spin transfered... a myth?

[Bob Jewett]

Here is an article about the history of the transferred side "controversy":
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2007-04.pdf
Here is an article with a brief explanation of the physics behind transferred spin and a simple demo bank that you can try for yourself. There's no need to listen to so-called experts when you can do the experiment yourself.
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2007-05.pdf

 

[Spider1]

I honestly didn't even think this was up for debate.

On the first shot he shoots, look at the stripe of the 10 ball. It starts out vertical. If the ball gets no side, it should remain vertical and the stripe should roll like a tire towards the pocket. It does not. Try the experiment for yourself. First try a shot without side spin on the cue ball to see if you can send the stripe away rolling straight. Then use side spin. Let us know how your own experiment comes out.

Exactly. You can see the spin imparted on the 10 ball easily. The blue stripe is vertical, and after the hit the stripe doesn't spin perfectly in line.

Anyone can test this themselves very easily. Mark two spots on the table for a bank shot and put the cue ball and an object ball on the spots. Hit it same speed into the rail with no english, left english, then right english. The object ball will rebound to different places every time. Again, didn't know this was even up for debate.

 

[Banks]

I've only seen a very small effect on the second ball on combinations. It is much less than the usual amount of throw. In combinations, it's also hard to separate the spin from spin and the spin from cut.

The twist is primarily CIS(collision spin). That doesn't make spin transfer any less real, though. This was one of the first topics I remember seeing when I joined here. Luckily, Freddy chimed in to confirm it was real. Combos can be helped a little, but it can make the shot just as difficult if not more so. I'm agreeing with WhatsHisFace and his questioning of how people can't see it themselves. I used to practice it when I'd get bored and run low on quarters, leaving myself to just bank the last ball back to myself and try to see how much angle I could create with spin.. if anyone(including Sigel) still doubts it, they're free to try it themselves. :thumbup:

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Meh, cute answer, but you've got a bet (read on).

What was NOT stated NOR asked was what/how much effect the transferred spin has.

Back to the bet, I'll definitely find a high school student with a 'B-' in physics to prove that spin transfers against any pro player proving that it doesn't. I'll even give you 10-1 odds.

dld

Um, we're playing pool, not conducting physics experiments.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Good. You can back the physicist and I'll back Sigel.

In determining whether or not spin is transferred, my money is also on the physicist.

KMRUNOUT

 

[JC]

Anyone who believe spin isn't tranferred

Is just too ignorant to argue with.

I shorten and widen bank shots with english to clear blockers every day. How does this occur?

Magic? Remote control?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Of course spin transfers.

Just look at when 2 balls are frozen and you run the cueball into the first one. If you couldn't transfer spin, the 2nd ball would always travel straight in line.

But of course if you spin the cueball, the 2nd ball will be thrown one way or the other. Or if you cut the first ball you can throw the 2nd ball.

IT'S OBVIOUS IF YOU PAY ATTENTION. ALL THAT'S NEEDED IS TO PAY A BIT OF ATTENTION AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

HOW CAN ANYONE DENY SUCH SIMPLY THINGS. IT IS GOD DAMN OBVIOUS

Science is very much about calling the obvious into question. What is "obvious" can VERY often camouflage the truth of things.

KMRUNOUT

 

[supergreenman]

In determining whether or not spin is transferred, my money is also on the physicist.

KMRUNOUT

In taking the cash against the scientist playing billiards, my money is on Sigel.

That being said, I use transferred spin to twist banks quite often.

 

[sheffield6]

I agree with this for most US players, but it is a common belief in the UK that spin cannot be transferred. Mostly I think this comes from the most celebrated British pool author, Riso Levi, who consistently and sometimes obnoxiously maintained that side could not be transferred. That was in spite of no less a star than Walter Lindrum -- for history non-buffs, he was more dominant in his time than Greenleaf, Mosconi or Strickland -- saying that he routinely used transferred side.

I also agree that the effect is only useful on banks.

Got to say, Bob, it is not common belief in the UK that spin cannot be transferred.
Walter Lindrum was Australian.(by far the greatest ever player of English billiards)
Never heard of Riso Levi.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In determining whether or not spin is transferred, my money is also on the physicist.

KMRUNOUT

Yes well, let me know when the next physicist pool tournament is. I'm sure that will be a hoot.


Seriously, what application in pool does this information REALLY have? Is this information going to change your shot selection? I mean, perhaps I'm not giving this a lot of thought but I can't think of a single instance where I would play a shot differently because of spin transferred to the object ball.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I agree with this for most US players, but it is a common belief in the UK that spin cannot be transferred. Mostly I think this comes from the most celebrated British pool author, Riso Levi, who consistently and sometimes obnoxiously maintained that side could not be transferred. That was in spite of no less a star than Walter Lindrum -- for history non-buffs, he was more dominant in his time than Greenleaf, Mosconi or Strickland -- saying that he routinely used transferred side.

I also agree that the effect is only useful on banks.

I believe this effect has application in multi-ball combos. When more than two balls are frozen together in some sort of sequence, it *seems* that spin on the cue ball can alter the path of the 3rd ball. I have not done any experiments to verify this...just talking from my observation and experience.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In taking the cash against the scientist playing billiards, my money is on Sigel.

That being said, I use transferred spin to twist banks quite often.

I'm sorry but now you have officially lost me. The moment that object ball hits a rail, that rail is imparting spin on it, not the cueball. Perhaps you're talking about throw.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I think that the effect is not significantly larger for frozen balls. Do you have a demonstration that shows this?

Physics would suggest that it *is* larger, since in general the coefficient of static (not moving but touching) friction is generally quite a bit more than the coefficient of kinetic friction (touching while moving).

KMRUNOUT

 

[cleary]

Um, we're playing pool, not conducting physics experiments.

When I play, it looks like an experiment...

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I believe this effect has application in multi-ball combos. When more than two balls are frozen together in some sort of sequence, it *seems* that spin on the cue ball can alter the path of the 3rd ball. I have not done any experiments to verify this...just talking from my observation and experience.

KMRUNOUT

When more than two balls are frozen together, your influence is going to be minimal at best. I play enough 14.1 to know that once you get into the 3-frozen-ball scenarios, the path of the last ball is locked in.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Watch Alex's part on kicking and banking in the Break and Run DVD set from Runout media. Proof it transfers to the OB.

 

[supergreenman]

I'm sorry but now you have officially lost me. The moment that object ball hits a rail, that rail is imparting spin on it, not the cueball. Perhaps you're talking about throw.

Take a cueball and an object ball line them up straight at a rail, use either left or right english and shoot the ball directly at the rail and let me know what happens.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Of course spin transfers.

Just look at when 2 balls are frozen and you run the cueball into the first one. If you couldn't transfer spin, the 2nd ball would always travel straight in line.

But of course if you spin the cueball, the 2nd ball will be thrown one way or the other. Or if you cut the first ball you can throw the 2nd ball.

IT'S OBVIOUS IF YOU PAY ATTENTION. ALL THAT'S NEEDED IS TO PAY A BIT OF ATTENTION AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

HOW CAN ANYONE DENY SUCH SIMPLY THINGS. IT IS GOD DAMN OBVIOUS

Woah man don't get bent out of shape

 

[TATE]

Yes well, let me know when the next physicist pool tournament is. I'm sure that will be a hoot.


Seriously, what application in pool does this information REALLY have? Is this information going to change your shot selection? I mean, perhaps I'm not giving this a lot of thought but I can't think of a single instance where I would play a shot differently because of spin transferred to the object ball.

Jude,

I know you're a good player and you hear a lot of stuff. One of the common spin transfer tips I hear - from Billy Incardona on here and articles written in Billiards Digest - is how shots can be hit with "helping spin" that make the pocket play larger.

Logically I don't think enough spin can be transferred to help very much, but there is a pretty common notion that outside english helps the pocket accept cut shots along the rail because of the spin transfer.

In humid, sticky conditions, my experience is this does seem to be true, but I can't prove it.

Chris

 

[KMRUNOUT]

In taking the cash against the scientist playing billiards, my money is on Sigel.

That being said, I use transferred spin to twist banks quite often.

As I'm sure you (and Jude) are aware, the outcome of any pool match has no bearing on the truth of any principles of physics. Settling the issue with a pool match is pretty much the same as asking to "go outside" when one's argument skills are shown to be inadequate. Mike Sigel could run 100 million balls, but it doesn't make him right about anything. The truth makes him right. Supergreen, I agree in a pool contest my money is also on Sigel!

KMRUNOUT