Spin applied during contact

Player said:
There was a thread talking about this that disappeared. I was amazed at how many people didn't think this was possible.
Think about ping pong. With a flat paddle the ball is always hit in the center. Contact time is probably less than pool.
How could any spin possibly be imparted?
Click to expand...

Back to the OP....

By reading all the responses I forgot you really didn't have anything specific in the OP? A reference to a ping pong paddle?

This may be a better question on a tennis forum since it would be a closer relationship.

Pool is hard enough with spinning the cue ball with a straight stroke. Hitting off center to impart spin(English) causes the cue ball to squirt and thus making shots more difficult.

I can't imagine trying to somehow swipe at the cue ball with the tip of the stick and getting any accuracy at all? So what is the point?
 
galipeau said:
SARDiver,

I think they're discussing the tip contact time and how much or how little spin comes from either manipulating your stroke line or keeping it straight. I don't think anyone is arguing what happens to the OB at this point. Maybe I misread your original statement, but it seems a bit off topic?


I think people like to compare it to ping pong and golf, because both sports use different "swing motions" to get a desired affect on the ball with different spin. I would be interested to see the differences in the amount of spin based on a swerved stroke and a straight stroke in pool, but I imagine it would be very hard to replicate and quantify the various factors involved.
Click to expand...


Ya know, I missed the deleted thread entirely, and looking back through the thread, you're probably right. It looks like I did miss the topic, but truly, what I was discussing was the only topic that made sense for discussion to me. Since there really is so little spin imparted to the OB, it seemed like the only source of disagreement may have been whether that 2% occurs or not.

The amount of spin that could be applied to a compressible ball, ling the ping pong or golf ball, would be higher, but because neither the cue tip nor cue ball are frictionless, it seems intuitive that rotational and translation velocities are imparted in line with the direction of travel of the cue.

Bowing out of this. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Question because I just don't know. If A pro like Mika and I used the same cue and cue elevation, speed etc. So basically it was measured that we hit the cue ball exactly the same using the same cue. Would we get the same results. I guess grip would need to be measured or would that not matter.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
jburkm002 said:
Question because I just don't know. If A pro like Mika and I used the same cue and cue elevation, speed etc. So basically it was measured that we hit the cue ball exactly the same using the same cue. Would we get the same results.
Click to expand...
Yes.

I guess grip would need to be measured or would that not matter.
Click to expand...
For a normal human hand it wouldn't matter. In effect you're throwing the cue at the CB no matter how hard you grip it.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes.


For a normal human hand it wouldn't matter. In effect you're throwing the cue at the CB no matter how hard you grip it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

On the grip, well, yes.......but, if you grip it tighter, it can easily change how straight your stroke actually goes. Or really doesn't go.
 
SARDiver said:
Since there really is so little spin imparted to the OB, it seemed like the only source of disagreement may have been whether that 2% occurs or not.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is relevant, but I believe up to about 1/3 of the CB's spin can be transferred to the OB.

pj
chgo
 
The Renfro said:
You do realize that period while short covers several MM of travel depending on the tip and the speed that you hit it???

Thinking you can/cannot do anything in that space has not been proven or disproved...

Until cameras are better and cheaper and there is enough money in pool to warrant real "in depth" testing any thoughts either way are opinion and conjecture.. Same thing with much of the "truths" about tips and shafts... Just because the water is still on the surface doesn't mean there are not currents at work underneath...

I know many of you think I am knocking the establishment but I am only pointing out a truth... For how many years were you told contact time was 1ms? It was close to a decade before the Russian vids showed up proving that it was tip dependent based on force and likely could extend to 4ms...

Not all of the science is settled because there is no money for testing.. Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page are working on no budget and as such not all tests will be adequate in depth or scope..

They do everything they can for the sport and I respect them for what they contribute but that does not keep me from voicing my opinion in the face of what I think is inadequate study and testing on some topics.... Especially when the discussions and observations from myself, players and cuemakers are in direct opposition...

We make our tips with certain COR and hardness readings because differences in those ratios make a tip feel, play and spin the cueball differently... How do I know those numbers/ratios matter? More hours of testing than you can imagine....

On tips and chalk I would bet I have as many hours in testing and research as anyone in the industry... That means that while I was not testing to publish I was testing to establish what mattered and what did not... If the interactions were as simple as many tests I have seen that were done to publish make out, my job would be a hella lot easier. It's not and it's getting harder as I continue to work on actual synthetic replacements for playing tips....
Click to expand...

What i meant is that the contact time is so short that it would be nearly impossible to time a change in stroke that would happen during contact. Create an arc that will take effect on contact, but to try that from a straight stroke at contact and then arc during is not at all likely and definitely not repeatable in any reliable way.
 
Corwyn_8 said:
That's ok. As we have seen, you don't provide evidence when asked nicely either.

Perhaps it isn't too late to get a refund on that college Physics class. :D Any two force vectors can be added to give a single resultant vector.

Thank you kindly.
Click to expand...

NO CRAP... relatively new member.

But endless combinations can be added together to get the same resultant vector.

And the same initial force from one direction can yield different vectors than the same force from a different direction.

Then there is that thing called spin & initial contact point relative to the direction of the force.

kind·ly
ˈkīn(d)lē/Submit
adverb
1.
in a kind manner.
"“Never mind,” she said kindly"
synonyms: benevolently, good-naturedly, warmly, affectionately, tenderly, lovingly, compassionately; More
adjective
1.
kind; warmhearted; gentle.
"he was a quiet, kindly man"
synonyms: benevolent, kind, kindhearted, warm-hearted, generous, gentle, warm, good-natured, compassionate, caring, loving, benign, well meaning; More
 
Last edited:
It's like the thread in the instructors forum on the same subject where it seemed one was challenging it through the back door.

Fran Crimi was reluctant to comment because of the crap like in this thread.

She finally gave a brief explanation & then said, "Happy Experimenting".

No on is trying to force anyone to use it. If you don't believe it, then don't even experiment with it.

It's like what StaightPool99 said about B- players staying there for their whole lives.

It's not a stroke that is used as one's normal stroke except for some rare individuals, but there are times when it is preferred & perhaps the only or best one for the situation.

I use it for certain types of kick shots & for certain types of follow shots.

Be at will to do what you will.
 
ENGLISH! said:
It's like the thread in the instructors forum on the same subject where it seemed one was challenging it through the back door.

Fran Crimi was reluctant to comment because of the crap like in this thread.

She finally gave a brief explanation & then said, "Happy Experimenting".

No on is trying to force anyone to use it. If you don't believe it, then don't even experiment with it.

It's like what StaightPool99 said about B- players staying there for their whole lives.

It's not a stroke that is used as one's normal stroke except for some rare individuals, but there are times when it is preferred & perhaps the only or best one for the situation.

I use it for certain types of kick shots & for certain types of follow shots.

Be at will to do what you will.
Click to expand...


No one is saying not to try it. Only that you don't NEED to try it.

So far you haven't provided any reason as to why anyone would need to.

I'm guessing you never will.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Such as?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

There are shots that come up, but since you don't use much spin other than what one can get from missing center while trying to hit center, you would not even know what they are or what the intentions are.

You would probably play safe.

Like Fran Crimi said, 'Happy Experimenting'.
 
BeiberLvr said:
No one is saying not to try it. Only that you don't NEED to try it.

So far you haven't provided any reason as to why anyone would need to.

I'm guessing you never will.
Click to expand...

I don't usually converse with people that hate me & call me an idiot.

The need will arise for you & you won't recognize it & you too will probably play safe or foul or something other than use what you've experimented with & found useful.
 
ENGLISH! said:
There are shots that come up, but since you don't use much spin other than what one can get from missing center while trying to hit center, you would not even know what they are or what the intentions are.

You would probably play safe.

Like Fran Crimi said, 'Happy Experimenting'.
Click to expand...

Okay then try me. I play plenty of fancy spin shots for one pocket when I need to. Using two tips of inside to go around the stack comes up a lot.
 
ENGLISH! said:
There are shots that come up, but since you don't use much spin other than what one can get from missing center while trying to hit center, you would not even know what they are or what the intentions are.

You would probably play safe.

Like Fran Crimi said, 'Happy Experimenting'.
Click to expand...

Here's the full post for anyone interested.
 
Is this thread about deflection? :wink:

I use English and lots of it, I would like to know what shots this "technique" is useful for.

I like to be spoon-fed like some other posters.
 
Drop The Rock said:
Okay then try me. I play plenty of fancy spin shots for one pocket when I need to. Using two tips of inside to go around the stack comes up a lot.
Click to expand...

If you know what the stroke is then you can figure out when & where it might be applicable.

Do you know what it is or do you think it is simply applying BHE during a stroke.

I suggest you go read the thread in the instructors forum & then do like Fran Crimi said, 'Happy Experimenting'.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Not sure if this is relevant, but I believe up to about 1/3 of the CB's spin can be transferred to the OB.
Click to expand...

That seems outrageously high. I tried this just now on, by lining up three balls for a straight in shot, and shooting softly with lots of english. I could get the middle ball to spin a few times, while the cue ball spun for a few seconds. I lack a high speed camera to count cue ball rotations, but it seemed closer to 20 to 1 than 3 to 1.

Koehler gives figure of 4-5 degrees deviation on a bank shot from transfer of english, compared to about 45 degrees for a struck cue ball.

Are you talking about a object ball supported by others?

Thank you kindly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top