroke is looking for X cue ball speed on the slower side, but Z spin rate being a bit higher. A soft tip can hit farther out on the cue ball, creating more spin for the cue ball speed than a hard tip. It’s all about perception of the facts.
Simply put, due to the longer contact time that a soft tip experiences it is capable of spinning the cue ball more on shorter(softer strokes) shots than a hard tip due to friction co-efficients. While Dr Dave has dismissed a literal 1ms as a non factor, that 100% increase in tip contact time has a HUGE effect on the end influence the cue ball does. Don’t drink this jug of Dr Dave’s koolaid kids.
Simply put, due to the longer contact time that a soft tip experiences it is capable of spinning the cue ball more on shorter(softer strokes) shots than a hard tip due to friction co-efficients. While Dr Dave has dismissed a literal 1ms as a non factor, that 100% increase in tip contact time has a HUGE effect on the end influence the cue ball does. Don’t drink this jug of Dr Dave’s koolaid kids.
The myth is that a soft tip can impart more spin. That is incorrect.
In reality, a hard tip can probably impart slightly more spin, but it isn't enough of a difference to make a big deal about.
Anybody who still has doubts should carefully read through everything on the cue tip hardness resource page (including the info at the supporting links). These pages contain much more information and explanations not included in the video. I won't spend any more time trying to convince the "Soft Tip Myth'ers," but I am confident that anybody who reads through and thinks about everything on the resource page with an open mind will be better at separating myth from fact.
Last edited:
Every time you post a link referring to something you've just been proven wrong about in the thread. I just get the sense you don't care about the truth of the argument and you are just trying to grow your business/reputation by posting more links to market yourself. Kind of annoying really. It's easier just to admit you made a mistake and try to figure out the truth.
Looks like justnumnuts has something with his paper cue after all. Roll me one up!
He's one of the top posters on here. You've got like nine posts since you've been on here. Dr.D has forgotten more about pool than you or your pal hitemhard will ever know.
You just guessing here? Nothing that's been actually tested backs up anything you say. You got hard data/video to back up your guess? Bottom line is in REAL WORLD pool playing you will not see any difference in tip hardness. None.
what's annoying is someone with 9-10 posts taking shots at someone who's been providing top-grade pool info on here for years. you come on here and spew more 'well i think it has to be this way' crap. we're all ears here pal, prove your case with something more than an assumption.
Whoever you are, Texas3cushion, you got balls to get on here and challenge His Eminency, Dr. Dave.
That's why i think you should try a "POOL TAKES BALLS" tshirt, available in a wide array of colors and styles for as low as $19.95 at:
https://drdavebilliardtshirts.com/product-category/humor/pool-takes-balls/
You can find other neat pool shirts and knick knacks that'll be sure to impress all your friends at:
https://drdavebilliardtshirts.com/
Be gentle with these guys - ignorance isn’t a crime. They think they’re standing up to the man.
pj
chgo
Do you have a controlled test to demonstrate your claim? teehee
But seriously, Patrick, are you really convinced that tip hardness and contact time have negligible effect on spin action?
Especially after reading through the last two pages?
For example, why would you need a "more delicate stroke" with a hard tip if the difference in effect is negligible?
The busted-myth story just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
You guys have convinced me to give the tip hardness spin test another go at super low speeds.
That said, I was a soft tip believer till I did the test last time. Hard tip spun it just as much for me (I just didn't like how it felt).
@pvc lou: PJ's method is fine in that he says to reject any shot that goes a different distance. If you only allow shots that travel the same number of diamonds to be counted in the sample, it is essentially the same as your method of controlling for speed without all the jigging up of a true pendulum.
That said, I was a soft tip believer till I did the test last time. Hard tip spun it just as much for me (I just didn't like how it felt).
@pvc lou: PJ's method is fine in that he says to reject any shot that goes a different distance. If you only allow shots that travel the same number of diamonds to be counted in the sample, it is essentially the same as your method of controlling for speed without all the jigging up of a true pendulum.
What if you stroke it a little too delicate by accident?
What if you have a @WobblyStroke, and you don't hit the cb in the exact same spot?
Beware, Patrick is serious about scientific rigor. He has repeatedly stated that proof requires a controlled test.
Last edited: