Without going to the trouble of parsing this, it sounds to me like, at best, a theoretical minor increase in contact point margin in exchange for a definite significant decrease in CB path accuracy.
pj
chgo
Does "spinning the ball in" increase your shooting margin of error?
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
Without going to the trouble of parsing this, it sounds to me like, at best, a theoretical minor increase in contact point margin in exchange for a definite significant decrease in CB path accuracy.
pj
chgo
Since the main purpose of english ( unless you really have to throw the OB b/c of the angle available for the shot ) is for cueball positioning, I still think it is the best way to spin the cueball ( side of the tip hits the cb better imo ).Patrick Johnson said:
To make the shot and get the english you want the tip must hit the CB in exactly the same way no matter how you apply sidespin (back hand english, aim and pivot, some other way - doesn't matter). Maybe it's just a different way of thinking of the same thing so it makes most sense to us individually.
pj
chgo
If the shaft is dead parallel to the center of the ball as compared to off-angled to the side of the english, you get more spin with an off-angled shaft imo.Patrick Johnson said:
jsp said:
This reminds me of the 1st post I ever made5 years ago: Throwing the Object Ball.
Now the best player I ever saw who excelled using center ball, top and bottom, was Kid Cole Dickson. Unless you have a perfect stroke like he did, I wouldn't recommend using no spinning for this reason:
On normal shots (not the length of the table and not too soft or too hard):
If you are cutting the ball to the right using center ball and you hit the cue ball slightly to the right, you impart 'inside english' and this can wreck havoc because of the induced throw!!!!
Whereas, if you use a little left english, and miss it just as much as you did above, then you will increase your margin of error because you are still throwing the ball towards the pocket.
Plus, anytime you are hitting the ball more 'solid', you are increasing/simplifying accuracy simply because the target is 'more in range'.
Why in the heck do you think more pros 'throw the object ball' towards the pocket -----> because there is more margin of error and it is therefore more accurate. Think about it.
I am out of my depth here but I have a few questions.
If outside english reduces throw then this type of english improves accuracy by removing (to some extent) a source of error -- right?
Is it easier or better to learn to estimate throw or to learn to use outside english?
Is it true that throw has more of a range of effect based on CB speed (power) and angle than side spin? If this is true then it is "better" to learn to use outside english -- right?
If the latter is true then learning to use english to compensate for throw is more (?) worthwhile.
If outside english reduces throw then this type of english improves accuracy by removing (to some extent) a source of error -- right?
Is it easier or better to learn to estimate throw or to learn to use outside english?
Is it true that throw has more of a range of effect based on CB speed (power) and angle than side spin? If this is true then it is "better" to learn to use outside english -- right?
If the latter is true then learning to use english to compensate for throw is more (?) worthwhile.
Any spin/english you use makes the shot harder to some degree...depending how much you use and how hard you hit it. Any pro or real good player I've asked over the years has said to use as LITTLE spin/english as you have to to get position. Just running english is preferred. Of course you have to play perfect position for that. Johnnyt
I think you have throw and cling/skid mixed up.JoeW said:
Could be I have things mixed up. Thanks for the help. Seems that I know a few people who use inside english to kill the CB for position. Seems to work for them but I prefer center ball as much as possible.
I know that when I play on my 9' GC III with Simonis 860 the game is considerably different than a bar box with whatever they place on Valley tables.
I know that when I play on my 9' GC III with Simonis 860 the game is considerably different than a bar box with whatever they place on Valley tables.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks otherwise should spend some time studying these graphs of throw, especially pages 8 and onward:Patrick Johnson said:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-28.pdf
Starting on page 8, they show the amount of throw versus cut angle for various spins on the cueball. He uses the notation PEr to designate the percentage roll, with 0% meaning none (stun), and 100% meaning full (natural) roll. PEe is the percentage english, with 0% meaning none, and 100% meaning maximum (a tip offset of 1/2R). Positive percentages mean outside english while negative percentages mean inside english.
You get a correction for overcutting or undercutting wherever a curve, or a portion of a curve, points up and to the right. In other words, overcutting gets you more positive throw (or less negative), while undercutting produces less positive throw (or more negative). The steeper the slope of the curve, the better.
As is immediately obvious on pages 8 and 9, you get the steepest slopes for stun shots (PEr=0). But even at that, you only get a few degrees difference in throw for every 15 degrees difference in cut angle. The ratio is generally around 1 to 7. So there's no denying it, there is some correction there. But how can this possibly be worth the added complications of squirt and swerve? Unless you have some sort of condition that allows you to deal with them almost flawlessly, it isn't.
Jim
I agree, but that's two different shots - you can't make the OB and get the right amount of spin by hitting the CB two different ways. In other words, no matter how you get there (back hand english, etc.), you have to end up hitting the CB on the same spot and with your stick at the same angle or you won't get the same results.
By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "dead parallel". If you mean parallel with the path the CB needs to take, you can't make the shot that way (squirt will make you miss). If you mean parallel with the angle you need to compensate for squirt, that's the only angle that works - you can't put more angle on the stick and still make the shot. If you put more angle on the stick you have to hit the CB farther from center to get the right amount of squirt correction, which means you're putting more spin on the CB than you want. If you put more angle on the stick and hit closer to center (to get the same amount of spin) you'll miss the shot because your squirt correction is off.
pj
chgo
It depends on cut angle, the amount of draw/follow (ie, roll state), and the amount of english used. For cut angles greater than around 30 degrees, a moderate amount of outside actually increases throw a little. See the graphs on page 5 here:JoeW said:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-28.pdf
Outside english is no panacea, as the graphs clearly show. In order to use it to reduce or eliminate throw, you have to understand some of its nuances. Why not then just adjust for it, rather than adding squirt and swerve to the mix? Granted, you need to learn to use english, but using it as an antidote for throw doesn't make much sense, imo.JoeW said:
Speed has a considerable effect. In the graphs linked to above, the red curves are for slow shots, blue a little faster, and green the fastest, (1.1, 3.4, and 10.1 mph, respectively).JoeW said:
Sidespin also has a considerable effect. Again see the graphs. Look at contact point on the object ball as the center of a compass. Out of the 360 degrees worth of directions the object ball can be thrown, it's the combination of cut angle, sidespin and draw/follow spin that determines which particular direction. The speed of the shot, along with the other things just mentioned, determine how fast it is propelled in this direction (which is perpendicular to its main forward direction). The horizontal component of this is its throw velocity - at least this is the portion of it that affects the outcome of shots. It, plus its forward speed, make up the throw angle.
People want some easy generalizations that apply to all or most shots. That's natural and would that it were so. But throw is not that simple and the language used to describe it lacks sufficient richness. Statements made about it generally are true only for some shots within a relatively limited range of spins on the cueball.
Jim
Last edited:
I believe this can only work if you hit downward on the ball (in other words, using masse/swerve to brake the CB), which is another one of those net loss accuracy propositions. The amount of "braking" you get simply from the sideways rubbing between the CB and OB is counteracted by the additional angle you have to put on the cut to compensate for the added throw.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Thanks guys, you have simplified my practice routines. I realize there are no paneceas. But is good to have some guiding principles. I will definitely study those charts in depth.
Intuitively I did not think that inside english was worth the potential problems, now I know why.
Intuitively I did not think that inside english was worth the potential problems, now I know why.
This light bulb went on for me when Bob Jewett (or was it Ron Shepard?) explained that if you start with a straight in shot and add a little cut, if you also add just the right amount of inside spin so the OB is thrown straight forward (as if you had hit it with no cut), then the CB/OB friction will also stop the CB dead (as if you had hit it with no cut). In other words the two will exactly cancel each other out.
What I really appreciate is those guys (including you) who are willing to explain this stuff over and over in the hope that maybe one more insane person per year will benefit from it.
pj
chgo
oops, wrong thread. please disregard.
Last edited:
JoeW said:Intuitively I did not think that inside english was worth the potential problems, now I know why.
You kidding here, Joe? Since I got HD a year ago, and especially on Matchroom broadcasts, you can really see how often the pros dab a little inside or outside on stun or short draw shots, just to give a couple of examples.
This wasn't really in my repertoire until the past few months, but I think those moves give you a lot of options in refining your position play. And if you're dialed into the effects from using it fairly often, I also think you're in better shape when you have to come with a juiced-up shot.
Think my last post was off the point a little. I wasn't talking there about decreasing the margin for error, but just saying that I didn't think such small amounts of english increased it significantly.
A better example might be: let's say you're hill-hill, $100 or some other meaningful amount of money on the line ... you're shooting a moderate cut on the 9 (less than half-table), it's by the short rail and 2 diamonds from the pocket. If it's a half-inch off the rail, how do you cinch it? And what if it's frozen? Do you still like center ball?
A better example might be: let's say you're hill-hill, $100 or some other meaningful amount of money on the line ... you're shooting a moderate cut on the 9 (less than half-table), it's by the short rail and 2 diamonds from the pocket. If it's a half-inch off the rail, how do you cinch it? And what if it's frozen? Do you still like center ball?