To “enhance” the side spin (reduce speed but not spin)? Because you can't normally get enough "gearing" overspin on such a thin cut...Exercise: I suspect it is clear why lots of sidespin. Why a little draw?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
To “enhance” the side spin (reduce speed but not spin)? Because you can't normally get enough "gearing" overspin on such a thin cut...Exercise: I suspect it is clear why lots of sidespin. Why a little draw?
Slow and sliding throws the most. Speed and/or top/bottom throw less.
Considering cut angle, a slow sliding half ball hit throws the most.
pj
chgo
Question: Suppose you have the money ball in the rack area, you have to shoot it in an uptable corner pocket, and you have a slight cut. Do you prefer straight vertical with, say, a little draw like you described if you were straight in? Or do you like an equator line hit with a twist of gearing outside english? Or something else?
I too would like to hear Bob Jewett's and Dave A's take.
I'd imagine it has to do with the slight upward pressure that results from striking a round object below its equator (as opposed to that's right now and pressure that would result from striking the same object above its cente line).Here is a grainy video of Bob Jewett making a seemingly impossible cut shot
His description is this: A cut shot at pool that seems to be impossible. Object ball is on the spot, and the cue ball is by the corner pocket. Lots of left side spin and a little draw.
Exercise: I suspect it is clear why lots of sidespin. Why a little draw?
My intent was to arrive at the object ball with only sidespin so the cue ball has to start with a little draw....
Exercise: I suspect it is clear why lots of sidespin. Why a little draw?
When the cb/ob are less than about 6 inches or so apart I use a touch of outside. My reasoning is that unless you are hitting VERY high on the cb you might actually be stunning the cb into the ob before the cb has a chance to pick up forward roll. I missed a lot of these kinds of shots until I put a tiny amount of outside. Seems to work well so I'm not overthinking it.For a long shot with the balls a foot apart, I would shoot with follow to avoid having unintended sidespin problems. I think inside is the wrong way to go. For close shots, like a ball apart or so, I like to throw the ball in depending on the amount of slight cut.
You only need to hit about 80% of maximum follow (a little less than halfway from center to edge of the CB) to achieve "instant natural roll". Here's my post about that from earlier in the week: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...o-different-things.536140/page-3#post-7089340When the cb/ob are less than about 6 inches or so apart I use a touch of outside. My reasoning is that unless you are hitting VERY high on the cb you might actually be stunning the cb into the ob before the cb has a chance to pick up forward roll. I missed a lot of these kinds of shots until I put a tiny amount of outside. Seems to work well so I'm not overthinking it.
Thanks. I was probably not getting there as my close shots seemed to throw too much. Or, who knows, maybe it was something else. I tad of outside does the trick. If I am jacked up I don't use outside. I just aim thinner.You only need to hit about 80% of maximum follow (a little less than halfway from center to edge of the CB) to achieve "instant natural roll". Here's my post about that from earlier in the week: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...o-different-things.536140/page-3#post-7089340
pj
chgo
Isn't it about 70%?You only need to hit about 80% of maximum follow (a little less than halfway from center to edge of the CB) to achieve "instant natural roll". Here's my post about that from earlier in the week: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...o-different-things.536140/page-3#post-7089340
pj
chgo
You only need to hit about 80% of maximum follow (a little less than halfway from center to edge of the CB) to achieve "instant natural roll".
Isn't it about 70%?
Yup, I read that as "above the table" rather than "of maximum follow". Speaking of which, when explaining/defining maximum english in settings such as this, I think we should always be giving the "above the table" amount either exclusively, or in conjunction with the "of maximum follow amount" (but never the "of maximum follow amount" alone), as I feel it is significantly easier to accurately understand, assess, and visualize for most people.Pat is correct. Maximum topspin occurs with a tip contact point at about 1/2 the CB radius above center (0.5R). Immediate natural roll occurs with a tip contact point at 2/5 (40%) the CB radius above center (0.4R), which is 80% of maximum. Maybe you were thinking about the total height above the table, which is 70% of the CB diameter (R + 0.4 R = 1.4R = 0.7D). For more info, see the illustrations, demonstrations, and article here:
I disagree. The amount of spin (side, top, or bottom) should always be relative to the center of the ball, where there is no spin (0%). Maximum spin (100%) is at the miscue limit, which is half the CB's radius from center (in any direction). For more info, see:Yup, I read that as "above the table" rather than "of maximum follow". Speaking of which, when explaining/defining maximum english in settings such as this, I think we should always be giving the "above the table" amount either exclusively, or in conjunction with the "of maximum follow amount" (but never the "of maximum follow amount" alone), as I feel it is significantly easier to accurately understand, assess, and visualize for most people.
I might have done a poor job of wording. I totally agree with but one exception, which was the singular thing I was talking about. That being the amount of high english necessary to start the cue ball with full natural roll. While I think when explaining to someone the amount of high english required to start the cue ball with full natural roll one should ideally mention "70% above the table", and "2/5 the cue ball radius above center" and "80% of maximum" so they have a number of ways to think about it and reference and visualize, but what I was trying to say was that if only one is to be mentioned it should be "70% above the table", and if one or more is to be left unsaid it should never be "70% above the table" that gets left off. The reason being is that for most people "70% above the table will start the cue ball with full natural roll" will be the most clear, concrete, understandable, and easiest to visualize as compared to the other two whereas the other two would still leave some uncertainty with a few people. If you disagree with that, then we can just agree to disagree and it will be one of the very few things we disagree on.I disagree. The amount of spin (side, top, or bottom) should always be relative to the center of the ball, where there is no spin (0%). Maximum spin (100%) is at the miscue limit, which is half the CB's radius from center (in any direction). For more info, see:
So why not “30% from the top of the ball”?I might have done a poor job of wording. I totally agree with but one exception, which was the singular thing I was talking about. That being the amount of high english necessary to start the cue ball with full natural roll. While I think when explaining to someone the amount of high english required to start the cue ball with full natural roll one should ideally mention "70% above the table", and "2/5 the cue ball radius above center" and "80% of maximum" so they have a number of ways to think about it and reference and visualize, but what I was trying to say was that if only one is to be mentioned it should be "70% above the table", and if one or more is to be left unsaid it should never be "70% above the table" that gets left off. The reason being is that for most people "70% above the table will start the cue ball with full natural roll" will be the most clear, concrete, understandable, and easiest to visualize as compared to the other two whereas the other two would still leave some uncertainty with a few people. If you disagree with that, then we can just agree to disagree and it will be one of the very few things we disagree on.
Again, for this one singular thing, which is the amount of high english which starts the cue ball with a full natural roll, the reason is because "70% up from the table" will be misunderstood less often, misjudged less often, and visualized with more precision more often than "2/5 up from center ball" or "80% of maximum". The latter two both come with more risk for confusion on average. They both also require more variables to be visualized and judged as part of the equation resulting in less precision on average in finding the point in question.So why not “30% from the top of the ball”?
Because spin is measured from center ball.
pj
chgo
So why not “30% from the top of the ball”?
pj
chgo
Can't the same be said of 30% from the top of the ball? The difference is that neither have any relation to the actual physics of the shot, which only consider how far from center ball we strike - which is also the way that every player learns to understand and measure it....because "70% up from the table" will be misunderstood less often, misjudged less often, and visualized with more precision more often than "2/5 up from center ball" or "80% of maximum".
For "the spot on the cue ball which results in immediate full natural roll" it would work, but 70% up from the table is probably slightly more intuitive.Can't the same be said of 30% from the top of the ball?
For most shots, referencing from the center is literally the only feasible choice as center is the only fixed point to easily reference from. The spot on the cue ball that starts the cue ball with full natural roll is literally the only commonly referenced shot (aside from center ball) that can be simply described in any other way way aside from referencing from center, in this case giving the option to reference from the table surface instead. So the only question is if there is a reason to do so, and I think it clearly lessons the chance of the explanation being misunderstood or the visualization being less precise than it had to be which indeed makes for a good reason to do so.The difference is that neither have any relation to the actual physics of the shot, which only consider how far from center ball we strike - which is also the way that every player learns to understand and measure it.
It is literally impossible for anybody to ever in any way misunderstand "70% up the cue ball from the bed of the table", nor can there be much misjudgment in one's visualization of that descriptor. The same cannot be said for either of your apparent preferred explanations of "2/5 of the radius up from center ball" or "80% of maximum". To eliminate the most possible misunderstandings and misjudgments it makes the most sense to always include the 70% up from the table explanation whether you choose to included any other ways of explaining it or not.More power to you if you understand it best your way, but I'm skeptical about its broad usage (you can probably tell).