Draw cut vs. Top cut

[Banks]

I was trying to find the thread that discussed whether the draw cut or top cut created thinner cuts. I know that my answer had been draw creates more cut(at the least, on angles greater than 45 degrees).. boy, was I ever wrong. After taking nearly two weeks off, I was warming up knocking balls around before a match. My cutting has always had a bit of an iffy streak, so I usually hit some long cuts to see how I'm doing. Well, after getting aggravated by my missed cuts, I started hitting them differently to see if I could find my problem. Yep, I found it.. I was using the opposite english. Things seem so much easier, even banking, now that I have the proper idea of the effects of english down. Something about seeing the forest for the trees, right? Maybe my shooting is more stable than it was before, so it was easier to tell the difference than it was before, but I sure am happy I figured out a problem I had..

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I was trying to find the thread that discussed whether the draw cut or top cut created thinner cuts. I know that my answer had been draw creates more cut(at the least, on angles greater than 45 degrees).. boy, was I ever wrong. After taking nearly two weeks off, I was warming up knocking balls around before a match. My cutting has always had a bit of an iffy streak, so I usually hit some long cuts to see how I'm doing. Well, after getting aggravated by my missed cuts, I started hitting them differently to see if I could find my problem. Yep, I found it.. I was using the opposite english. Things seem so much easier, even banking, now that I have the proper idea of the effects of english down. Something about seeing the forest for the trees, right? Maybe my shooting is more stable than it was before, so it was easier to tell the difference than it was before, but I sure am happy I figured out a problem I had..

Both draw and follow reduce throw by reducing the amount of friction acting horizontally between the balls. (I suppose that's what you mean by "creates more cut"...?) If draw and follow = the same amount of vertical spin, then they both reduce throw by the same amount. But I'd expect follow to = more spin than draw on average, which would cause follow to "create more cut" than draw on average. However, I wouldn't expect the difference to be much.

pj
chgo

 

[OneIron]

Thin cut to the right: left English. Thin cut to the left: right English. It's always felt to me that low right or left creates more throw than middle or high does. But maybe not. Any experts out there?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thin cut to the right: left English. Thin cut to the left: right English. It's always felt to me that low right or left creates more throw than middle or high does. But maybe not. Any experts out there?

Could be. The most throw is created when the CB has the least follow or draw (closest to stun). I'd guess that hitting low would tend to be closer to stun at contact than hitting either centerball or high (both of which would likely be follow at contact).

pj <- totally expert
chgo

 

[OneIron]

Could be. The most throw is created when the CB has the least follow or draw (closest to stun). I'd guess that hitting low would tend to be closer to stun at contact than hitting either centerball or high (both of which would likely be follow at contact).

pj <- totally expert
chgo

That makes sense, pj. I know it's always felt that way to me but I was never sure why.

 

[LAlouie]

I was trying to find the thread that discussed whether the draw cut or top cut created thinner cuts. I know that my answer had been draw creates more cut(at the least, on angles greater than 45 degrees).. boy, was I ever wrong. After taking nearly two weeks off, I was warming up knocking balls around before a match. My cutting has always had a bit of an iffy streak, so I usually hit some long cuts to see how I'm doing. Well, after getting aggravated by my missed cuts, I started hitting them differently to see if I could find my problem. Yep, I found it.. I was using the opposite english. Things seem so much easier, even banking, now that I have the proper idea of the effects of english down. Something about seeing the forest for the trees, right? Maybe my shooting is more stable than it was before, so it was easier to tell the difference than it was before, but I sure am happy I figured out a problem I had..

I think you're just seeing your line of aim better.

 

[poolhustler]

Could be. The most throw is created when the CB has the least follow or draw (closest to stun). I'd guess that hitting low would tend to be closer to stun at contact than hitting either centerball or high (both of which would likely be follow at contact).

pj <- totally expert
chgo

I would agree with this. When I have a long super thin cut shot, I use bottom and extreme spin (Left or Right). I try to hit it so that the cue ball has no top or bottom on it at contact, only the exteme spin.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Could be. The most throw is created when the CB has the least follow or draw (closest to stun). I'd guess that hitting low would tend to be closer to stun at contact than hitting either centerball or high (both of which would likely be follow at contact).

pj <- totally expert
chgo

PJ, I don't know the correct answer but this surprises me, reason being that with follow you really can't do much more than roll the cue ball. But with draw can't you create more spin (or turnover) than a rolling cue ball would have?

Obviously much would depend on how far away the CB is from the OB since the draw spin would be scrubbing off along the way.

 

[OneIron]

I would agree with this. When I have a long super thin cut shot, I use bottom and extreme spin (Left or Right). I try to hit it so that the cue ball has no top or bottom on it at contact, only the exteme spin.

You said it much better than me. But that is exactly what I do.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...with follow you really can't do much more than roll the cue ball. But with draw can't you create more spin (or turnover) than a rolling cue ball would have?

I don't think so - follow and draw have the same miscue limit, so their maximum amounts are the same. It might seem like draw spins faster because the CB's surface and the cloth go in opposite directions.

Obviously much would depend on how far away the CB is from the OB since the draw spin would be scrubbing off along the way.

Yes, cloth friction begins adding forward spin as soon as the cue ball leaves the tip, so (1) you usually have to hit the CB below center to hit the OB with stun, and (2) follow increases quickly to maximum and stays there while draw starts diminishing immediately.

pj
chgo

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I don't think so - follow and draw have the same miscue limit, so their maximum amounts are the same. It might seem like draw spins faster because the CB's surface and the cloth go in opposite directions.

pj
chgo

What I mean though is that when you hit a follow shot you are really just rolling the cue ball; you are not putting much in the way of over-spin on the cue ball - it won't really be spinning any faster than it is rolling. but when you hit a hard draw shot you can spin the ball at a significantly faster rate than it is rolling. Like I said, I don't know, it was just a thought. I use inside on a lot of thin cuts anyway.

 

[CreeDo]

My impression is that soft draw on a nearby ball, and a fullish hit (cutting only a little) can cause a ball to undercut. It seems to increase throw, or maybe the draw imparts enough topspin to send the OB forward of its normal path. But from what Dr. Dave's saying, it should be throwing less than if I'd just slapped the ball in with a stun shot.

For other cuts... the effects of throw do matter, but it's easy to overthink this. Maybe under the right circumstances, with dirty equipment or certain angles, it can cause you to miss a shot. But for most shots, top and draw will not throw a ball off enough to turn a make into a miss, not if the "make" is into the center of a pocket and the whole pocket is available.

For me personally, my own make percentage on long thin cuts went up dramatically when I stopped trying to spin them in. This is another aspect of throw that gets inflated in people's minds. I bet in 99% of cases, the ball they think they 'spun in' with outside would have gone with no english at all, or even the opposite english. It just isn't that significant.

What I've seen is... a lot of people are afraid to cut a ball thin enough on these shots. It's uncomfortable aiming at a place that is 99% air and only 1% ball, because if you're off a bit, you whiff the cut entirely and possibly foul. So (probably subsconsciously) they aim to hit a little too full, and try to spin it in with outside. But really the throw isn't doing the dirty work, the outside spin is causing the cue ball to curve a hair... just enough to cut that ball an extra smidgen thinner than you were actually aiming for.

 

[Jal]

What I mean though is that when you hit a follow shot you are really just rolling the cue ball; you are not putting much in the way of over-spin on the cue ball - it won't really be spinning any faster than it is rolling. but when you hit a hard draw shot you can spin the ball at a significantly faster rate than it is rolling....

Not surprisingly, what Patrick was saying was correct. If you hit, say, 1/4 radius above or below center, the ball will have the same amount of spin (comparing above center to below center), but in opposite directions. If you hit farther out, say, 2/5'ths of a radius above or below center, again, the ball will have the same amount of spin, but in opposite directions. At 2/5'ths of a radius above center, the cueball will immediately be rolling, but that doesn't mean that it has any less spin than if hit 2/5'ths below center. It's the same. And since 2/5'ths of a radius above center corresponds to a rolling ball, and 2/5'ths above or below center is close to the miscue limit, you can't put significantly more backspin on a cueball than a rolling one has topspin.

In fact, if there's a lot of green between the CB and OB such that the cueball will come to a rolling state before reaching the object ball, hitting at about 1/5'th of a radius above center will result in the cueball having more absolute topspin (RPM) compared to backspin when hit at 2/5'ths below center. (We're assuming the same stick speed, and also no loss of backspin, the latter of which is unrealistic given the assumption about coming to a rolling state in the topspin case.)

You seem to be referring to "spin" as how fast the bottom of the cueball is moving against the cloth? If so, that's not what's normally meant by it, which is how fast it's rotating about an axis. It's the latter which affects horizontal throw.

Hope that makes some sense.

Jim

 

[Jal]

My impression is that soft draw on a nearby ball, and a fullish hit (cutting only a little) can cause a ball to undercut. It seems to increase throw, or maybe the draw imparts enough topspin to send the OB forward of its normal path. But from what Dr. Dave's saying, it should be throwing less than if I'd just slapped the ball in with a stun shot.

The post-collision effect on the OB's path from induced topspin is very small, essentially negligible according to calculations. (Even if it weren't, it should work against the throw, not exacerbate it. And this is apart from the reduction in throw itself.) I don't now what's going on except that maybe your draw is "soft" enough such that it's turning into near stun. But, for a nearly full hit, you should get the same amount of throw with near stun as with stun (i.e., the relative surface speed between the contact points is reduced to nothing in either case).

For me personally, my own make percentage on long thin cuts went up dramatically when I stopped trying to spin them in. This is another aspect of throw that gets inflated in people's minds. I bet in 99% of cases, the ball they think they 'spun in' with outside would have gone with no english at all, or even the opposite english. It just isn't that significant.

What I've seen is... a lot of people are afraid to cut a ball thin enough on these shots. It's uncomfortable aiming at a place that is 99% air and only 1% ball, because if you're off a bit, you whiff the cut entirely and possibly foul. So (probably subsconsciously) they aim to hit a little too full, and try to spin it in with outside. But really the throw isn't doing the dirty work, the outside spin is causing the cue ball to curve a hair... just enough to cut that ball an extra smidgen thinner than you were actually aiming for.

IMO, this is excellent advice. The extra complications of large outside english on an already touchy shot just don't seem to be worth whatever throw you may realize. While it is possible to produce a large amount of throw if you get the outside spin just right, the spin "spectrum" in which this takes place gets smaller and smaller with increasing cut angle. (It collapses right down to zero at 90-degrees.)

Just an ex-spinners opinion.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What I mean though is that when you hit a follow shot you are really just rolling the cue ball; you are not putting much in the way of over-spin on the cue ball - it won't really be spinning any faster than it is rolling.

That's true, but it's the same as the maximum amount of backspin you can put on the ball. Backspin just looks like more because it spins against the cloth rather than with it.

when you hit a hard draw shot you can spin the ball at a significantly faster rate than it is rolling.

This is the part that's false.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here is an article that talks about reduction of throw with draw and follow and describes a simple experiment you can to to see the effect for yourself: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006-05.pdf

 

[JoeyA]

Most cut. Outside English, probably.

Most accurate cut, NO English.

If you don't need English to cut a ball to make it or to get shape, don't use it.

Just sayin......

 

[Banks]

That's true, but it's the same as the maximum amount of backspin you can put on the ball. Backspin just looks like more because it spins against the cloth rather than with it.

pj
chgo

Does this actually hold true to spin/inch? When you hit forward with spin, wouldn't the forward stretch the spins out over a further distance, while the spins would be closer together with draw creating more resistance to the forward motion? A masse would be extreme, but it compresses the spin/inch ratio. And then there's the whole thing with overspin.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When you hit forward with spin, wouldn't the forward stretch the spins out over a further distance, while the spins would be closer together with draw creating more resistance to the forward motion?

If you hit the CB the same distance from center, the revolutions per inch of CB travel are the same right off the tip. But with follow the ratio stays the same while with draw the revolutions per inch immediately start to go down (for instance, drag draw turns into follow before reaching the OB).

A masse would be extreme, but it compresses the spin/inch ratio.

Yes, but it does that by hitting downward on the CB, which reduces its forward speed. With a normal, near-level cue, spin/speed ratios are the same immediately after tip/ball contact (but change differently after that).

And then there's the whole thing with overspin.

Draw spin acts in the direction opposite the CB's direction of travel, so any amount of it looks like "overspin". That's really not a meaningful term in this case.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Does this actually hold true to spin/inch? When you hit forward with spin, wouldn't the forward stretch the spins out over a further distance, while the spins would be closer together with draw creating more resistance to the forward motion? A masse would be extreme, but it compresses the spin/inch ratio. And then there's the whole thing with overspin.

When working through the various theoretical and practical problems involving spin on pool balls, you nearly always want to consider the spin about the center of the ball. When you hit with follow, draw, left or right and you hit the same distance off center, the cue ball will leave the tip with the same speed (of the center of the ball) and the same amount of spin (about the center of the ball. If you hit with follow at 70% of the height of the ball (follow only), the ball will start out rolling smoothly on the cloth. (I call this "unit" spin or spin/speed ratio.) If you hit the equivalent distance below center (at 30% of the height of the ball), the cue ball will leave the tip with the top of the ball not moving relative to the table. (I also call this unit spin.)

If you can hit half way from the center to the edge of the cue ball with just left spin (which would be the same eccentricity as the 75% point for follow or the 25% point for draw) the right side of the cue ball will actually be moving back towards you as the ball leaves the tip. This is the technique that makes cut shots of more than 90 degrees possible (along with sticky balls).