Does sidespin on the break matter/help?

[Patrick Johnson]

Now I am going to stir the pot. English on a cue ball takes effect on the cue ball after hitting the rack, not just after hitting a rail! The reason is simple. The mass of the rack is far greater than the mass of the cue ball, so it has more effect on the primary forward force of the cue ball. This can allow the secondary force on the cue ball, the spin, to have much more effect after forward motion is checked by impact with the rack.

Hu

How does the "secondary force" of sidespin change the path of the CB at any time, before or after hitting anything? In order for spin to have any effect on the CB's path there must be some rotation around a horizontal axis. How does sidespin, which is rotation around a vertical axis, do this?

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

how does it not do it?

How does the "secondary force" of sidespin change the path of the CB at any time, before or after hitting anything? In order for spin to have any effect on the CB's path there must be some rotation around a horizontal axis. How does sidespin, which is rotation around a vertical axis, do this?

pj
chgo

pj,

In a word, friction.

Not caring to split hairs I ignore the false statements like side has no effect on the travel of a cue ball before it hits a rail. However when people take this as literally true then this can lead them to false assumptions.

Unless the basic mechanical laws of the world don't apply to pool it has to. It is true enough that it has little effect. However if it had no effect swerve would not exist regardless of how much or how little the cue is elevated. Think about it. The angle of the cue increases or decreases the bite between the cue ball and cloth but if there were no bite at all then increasing it wouldn't matter. 0x10000000000000 is still zero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x46XNxJNFlQ

The balls are not hitting a rail or another ball. Why do they curve? Would they curve if the ball wasn't spinning?

In theory physics are simple. In the real world we have dozens of interactions not just the one or two that things are usually simplified to in discussions. I have made my living as a mechanical designer. It isn't that I don't understand mechanical properties, but that I understand that many things are usually left out that leads to our disagreements. When anyone starts with invalid or incomplete data they usually come to wrong conclusions. Sometimes this matters, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on their goals.

If you play one pocket or straight pool you almost certainly take advantage of ball spin changing how the cue ball comes off of the rack. Why would spin not change how the cue ball comes off of a nine ball rack?

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Not caring to split hairs I ignore the false statements like side has no effect on the travel of a cue ball before it hits a rail. However when people take this as literally true then this can lead them to false assumptions.

But sidespin itself doesn't cause that effect, as can be easily shown by using sidespin and a really level cue. Cue elevation and the masse spin it produces causes that effect. Not being clear about that leads to false assumptions.

It is true enough that it has little effect.

Here's a potential false assumption. More than a little elevation can have more than a little effect when combined with sidespin.

If you play one pocket or straight pool you almost certainly take advantage of ball spin changing how the cue ball comes off of the rack.

I play both these games and I don't believe this is true about sidespin.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

you are inconsistent

But sidespin itself doesn't cause that effect, as can be easily shown by using sidespin and a really level cue. Cue elevation and the masse spin it produces causes that effect. Not being clear about that leads to false assumptions.



Here's a potential false assumption. More than a little elevation can have more than a little effect when combined with sidespin.



I play both these games and I don't believe this is true about sidespin.

pj
chgo

pj,

In one place you say that sidespin doesn't cause an effect in another place you say it is a component of what causes the effect. Which is it? We can easily magnify the effect by using different surfaces. Try a basketball on your living room carpet. Strike it with just enough force to go across the living room with a lot of side and a dead level cue or reasonable substitute. Does the basketball go straight or curve?

I'll bet large that it curves in independent testing. Then we are left with the question of why would the basketball react differently than the cue ball. The answer is simple, it doesn't. We simply used a bigger ball with greater friction to exaggerate the effect to see it better.

What you believe happens when the cue ball hits the rack playing one pocket and 14.1 is at odds with what far better players than you and I either one believe happens. In fact, you can see the difference using inside or not using inside on a one pocket break makes. Something else to test for yourself. I have many times.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

you can see the difference using inside or not using inside on a one pocket break makes

What difference do you think that makes?

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

I'm done

What difference do you think that makes?

pj
chgo

pj,

As usual you just want to argue endlessly while ignoring the obvious. You even contradict yourself since something that has zero effect can not be a component in creating another action. I'm not interested in wasting more of my time. I have said enough that any reasonable third parties can grasp what I am saying.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have said enough that any reasonable third parties can grasp what I am saying.

That's what you always seem to say when our disagreements get down to measurable specifics.

What you're saying is that a one pocket break with and without sidespin hits the foot rail in noticably different places.

I'm saying it doesn't. I've tried it and watched the outcome many times, some of them five minutes ago.

pj
chgo

 

[Stan_CS]

I'm glad you like the videos. I'm also very glad they got you practicing. Did you really watch all of the video (all of the NV and HSV clips)? If so, you must have had a long night!

Regards,
Dave

I didn't watch the high speed videos yet; I need to go back and review some of the NSVs again. I wish I had started with these when I got my table last year! Better late than never though...

 

[madfox]

I have experimented the break in 9 ball with a touch of the left when breaking from the left side. For me it helps to spread balls and control the cue ball.

 

[Deadon]

A couple years ago, Marlon Manalo was having a great run in the tournaments. During one tournament a friend of mine asked Marlon how he broke 9 ball. I was there BTW, just didn't ask, and this is what he told us. Full or slightly off center to the right, and a little right spin, when breaking from the left. He didn't explain his reasoning, it just worked real well for him. He broke great.


Also, spin on the CB will affect the object balls. IMHO. On the break, I don't know, but in any game where you are hitting and moving secondary balls, you have to be cognizant of the spin on the CB. It will change how they spread, and where the CB ends up. Players of all games, especially straight pool, should or do know the difference. Maybe only a little on very new stuff, but a little can make a big difference. On normal pool room and action tables, you will know the difference.

Mike

 

[CreeDo]

Seems like some debate got started here. That's probably good. I may just have to bear down and break 20 racks each way to see what the difference is. The problem is that I'm not a robot... if I get better results with sidespin I won't know if it's because I'm hitting the head ball in a subtly different spot (despite aiming to the best of my ability) or because the side is actually helping. Worse, if I get weaker results, will it be because I'm not using enough side? Or hitting on the wrong side? Or it only works if I combine side with a little draw? Then there's the worst possibility... both methods seem to get the same results. How do you really accurately measure "spread", if you're using side to improve spread (I'm really skeptical on this)? I can see using side to make a specific ball like the head ball, that's easy enough to test, but other than that I dunno.

 

[ShootingArts]

what I say after my information is on the table

That's what you always seem to say when our disagreements get down to measurable specifics.

What you're saying is that a one pocket break with and without sidespin hits the foot rail in noticably different places.

I'm saying it doesn't. I've tried it and watched the outcome many times, some of them five minutes ago.

pj
chgo

pj,

I have found you have a closed mind. When I respond at all to one of your posts it is for the benefit of other readers. Once I have explained things adequately for most to understand I am done. Your tests get totally different results than mine. As I have mentioned, your findings are in contrast with the thoughts of top players also. No need for me to go further.

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

spin transfer

A couple years ago, Marlon Manalo was having a great run in the tournaments. During one tournament a friend of mine asked Marlon how he broke 9 ball. I was there BTW, just didn't ask, and this is what he told us. Full or slightly off center to the right, and a little right spin, when breaking from the left. He didn't explain his reasoning, it just worked real well for him. He broke great.


Also, spin on the CB will affect the object balls. IMHO. On the break, I don't know, but in any game where you are hitting and moving secondary balls, you have to be cognizant of the spin on the CB. It will change how they spread, and where the CB ends up. Players of all games, especially straight pool, should or do know the difference. Maybe only a little on very new stuff, but a little can make a big difference. On normal pool room and action tables, you will know the difference.

Mike

Mike,

I spent two or three hours a day on a very tight snooker table set up for golf. I did this for several years. Anyone that played that table much couldn't doubt the transfer of spin. What side you put on the cue ball or didn't put made the difference between balls going or not. Many shots flat wouldn't go with the wrong english no matter how perfectly they were hit and fell regularly with "helping" english.

Hu

 

[JoeyA]

Mo-Jo from the Bayou.

There are other reasons to consider using side spin on the break. One of them is if you have a crooked break stroke. Some people may regularly hit the cue ball a little off center, say maybe a little to the left of center, simply because they are unable to hit the center of the cue ball on the break or perhaps they cannot afford a Predator BK2 break cue.

If they are normally trying to hit the one ball square and they continue to hit the one ball on the right side of the one just off center, by trying to apply a little right hand spin, they may be able to correct the path of the cue ball simply by aiming to use right hand spin. With their errant break stroke, they may just start hitting the cue ball with center ball.

Some people don't have the time, the ability or the inclination to correct an errant stroke and this could be used as a quick fix for that particular problem.
JoeyA

 

[dr_dave]

There are other reasons to consider using side spin on the break. One of them is if you have a crooked break stroke. Some people may regularly hit the cue ball a little off center, say maybe a little to the left of center, simply because they are unable to hit the center of the cue ball on the break or perhaps they cannot afford a Predator BK2 break cue.

If they are normally trying to hit the one ball square and they continue to hit the one ball on the right side of the one just off center, by trying to apply a little right hand spin, they may be able to correct the path of the cue ball simply by aiming to use right hand spin. With their errant break stroke, they may just start hitting the cue ball with center ball.

Some people don't have the time, the ability or the inclination to correct an errant stroke and this could be used as a quick fix for that particular problem.
JoeyA

I think this might also apply to other types of shots. Sometimes people might think English (spin on the ball) is helping them make a certain shot, but it is the squirt (CB deflection) that is making the shot work. Their aim and/or stroke might be off, and the squirt causes the CB to go in the right place. Another good example is a rail cut shot with running English. If you aim to hit the ball and rail at the same time (which you don't want), the CB will actually hit the rail first (which is where you should aim if you are compensating for squirt), providing a better chance of making the shot.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hu:
I have found you have a closed mind.

You've found that I ask questions about your statements that you can't adequately answer. This is your stock excuse for bailing out of the conversation at that point.

Your tests get totally different results than mine.

I doubt that you've done any actual tests.

As I have mentioned, your findings are in contrast with the thoughts of top players also.

Why do I have the feeling that we'll never know which "top players" or what their "findings" actually are?

No need for me to go further.

No, I think we get it.

pj
chgo

 

[CreeDo]

I was roped into some games and didn't have time to adequately test, but I tried to test a little anyway by trying for the 1 in the side playing 8 ball. Here's what I found.

- If I break from the center or near the edges of the box, I am sending the 1 way too far above the side.

- If I break from as close to the rail as I'm comfortable with (maybe an inch or so off) and hit the 1 really square, it still goes too high for the side pocket, by about a diamond.

- If I cut the ball by a fraction it wasn't enough to help. I tried cutting by about 1/3rd and it also wasn't enough. At almost a half ball hit I am getting the 1 close but now it's a pretty crappy spread.

- With the almost half ball hit and draw I can easily get the 1 ball low enough, even getting it below the side, but the spread still sucks and I'm not super consistent anyway.

- I wasn't able to hit enough to be sure, but I couldn't notice full outside doing much in terms of moving the 1 closer to the side pocket.

So... I dunno what I'll try next. A squarer hit and more draw? A really square hit and full draw (but then who knows what I can hope for with the cue ball?)

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

So... I dunno what I'll try next...

How about 10 ball? At least it is supposed to be harder to make balls on the break so perhaps it would be easier for me to accept coming up dry as often as I do.

Seriously, I'm kinda in the same boat. Some times my break is better than other times but I've never been able to count on the 1 or wing going straight in to the side or corners with any regularity. I've sort have been reduced to just hitting them as hard as I can while still controlling of the CB, and accepting the results. But I am always looking for a better way.

That's why I've recently moved my spot to the center of the table. It is easier to park baldy and I scratch in the side less frequently than when snapping from the side rail.

 

[ShootingArts]

I don't speak for other people

pj,

I don't speak for other people but I think you have the DVD from one of the top straight pool players I am talking about. Watch it and listen. Pay particular attention to when they talk about break shots.

I told you a long time ago that I wouldn't play your games. In the past I have explained things seven different ways until even the dimmest bulb should grasp the common sense of what I am saying and you still deny comprehension. I won't write for days to entertain one closed minded person that only wants to bicker. I can't fix the problem you have, that is up to you and maybe some specialists.

Hu

You've found that I ask questions about your statements that you can't adequately answer. This is your stock excuse for bailing out of the conversation at that point.



I doubt that you've done any actual tests.



Why do I have the feeling that we'll never know which "top players" or what their "findings" actually are?



No, I think we get it.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hu:
I won't write for days to entertain one closed minded person that only wants to bicker.

As I said, this lame insult is your transparent excuse for bailing out of the conversation every time you can't explain some questionable claim. I'd be happy to talk politely with you about it, but you just can't seem to be civil long enough for that.

If you can't stand being asked to explain your claims, maybe you shouldn't make them where people are likely to want to ask you about them - you know, like in a discussion forum.

pj
chgo