To “enhance” the side spin (reduce speed but not spin)? Because you can't normally get enough "gearing" overspin on such a thin cut...
pj
chgo
Last edited:
object ball throw
- Thread starter dendweller
- Start date
pj
chgo
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.
Sorry I am so late to the party. I ran Boot Camps on back-to-back weekends and had a visiting instructor during the week who liked to play a lot of pool. My game feels as sharp as ever now.
Anyway, here's my answer: I think it depends on the person and the conditions. If the player is good at aiming using sidespin and knows how to accurately judge the correct amount of gearing outside spin, then that is a good approach, especially if the balls might throw more than normal (e.g., if they are old and filthy or if the CB is full of big chalk marks) or less than normal (e.g., if somebody used a non-standard ball cleaner or polish). Otherwise, using bottom spin and faster speed (if the shot allows it) is a good approach to minimize throw. Then you only need to adjust your aim a small amount to compensate.
For more info, see:
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).
Object balls can be thrown quite a bit.
I saw one get thrown at another dude all the way across the room.
Then I learned pool sticks also can be thrown.
I saw one get thrown at another dude all the way across the room.
Then I learned pool sticks also can be thrown.
My intent was to arrive at the object ball with only sidespin so the cue ball has to start with 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.
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
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.
Isn't it about 70%?
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:
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 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:
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.
Last edited:
So why not “30% from the top of the ball”?
Because spin is measured from center ball.
pj
chgo
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.
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.
More power to you if you understand it best your way, but I'm skeptical about its broad usage (you can probably tell
).pj
chgo
Last edited:
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.
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.
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