Spin Doesn't Transfer from CB to OB

Spin without a doubt transfers. It's what makes a lot of banks possible. Bank a ball into the same spot on the rail with inside English then outside English. Then both a different speeds. You'll see real quick spin transfers. And honestly I don't need a scientist saying it does or it doesn't. I know I need spin for this shot, I'm gonna use spin for this shot. I don't care why I need it, I just know I need it.
 
I have never heard anyone claim that spin is transferred ...
Click to expand...
You must have missed my previous attempts.

Spin is frequently transferred from the cue ball to the object ball. This is easy to demonstrate and has been demonstrated many times. It is absolutely required on some bank shots, and those bank shots are frequent at one pocket.

I've written several columns about how it happens and why it is important as well as the history of the "controversy". There was a celebrated British author who wrote during the golden age of English Billiards (Riso Levi, 1900-1930) who maintained that spin transfer did not happen. He was a fool.

Anyone who believes that spin cannot be transferred from the cue ball to the object ball has not yet begun to study the game.

There. I feel better now.
 
Bob Jewett said:
You must have missed my previous attempts.

Spin is frequently transferred from the cue ball to the object ball. This is easy to demonstrate and has been demonstrated many times. It is absolutely required on some bank shots, and those bank shots are frequent at one pocket.

I've written several columns about how it happens and why it is important as well as the history of the "controversy". There was a celebrated British author who wrote during the golden age of English Billiards (Riso Levi, 1900-1930) who maintained that spin transfer did not happen. He was a fool.

Anyone who believes that spin cannot be transferred from the cue ball to the object ball has not yet begun to study the game.

There. I feel better now.
Click to expand...

Bob, just for clarification, you are assuming the use of normal pool hall playing set of OBs and CBs (not so clean, maybe scratched)
 
Here's a simple demo posed as a proposition shot. Under the right conditions, you can add a second blocker ball frozen to the 2 ball so the block is a full two balls wide. People who don't know that you can spin the object ball could lose a lot of money at this proposition.

CropperCapture[79].png
 
naji said:
Bob, just for clarification, you are assuming the use of normal pool hall playing set of OBs and CBs (not so clean, maybe scratched)
Click to expand...
The shot works fine with nearly any set of balls and the balls have not been doctored. Try it. If the balls have been cleaned/polished with the wrong kind of products, such as rubbing compound and car polish, you might even be able to put up three blocker balls.
 
naji said:
Bob, just for clarification, you are assuming the use of normal pool hall playing set of OBs and CBs (not so clean, maybe scratched)
Click to expand...

The thing is, even with brand new ball sets, the spin will still be transferred, even with lubricants applied beforehand, there still will be noticeable spin transfered with a side spinning CB to an OB in after a straight on collision, that's physics.
 
Bob Jewett said:
And here is a proposition shot for the British players.

View attachment 348910
Click to expand...

Actually, this test could have been unsuccessful on old snooker felt since the side spin on the OB will be wore out by the felt before it hit the head rail. It can be done on new felt and new balls, I am sure. But it might fail to prove the point on used equipments even though in fact the net transferred spin is indeed stronger after the hit.
 
jsp said:
I think you're violating a physical law or two somewhere in that statement.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. The friction force between the two balls can happened to be accomplish 3 things at the same time:

1) compensate the slight aimming angle intended away from the straight on line, and "throw" the ob back into the line.
2) impart/transfer some spin to the ob.
3) stop the cue ball from moving by conterbalance the reminanse moving tendency in the stun direction.

The trick is, after compensate for the deflection, you are still not aimming the cue ball at the full hit.
 
JayKidd said:
Actually, this test could have been unsuccessful on old snooker felt since the side spin on the OB will be wore out by the felt before it hit the head rail. It can be done on new felt and new balls, I am sure. But it might fail to prove the point on used equipments even though in fact the net transferred spin is indeed stronger after the hit.
Click to expand...

Try the shot and let us know how it goes. The shot has worked on every table I've tried it on, and it tends to work more easily on old cloth.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here's a simple demo posed as a proposition shot. Under the right conditions, you can add a second blocker ball frozen to the 2 ball so the block is a full two balls wide. People who don't know that you can spin the object ball could lose a lot of money at this proposition.

View attachment 348909
Click to expand...

OK, but you could make those shots without using any side spin at all. In fact, at that distance - with the loss of spin - my guess is that it would be really difficult to make those without any variation in speed.
 
BRussell said:
I bet you could make those shots without using any side spin at all. In fact, at that distance - with the loss of spin - my guess is that it would be really difficult to make those without any variation in speed.
Click to expand...
You can make them with just cut-induced spin. To prove that it is the side spin on the cue ball that is doing the work, you have to place the cue ball so that the shot requires outside english or a full hit.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Try the shot and let us know how it goes. The shot has worked on every table I've tried it on, and it tends to work more easily on old cloth.
Click to expand...

Bob, I agree with you. It works on almost all american style tables. But on table's with british snooker style felt, especially the old ones, the side spin stays on the balls much shorter. I wasn't referring to the snooker tables in the states or canada, the british ones.
 
BRussell said:
OK, but you could make those shots without using any side spin at all. In fact, at that distance - with the loss of spin - my guess is that it would be really difficult to make those without any variation in speed.
Click to expand...

then change the angle so the only way you can make them will by transferred spin... JB gave you a clue when you try it... Less is more......
 
there are several banks that depend on transfers that need english tranfer AND contact transfer..... Cole Dickson jumped into balls on the rail with some inside and perplexed those who watched them fall... A dab.. A dash... A touch can be the difference from getting paid and going home broke.....
 
Here's the truth.

Cue ball spin DOES transfer it's opposite to the OB. Usually. Most of the time. Well, it depends. :)

Obviously, there are some variables involved.

I have a rough list of what I think those variables might be, but I'd love to hear your ideas about them.

If you are serious about finding an answer to this question, I strongly encourage you to start by watching the first 5 videos in my SloMo pool playlist over on YouTube. These were all shot with a real slow motion camera (4x to 33x slower than real time -- most clips are at 8x). Pay close attention to the spin of the cue ball versus the resulting spin of the OB.

http://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlw7cNe9koP3oVpqpqbAebe39gwkN48tI

With these videos as a starting point, and with practice and further discussion here, we all can make our own determinations of how (and why) cue ball spin affects OB spin.

If we can continue sharing our observations, and debating ideas respectfully, we can all learn this game together.

-Blake
 
Post

If the two balls are in a direct straight line and shot straight but hit with side the OB will not spin... As soon as you leave the straight line in a shot then the spin transfers.
Champion one pocket players can spin the OB like no ones business'



Rob.M
 
Billiardsfan said:
I'm not sure how to post a diagram but there is a particular one pocket full table bank shot where the OB is about and inch off the long rail and the CB is farther off the rail. You shoot the OB about an inch wide of the corner pocket with a tip and a half or so inside english and the OB will come off the rail opposite of the angle it came into the end rail and bank back. I am sure that someone can find a video of diagram for it. I am not the best or smartest player, but I would think that this shot would prove that english IS transfered to some degree?

Found a video here. This one is a short rail bank but it is the same principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeY1ECLcKz0
Click to expand...

Grady Mathews used to show the long rail shot in his videos and personal appearances. This link to one of his videos illustrates the concept. The only way the ball comes back is from transferred spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8SVo2XC-1g
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top