(FAQ) How do you use the tangent line?

[dr_dave]

I agree that with a level cue for all practical purposes a cue ball cannot be hit with overspin top spin. Any overspin that the cue ball has after collision with the object ball is simply a function of how fast it was rolling (some other things like how slick the cloth is, and how full the hit was, whether it was partial or full natural roll, etc, also have an effect). For those that aren't already familiar with this and still believe you can put massive overspin top spin on the cue ball, Mike Page of FargoRate did a good job covering the topic along with a demonstration/experiment in the link below and Dr. Dave likely addresses it on his website as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WzyxhCl0vs

For those interested, overspin (along with proof of how difficult it is to achieve off the tip), is covered in detail here:

natural roll, maximum tip offset, and overspin resource page

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[Poolplaya9]

Depending on the stroke type, OVERSPIN on a top spin hit can result. With so much power and force the cue ball jumps up and the OVERSPIN takes over regardless of of angle and cloth. It is like an extreme force follow. :thumbup: Firepower!

You can't really get a meaningful amount of top overspin from tip contact alone if you have a level cue. If you claim that you can, post a video of you doing the same experiment as in the video I linked to and showing how that strip of sandpaper flies backwards significantly like it would do if you had a lot of overspin.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

You can't really get a meaningful amount of top overspin from tip contact alone if you have a level cue. If you claim that you can, post a video of you doing the same experiment as in the video I linked to and showing how that strip of sandpaper flies backwards significantly like it would do if you had a lot of overspin.

I find that sandpaper experiment flawed in its design. Maybe Dave can chime in. When you put a stationary item, the cueball, on sandpaper, and then place that on a piece of wax paper, I see some issues. First, there is a lot of friction between the ball and the sandpaper. When you shoot the ball across the sandpaper, starting with the ball off the sandpaper, it will nicely roll across the gritty surface, because the initial force forward (there's a slight downward vector due to gravity and also the ball being struck above centre) will transfer into the cloth. Call this the "launch". When you perform that same launch on the sandpaper, there will be a few resultant forces that will happen regardless of the achieving of overspin. The sandpaper will move slightly forward due to friction between the cueball and the sandpaper. The wax paper has reduced friction. The cueball and sandpaper will act as one body, like a sled, at initial launch. Some downward momentum will transfer into the sandpaper. So the cueball and the sandpaper will act as one unit for a split second. That's where I see an issue with the construction of his experiment. I could be wrong, though. And would like to learn if I am.

 

[dr_dave]

I find that sandpaper experiment flawed in its design. Maybe Dave can chime in. When you put a stationary item, the cueball, on sandpaper, and then place that on a piece of wax paper, I see some issues. First, there is a lot of friction between the ball and the sandpaper. When you shoot the ball across the sandpaper, starting with the ball off the sandpaper, it will nicely roll across the gritty surface, because the initial force forward (there's a slight downward vector due to gravity and also the ball being struck above centre) will transfer into the cloth. Call this the "launch". When you perform that same launch on the sandpaper, there will be a few resultant forces that will happen regardless of the achieving of overspin. The sandpaper will move slightly forward due to friction between the cueball and the sandpaper. The wax paper has reduced friction. The cueball and sandpaper will act as one body, like a sled, at initial launch. Some downward momentum will transfer into the sandpaper. So the cueball and the sandpaper will act as one unit for a split second. That's where I see an issue with the construction of his experiment. I could be wrong, though. And would like to learn if I am.

I think Mike's overspin experiment is an excellent way to test one's ability to overspin the CB.

You are correct about the CB being driven down into the table by downward squirt (CB deflection) and cue elevation (required to clear the rail). But if the CB is given overspin, the bottom of the CB will be moving backwards as it is driven down into the table, and the sandpaper will also move backwards as a result.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

I think Mike's overspin experiment is an excellent way to test one's ability to overspin the CB.

You are correct about the CB being driven down into the table by downward squirt (CB deflection) and cue elevation (required to clear the rail). But if the CB is given overspin, the bottom of the CB will be moving backwards as it is driven down into the table, and the sandpaper will also move backwards as a result.

Regards,
Dave

Right. But there is still a massive forward vector, as the ball is being driven forward. Thus, wouldn't the sandpaper push forward regardless? The overspin may actually be what is causing the paper to appear as if it doesn't move at all. There is a push forward that is counteracted by the overspin? There will ALWAYS be a forward force applied. Overspin cannot eliminate that. It's like a topspin shot in tennis. Yes, you can put topspin on a tennis ball, but the initial forward momentum is so large that the spin takes over once that initially huge launch force dissipates. Again, thoughts?

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

I think Mike's overspin experiment is an excellent way to test one's ability to overspin the CB.

You are correct about the CB being driven down into the table by downward squirt (CB deflection) and cue elevation (required to clear the rail). But if the CB is given overspin, the bottom of the CB will be moving backwards as it is driven down into the table, and the sandpaper will also move backwards as a result.

Regards,
Dave

Gravity is also holding the cueball on the sandpaper. So there is a steady force being applied downward into the sandpaper. Once you hit the ball forward, you have a downward force and a forward force. The resultant vector, just from those two forces alone, not factoring in downward striking force, is a downward diagonal vector, correct? That necessarily implies a downward diagonal forward force into the sandpaper.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I find that sandpaper experiment flawed in its design. Maybe Dave can chime in. When you put a stationary item, the cueball, on sandpaper, and then place that on a piece of wax paper, I see some issues. First, there is a lot of friction between the ball and the sandpaper. When you shoot the ball across the sandpaper, starting with the ball off the sandpaper, it will nicely roll across the gritty surface, because the initial force forward (there's a slight downward vector due to gravity and also the ball being struck above centre) will transfer into the cloth. Call this the "launch". When you perform that same launch on the sandpaper, there will be a few resultant forces that will happen regardless of the achieving of overspin. The sandpaper will move slightly forward due to friction between the cueball and the sandpaper. The wax paper has reduced friction. The cueball and sandpaper will act as one body, like a sled, at initial launch. Some downward momentum will transfer into the sandpaper. So the cueball and the sandpaper will act as one unit for a split second. That's where I see an issue with the construction of his experiment. I could be wrong, though. And would like to learn if I am.

Actually for the purposes of this experiment the more friction between the cue ball and the sand paper the better, and the less friction between the sandpaper and the wax paper the better which is why those particular materials were chosen.

It you hit the cue ball high enough to start it with natural forward roll, the sandpaper will not be dragged forward much if at all because the cue ball is just rolling across it, even from the very first moment it starts moving. A naturally rolling ball isn't trying much to drag things, it is just rolling across them (although because even a "level stroke" is slightly downwards driving the ball down into the sandpaper it might increase the friction enough to make it move very slightly forward but shouldn't be much if at all if you are as close to level as possible).

Think of rolling verses overspin on the cue ball about the same as the tire on your car either just rolling or peeling out (overspin). When your car is just rolling along for the most part it isn't trying to drag the road with it. Now peel out where your tires are now spinning and it will definitely be trying to grab and "throw" the road backwards, but obviously the road is too big and immovable to be "thrown" (just like the pool table). But anything loose on the road like gravel or even a board (equivalent to the sandpaper in the experiment) will be grabbed and thrown backwards by your tires that are peeling out (overspin). Similarly a "peeling out" cue ball, one that has any meaningful top overspin, will grab that sandpaper (the gravel or loose board) and sling it backwards too.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Okay what in the actual /*%@#$^&%$@#^ does that mean? I'm not saying you said this, but I'd love to know where this school of thought comes from.

In regards to the rest of this. I have no idea how you play but I do know how I do. I have run a 2 pack before and broke and run out a handful of times. I have also run 8+ and out a handful of times. Pool comes naturally to me from a mechanics standpoint. However, I am not by any means a visual person/learner. I learn from reading and listening, then doing. I have been able to do the above mentioned things, but I'm probably a C verging on B player that's still lacking cue ball control basics at times. I used to use bottom, bottom outside, top outside and top inside exclusively because I couldn't visually predict the cue balls path off the rail so I tried for 2-3 rail shape, spinning the cue ball like crazy. I now use whatever is necessary but use the natural path of the cue ball as a base line. I also don't need to used 2-3 tips of English anymore to get shape unless necessary.

I wish I had listened to Hillbilly when he showed me a lot of the "technical" stuff that has been thrown around. What I did listen to him about really helped improve my game. Yes, I have learned things from playing in tournaments and gambling, but the biggest keys for my improvement has been filling the fundamental gaps in my game. I know that if I'm capable of doing what I mentioned above, I can do it more often if I become more consistent and learn to control my cue ball more dynamically. Another pro, Manny Chau showed me several drills involving cue ball control. Those concepts helped me improve a lot.

I'm not saying it has to be done a certain way. What I am saying is that very few players pick up a cue and intuitively learn the game. Its all well and fine for everyone to try, but one thing I had to accept is that I only grasped some of the game naturally. I know that if I ever want to get to a high level, that I'm going to have to learn/study as much as I play. I'd say among pool players that have been player for the same amount of time I have, that I'm in the 75th percentile. I'm not going to improve anymore by simply just playing.

A very good gambler/one pocket player here in Houston told me this: The players who only use systems will only get so far but will be able to play at that speed in most environments. The natural player achieve decent speed quickly, but will play inconsistent without a solid understanding of the game. The true champions and students of the game are the ones that understand pool requires both heart and brain to achieve success. The world beaters (Efrens, Earls, Kos, most Filipinos lol) are the naturals that just simply know/learn the game inside and out intuitively. Its not that they don't use systems, but that they use/do most subconsciously. Some of us have to learn this and some of us will never learn this.

I am not the one that made that statement.

As I told PoolPlaya9 I worded what I did because I did not want to get into a nomenclature war.

Your post says much, some very good & some too definitively.

Let me ask you this. If you are taught a mediocre method & you stay with that mediocre method, do you think you will ever get to a level much higher than mediocre?

Would you rather be taught a method better than mediocre or set on a path to learn a method better then mediocre or would be okay with being taught & learning a mediocre method that will have to be changed in order to advance?

ALL Best Wishes for YOU & YOURS & ALL.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

Actually for the purposes of this experiment the more friction between the cue ball and the sand paper the better, and the less friction between the sandpaper and the wax paper the better which is why those particular materials were chosen.

It you hit the cue ball high enough to start it with natural forward roll, the sandpaper will not be dragged forward much if at all because the cue ball is just rolling across it, even from the very first moment it starts moving. A naturally rolling ball isn't trying much to drag things, it is just rolling across them (although because even a "level stroke" is slightly downwards driving the ball down into the sandpaper it might make it move very slightly forward but shouldn't be much if at all if you are as close to level as possible).

Think of rolling verses overspin on the cue ball about the same as the tire on your car either just rolling or peeling out (overspin). When your car is just rolling along, for the most part it isn't trying to drag the road with it. Now peel out where your tires are now spinning and it will definitely be trying to grab and "throw" the road, but obviously the road is too big and fixed to be "thrown". But anything loose on the road like gravel or even a board (equivalent to the sandpaper in the experiment) will be grabbed and thrown backwards by your tires that are peeling out. Similarly a "peeling out" cue ball, one that has any meaningful top overspin, will grab that sandpaper and sling it backwards too.

I appreciate your explanation, but it doesn't pertain to this situation. Rubber, gravel and asphalt are all materials that have natural friction. Also, comparing overspin to spinning tires isn't the same. The reason you can spin tires has to do with the massive weight of the item on the tires, versus the tires trying the push the load that are ABOVE the tires. The force that pushes a car doesn't come from someone shoving on the back bumper.

I get the principle of what he was trying to do. But, the best way to establish "overspin" would be high speed photography. The experiment is flawed by its very design.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Overspin requires slippage of the ball against the cloth, and that slippage doesn't really occur with top overspin until it hits something like the object ball to suddenly slow or stop its forward progress, hence my reference to the overspin/slippage as being induced by the collision.

Okay, I see how you are approaching that & that is why I worded what I did the way that I did.

But... from a shooter's perspective...(& relativity)

... the shooter applied the force with the cue tip high on the ball... so would you see it as incorrect for a shooter to think, believe, & say that they imparted or 'induced' the top "spin" onto the ball.

I have said that I am rather glad that I started playing at 13, a few years before my first physics class of 3 years of such education, much of which may not still be available for recall.:wink:

Best.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I find that sandpaper experiment flawed in its design. Maybe Dave can chime in. When you put a stationary item, the cueball, on sandpaper, and then place that on a piece of wax paper, I see some issues. First, there is a lot of friction between the ball and the sandpaper. When you shoot the ball across the sandpaper, starting with the ball off the sandpaper, it will nicely roll across the gritty surface, because the initial force forward (there's a slight downward vector due to gravity and also the ball being struck above centre) will transfer into the cloth. Call this the "launch". When you perform that same launch on the sandpaper, there will be a few resultant forces that will happen regardless of the achieving of overspin. The sandpaper will move slightly forward due to friction between the cueball and the sandpaper. The wax paper has reduced friction. The cueball and sandpaper will act as one body, like a sled, at initial launch. Some downward momentum will transfer into the sandpaper. So the cueball and the sandpaper will act as one unit for a split second. That's where I see an issue with the construction of his experiment. I could be wrong, though. And would like to learn if I am.

I thought much the same thing when I first saw that a few years ago. It's not apples to apples.

Best.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I appreciate your explanation, but it doesn't pertain to this situation. Rubber, gravel and asphalt are all materials that have natural friction. Also, comparing overspin to spinning tires isn't the same. The reason you can spin tires has to do with the massive weight of the item on the tires, versus the tires trying the push the load that are ABOVE the tires. The force that pushes a car doesn't come from someone shoving on the back bumper.

I get the principle of what he was trying to do. But, the best way to establish "overspin" would be high speed photography. The experiment is flawed by its very design.

It actually pertains pretty well and is a great analogy. Tires have their own weight (just like a cue ball) and would do the same basic thing whether there is the additional weight of a car mounted above them or not. A rolling object has little friction against the object it is rolling on and therefore it isn't trying very hard to drag or throw the object it is rolling on. But introduce overspin, whether a tire or a cue ball (and each one has enough weight on its own without the need for any other weight mounted above it), and now the friction is increased and it is trying to throw the object it is on backwards (in the case of a peel out or top overspin). Roads and pool tables are too immovable to be thrown backwards, but loose gravel, boards, or sandpaper aren't.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Rubber Tires have a lot of built in friction while a cue ball & table cloth have rather little & as SA stated, the force is of rotational means from the 'center' axis & not a pushing motion on or near the 'circumference'.

Just thoughts...

but He & I do not see apples to apples.

What I see is "perhaps" some confirmation bias in the set up.

Again, just thoughts.

Best Wishes for ALL.

 

[Poolplaya9]

... the shooter applied the force with the cue tip high on the ball... so would you see it as incorrect for a shooter to think, believe, & say that they imparted or 'induced' the top "spin" onto the ball.

I think it is accurate to say that because that is the commonly accepted terminology for it although from a technical sense it can be argued not be right (all they really usually did at best was impart natural roll). I don't have any problem with it and not sure why you bring it up because it isn't something I remember as being at all significant to anything I discussed. Now whether or not a person puts *overspin top spin onto the cue ball with a level cue stick is where I do take issue if someone believes that do because that simply wouldn't be true. I would also have issue if someone believed that a cue ball could go forward of the tangent line without having had some roll on it (assuming equal weight balls) or without having had some "collision induced" overspin/slippage occur (one of which it sounded like you may have been suggesting).

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think it is accurate to say that because that is the commonly accepted terminology for it although from a technical sense it can be argued not be right (all they really usually did at best was impart natural roll). I don't have any problem with it and not sure why you bring it up because it isn't something I remember as being at all significant to anything I discussed. Now whether or not a person puts *overspin top spin onto the cue ball with a level cue stick is where I do take issue if someone believes that do because that simply wouldn't be true. I would also have issue if someone believed that a cue ball could go forward of the tangent line without having had some roll on it (assuming equal weight balls) or without having had some "collision induced" overspin/slippage occur (one of which it sounded like you may have been suggesting).

Yes the overspin/slippage is what I was suggesting so as to try to avoid what we are into now...

Technical nomenclature vs real life world.

When I tell a player to hit it with top spin, most know exactly what I mean.

If I were to tell a player to hit it with enough rolling force that it garners collision induced slippage & over spin upon the collision with the object ball, I think you can envision the looks that I would be getting.

Perspective & Relativity.

All the Best.

PS At what speed of inches per second would one have to hit a rolling ball so it would NOT garner any CIO... or better yet at what such speed would be required so that is has just the right amount of CIO or lack thereof so that it comes out of the collision at that 30* angle?

 

[dr_dave]

I think Mike's overspin experiment is an excellent way to test one's ability to overspin the CB.

You are correct about the CB being driven down into the table by downward squirt (CB deflection) and cue elevation (required to clear the rail). But if the CB is given overspin, the bottom of the CB will be moving backwards as it is driven down into the table, and the sandpaper will also move backwards as a result./QUOTE]Gravity is also holding the cueball on the sandpaper. So there is a steady force being applied downward into the sandpaper. Once you hit the ball forward, you have a downward force and a forward force. The resultant vector, just from those two forces alone, not factoring in downward striking force, is a downward diagonal vector, correct? That necessarily implies a downward diagonal forward force into the sandpaper.

The downward force from CB weight and downward squirt simply allow friction to develop between the CB contact point and the sandpaper. The direction the sandpaper moves depends only on the horizontal direction the CB contact point moves (forward or reverse). Two things contribute to the forward/backward motion of the point of contact (at the base of the CB): the forward motion of the CB and the rotational motion of the CB. If there is no rotation, the contact point moves forward with the same speed as the CB center. If there is only topspin (with the CB spinning in place, with no forward motion), the contact point moves backward. If the CB is rolling naturally, the point of contact is stationary because the backward rotational motion exactly cancels the forward motion. If the CB has less topspin than the natural roll amount, the contact point will be moving forward (although, not as fast as the CB center). And if the CB has more topspin than the natural roll amount ("overspin"), the contact point will be moving backward, causing the CB to "peel out" and accelerate forward until the overspin wears off. Overspin is very difficult to achieve off the tip because the minimal tip contact height required is very close to the miscue limit.

I hope that makes sense. If not, check out the videos on the overspin resource page, so you can see this stuff in action.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Poolplaya9]

Rubber Tires have a lot of built in friction while a cue ball & table cloth have rather little & as SA stated, the force is of rotational means from the 'center' axis & not a pushing motion on or near the 'circumference'.

Just thoughts...

but He & I do not see apples to apples.

What I see is "perhaps" some confirmation bias in the set up.

Again, just thoughts.

Best Wishes for ALL.

Make the road out of smooth slate and cover it with pool table cloth. Make the car tires out of giant cue balls. I guarantee you that if you put some loose sandpaper down on the road and peel out on it that the loose sandpaper is going to sling out backwards from under the cue ball tires (especially if the sand paper was on top of a piece of wax paper), and in the experiment in the video if the cue ball actually had any significant overspin on it (peeling out) that sandpaper would sling out backwards there too.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Make the road out of smooth slate and cover it with pool table cloth. Make the car tires out of giant cue balls. I guarantee you that if you put some loose sandpaper down on the road and peel out on it that the loose sandpaper is going to sling out backwards from under the cue ball tires (especially if the sand paper was on top of a piece of wax paper), and in the experiment in the video if the cue ball actually had any significant overspin on it (peeling out) that sandpaper would sling out backwards there too.

The difference is that the force is from a rotational nature of the axis at the center of the sphere vs a pushing at or near the top edge.

It's not apples to apples & the 'experiment' was looking for immediate top spin at that precise location.

I think most know that the ball leaves the surface of the table & does NOT stay in contact with it the entire length of travel.

As I said, I see some confirmation bias in the initial set up.

All the Best.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

So I guess you won't be getting a Bob Ross oil painting for Christmas?

Do you have anything against the Dogs playing Cards? That is one of my favorites.

He made virtually no money at all from his paintings as he sold virtually none of them.

He made multi millions from the sales of art supplies & his "How To" videos. (Those that can not do...teach.)

I had that in my earlier post, but somehow I must have deleted that sentence.

Yes, I am a piece of work. I AM a Masterpiece Created by the Mind & Intentions of God

Some others have allowed themselves to be led astray, that is why it is very very important for individuals to make their own determinations & to NOT be led astray by those that have ulterior motives & agendas.

All Best Wishes for ALL.

 

[Drop The Rock]

I am not the one that made that statement.

As I told PoolPlaya9 I worded what I did because I did not want to get into a nomenclature war.

Your post says much, some very good & some too definitively.

Let me ask you this. If you are taught a mediocre method & you stay with that mediocre method, do you think you will ever get to a level much higher than mediocre?

Would you rather be taught a method better than mediocre or set on a path to learn a method better then mediocre or would be okay with being taught & learning a mediocre method that will have to be changed in order to advance?

ALL Best Wishes for YOU & YOURS & ALL.

Of course the "better than mediocre method." Who is defining one techniques mediocrity over the other?

Using some pros strokes as an example over a pendulum stroke is moot unless that pro was taught the stroke they use. In other words, the stroke of a natural talent is not so easy to teach.

A majority of european(snooker influenced or otherwise) players use a stroke that has little elbow drop, we'll say 4 inches or at the very least to where the elbow does not touch the table. Now regardless of this, even fewer pros around the entire world drop their elbow before contact.

On the one hand you could be telling me that my stroke, which has very little plane change and maybe 3-4 inches of elbow drop AFTER contact, is mediocre. Now I also use my fingers and wrist a little bit on some shots and a lot on others and some shots I all but let go of the cue (one pocket break). Is my stroke mediocre by your standards?

Lets just go back in time to when I first started playing pool. I didn't use my wrist, or fingers for much of anything. I used a close hand (not tight) grip and really barely remember how I even made 3 balls in a row. I started watching YouTube videos of different pros eventually and at some point in time attempted copying their strokes. Bustamante's is one of them. At that point in time there is no way I could beat a soul with that stroke. For someone to try to teach me a complicated stroke like that would be ludicrous.

I couldn't coordinate a cue with more than a couple motions. However, I was eventually taught that having a little elbow drop was okay (Hillbilly) but what mattered was in the elbow and wrist and have been on a journey ever since. The base technique of what he encouraged and what most players strokes are is a pendulum. Even SVB just changes the position of his elbow to straight over the cue on his final stroke. His follow through isn't very long at all. His stroke his probably the way it is because of the age he picked up pool.

So if what I have cited above defines a mediocre stroke in your opinion, then that is your right but I simply just want bother reading anymore of your posts. It was easier for me and is for most beginner's, as taught by a vast majority of instructors, to learn an comprehend a simple pendulum motion that WILL develop and change over time.

You keep saying that those who can't, teach. MOST of the time, those who do, can't teach in a way that a beginner can understand. Regardless of this, those teachers provide information that is take it or leave it. If you can learn speed control on your own or without a system, have at it. Plenty of people CAN learn from a system and there is nothing wrong with that.

Btw if you think Hillbilly didn't have a world class gear and ability then there is no point in this discussion. If I had to choose any player at any time to shoot a multi rail kick shot for my life, my first choice would be Efren and my second would be Charlie. Charlie can be goofy sometimes but you'd be hard pressed to find a soul that can do things with the cue ball. At one point in time, he played world beater speed.