spin transfered... a myth?

Jude Rosenstock said:
It's simply very useful information for banking with english. Thanks guys and I apologize for any feathers I ruffled yesterday.
Click to expand...

Jude, big props to you. You had an open mind, and found out about the truth yourself. You have another shot in your arsenal now, and as you keep playing, you'll notice that this shot is not only limited to twist banks, but can be utilized in many different situations as they may come :thumbup:
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
In truth, I honestly don't know how often this "twist bank" is going to come up
Click to expand...

In one pocket, the situation comes up fairly often but its rarely the right shot to shoot. It's not a hanger for anyone on a tight table so it's gotta be a free shot.

In 9ball though, there are plenty of times you get funny on the 9ball.. like get on the 50 yard line and just cannot cut it in. So you play the back cut bank. Without outside english, it banks a little short. With outside english, it banks a good or maybe even a little long. It will hit the rail at the same stop and you can see the effect when it comes off the rail.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
The person who made the above video failed to notice that on his first shot side was transferred to the object ball. The stripe was twisted as the 10 rolled to the pocket -- the ball did not roll like a tire.
Click to expand...

I agree with Bob on this. The first shot put a clear and definite twist on the object ball while the following two shots did not. A little bit of "twist" was still present in the last two; it was just not so evident. But there were a couple differences between the first shot and those last two: the first shot had the "cue ball" (#14) closer to the object ball (#10), and it was shot at a faster speed. The shooter even announced that he was going to slow those latter shots down. I believe he did this because a further distance and slower speed would mean that the cue ball would not only retain less spin by the time it got to the object ball (thereby transferring less spin), it would also reduce the skid length of the object ball, which is where side-spin combines with friction causing the ball to be thrown off line. And that's what happened in all three of those shots. In the first one, he used right side, and the object ball was thrown to the left. In the next two, he used left side spin, and the ball was thrown to the right. Therefore, some amount of side spin was transferred on each shot, and that transferred side spin did have an effect on the shot (not one of the balls went into the center of the pocket).

Am I correct on this Bob, or am I all wet?

Roger
 
cleary said:
In one pocket, the situation comes up fairly often but its rarely the right shot to shoot. It's not a hanger for anyone on a tight table so it's gotta be a free shot.

In 9ball though, there are plenty of times you get funny on the 9ball.. like get on the 50 yard line and just cannot cut it in. So you play the back cut bank. Without outside english, it banks a little short. With outside english, it banks a good or maybe even a little long. It will hit the rail at the same stop and you can see the effect when it comes off the rail.
Click to expand...

There's one particular side-pocket bank shot I often use that I *thought* was throwing. Now I'm thinking I'm transferring spin/throwing. So, that's useful. As for the "twist", I don't think it's going to ever come up in a 9ball match for me but I'm sure to use it in 8-ball since there are plenty of scenarios where playing safe isn't an option.


EDIT: I take that back. I really don't know how I'll use a twist shot. I can think of two-way scenarios where I would definitely give it a try.
 
Last edited:
Jude Rosenstock said:
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.
Click to expand...

it plays into your aim on every bank shot that isnt lying on a direct straight full ball hit.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
There's one particular side-pocket bank shot I often use that I *thought* was throwing. Now I'm thinking I'm transferring spin/throwing. So, that's useful. As for the "twist", I don't think it's going to ever come up in a 9ball match for me but I'm sure to use it in 8-ball since there are plenty of scenarios where playing safe isn't an option.


EDIT: I take that back. I really don't know how I'll use a twist shot. I can think of two-way scenarios where I would definitely give it a try.
Click to expand...
2-ways are excellent choices for when to use "twisted" (or other kinds of lower-percentage) banks in games like 8-ball, 9-ball and even one pocket.

pj
chgo
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
So, I headed off to the poolroom last night and gave this bank shot a try. Initially, like an earlier post, I tried going into a rail at a 90 degree angle using a lot of spin but truthfully, there's just so much going on with all the throw that I found it difficult to get truly conclusive evidence so I set up a simpler version of the shot Cleary posted.

My first try I nailed it. (diagram below). I didn't even use a whole lot of spin and honestly, the object ball doesn't "spin", you really are just shifting its axis just enough to make a difference. Initially, I thought this was conclusive but then realized that I was using english & contact-induced spin. Of course the objectball was going to shift.

View attachment 220153

So I set up the shot below and actually managed to miss it on the "impossible" side on my first try. It really doesn't take much to get it going. It's a very interesting shot. In truth, I honestly don't know how often this "twist bank" is going to come up but that doesn't really matter. It's simply very useful information for banking with english. Thanks guys and I apologize for any feathers I ruffled yesterday.

View attachment 220154
Click to expand...
That second shot (with the cut angle that eliminates any possibility of collision-transferred spin, usually with a blocking ball on the rail to also eliminate any possibility of overcutting) is one of the common test shots to show spin-transferred spin. Good for you for thinking of it.

To maximize spin-transferred spin, hit with stun, about half maximum sidespin, and not too fast. Collision-transferred spin is maximized at about a half ball hit.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
That second shot (with the cut angle that eliminates any possibility of collision-transferred spin, usually with a blocking ball on the rail to also eliminate any possibility of overcutting) is one of the common test shots to show spin-transferred spin. Good for you for thinking of it.

To maximize spin-transferred spin, hit with stun, about half maximum sidespin, and not too fast. Collision-transferred spin is maximized at about a half ball hit.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Wait, regarding spin-transferred-spin, are you saying it should be hit as stun because you'll get the cueball spinning on its axis? I ask because I have a different thought about that, something I'll try to test out tonight.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Wait, regarding spin-transferred-spin, are you saying it should be hit as stun because you'll get the cueball spinning on its axis? I ask because I have a different thought about that, something I'll try to test out tonight.
Click to expand...
Stun maximizes the horizontal-direction friction between the balls. There's only so much friction to go around and that way none is wasted on vertical force (which is mostly eliminated by the table cloth anyway). John Brumback points out on his new DVD that using draw to get the cue ball out of the way of banks that you're "stiffing" with sidespin is often the wrong thing to do.

Most players (even bankers who are hypersensitive to this stuff) also try to maximize transferred spin by hitting hard with maximum spin. It's counterintuitive, but that's often counterproductive.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Stun maximizes the horizontal-direction friction between the balls. There's only so much friction to go around and that way none is wasted on vertical force (which is mostly eliminated by the table cloth anyway). John Brumback points out on his new DVD that using draw to get the cue ball out of the way of banks that you're "stiffing" with sidespin is often the wrong thing to do.

Most players (even bankers who are hypersensitive to this stuff) also try to maximize transferred spin by hitting hard with maximum spin. It's counterintuitive, but that's often counterproductive.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking of a drag-draw. I'm at least curious to see if it yields any difference.
 
Just a thought

For the record, I believe that side spin on the cue ball transfers to the object ball. To prove it experimentally though, has anyone thought to get a ball spinning in place and then hitting the cue ball straight into it with stun (i.e. no spin)? The idea just hit me as I'm sitting in my cubicle, so I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I don't have the straightest stroke in the world in any case so I'm probably not the best person to conduct the experiment. Could one of you straight strokers try this out and report back to the thread?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Most players (even bankers who are hypersensitive to this stuff) also try to maximize transferred spin by hitting hard with maximum spin. It's counterintuitive, but that's often counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Maybe not maximum spin, but hitting harder does have its benefits, especially for table-length banks. It is generally true that the harder you hit the shot, the less spin gets transferred on the OB. However, it is also true that the faster the OB travels, the more side spin the OB retains by the time it hits the cushion. And all you really care about is how much spin the OB has at OB/cushion impact (if your main goal is to maximize rebounding angle), not so much the amount of spin the OB has at CB/OB impact.
 
sheffield6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that one - and the one in an earlier post - was aimed at me. It is true that Joe Davis-era players used to refute spin transference. They just concentrated on making sure they could cue a ball correctly instead, rather than endlessly tinker with semantics to satisfy their egos. Their legacy is a nation of naturally gifted straight shooters.

So much for us to learn!
 
TheThaiger said:
I think that one - and the one in an earlier post - was aimed at me. It is true that Joe Davis-era players used to refute spin transference. They just concentrated on making sure they could cue a ball correctly instead, rather than endlessly tinker with semantics to satisfy their egos. Their legacy is a nation of naturally gifted straight shooters.

So much for us to learn!
Click to expand...
I thought you were Canadian. Sorry.

It's not just a matter of semantics. It's a matter of understanding what you can do in more complicated situations. I think those don't come up as often in snooker as they do at some pool games, so it is far less important for snooker players to be concerned about how to deal with them. It's hard to find someone who plays bank pool or one pocket on a snooker table.

As for the straight shooting, I agree with that partly, but I think it is due more to structured, intense practice and emphasis on fundamentals than it is to any difference in gifts.
 
Me:
Most players (even bankers who are hypersensitive to this stuff) also try to maximize transferred spin by hitting hard with maximum spin. It's counterintuitive, but that's often counterproductive.
Click to expand...
jsp:
Maybe not maximum spin, but hitting harder does have its benefits, especially for table-length banks. It is generally true that the harder you hit the shot, the less spin gets transferred on the OB. However, it is also true that the faster the OB travels, the more side spin the OB retains by the time it hits the cushion. And all you really care about is how much spin the OB has at OB/cushion impact (if your main goal is to maximize rebounding angle), not so much the amount of spin the OB has at CB/OB impact.
Click to expand...
True; it's a tradeoff when the CB is more than a moderate distance from the rail - the right balance has to be found for maximum sidespin effect. But many bankers hit the majority of their banks harder than required for that too (probably to minimize the speed variable).

pj
chgo
 
:d
thethaiger said:
i think that one - and the one in an earlier post - was aimed at me. It is true that joe davis-era players used to refute spin transference. They just concentrated on making sure they could cue a ball correctly instead, rather than endlessly tinker with semantics to satisfy their egos. Their legacy is a nation of naturally gifted straight shooters.

So much for us to learn!
Click to expand...

...:d:d:d
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Do I need to keep apologizing for what I said earlier or can we keep it at one?
Click to expand...

:-) I didn't catch you disagreeing with the spin transfer premise. I was only messing with you on the physicist playing pool comment because I know Jony is a physicist and I thought it was a funny way to mess with you.

I hadn't read the rest of the thread. Wasn't knocking you just playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top