The Miff of Topspin (Simpson chimes in)

Tom Simpson

Beat People With a Stick!
Hi Everyone,

I've pretty much been off the forums for about 10 years now. Someone gave me a heads up about the Myth of Top Spin?? thread that's underway, so I thought I should visit and read it.

I'm now more convinced than ever that this myth needs to be cleared up. My next column (September issue) will address this in a little more depth. A lot of players have a mistaken idea of how follow works, and it's related to this issue.

For those who don't get Inside Pool, I've attached a pdf of the original article, so you can see what the fuss is about.

I think poster 3andstop did a nice job in post #34. Thanks to you and the various other physics fans for helping.

What I feel is really going on is that our adoption of the term "topspin" has led most players to a mistaken idea of how balls behave. It's easy to see how players assume that hitting above center causes overspin. Before I started reading pool physics, I thought so too. I can also see how playing with that mistaken notion can still produce terrific results. I believe that the clearer your grasp of this stuff, the better and smarter you will play. Just as you can learn to pocket balls perfectly without knowing anything about throw, you can play perfect follow without understanding how follow actually works. But I think the truth helps us learn more quickly and helps us better solve new game situations.

My experience is that most players have trouble at first believing that what they've always assumed was overspin in the CB is nothing more than roll - and that "force follow" is merely fast roll. As we hit higher above center, the skidding of the CB decays to full natural roll sooner in the shot. As we hit harder, the skidding zone lengthens.

Other than the special cases of masse and the fleeting overspin it's possible to get, hitting in the last 1/8" of CB before the miscue boundary, what we refer to as "topspin" is roll. Overspin is what you see in the CB after a collision has removed some or all of its linear force. What was, prior to the collision, a rolling CB, now is a stopped or slower moving CB with overspin. That overspin was not there when the CB left the tip.

Please consider that maybe the physics guys are correct (and maybe I'm not nuts). :)
 

Attachments

Neil said:
O.K. I guess I will have to assume that you are right, since I don't know the math involved. But, now let me ask you this-

If I have this right now, you can only ever get natural roll on the cueball. (With the possible exception of a few inches of overspin??) So, I shoot (on a 9' table) a centerball shot shot from ,oh, let's say 5' away, medium speed. The cueball will skid most of the way there, and then assume a natural forward roll. Upon full contact with the ob, it will stop momentarily, and then assume natural roll, and roll up 6"-12" and stop.

Now, I take the same setup and use follow, or topspin. The cb has initial roll, or very little skidding. Upon contact, it stops, and then the natural roll takes over, and it rolls about 6'.

Why the discrepency in distances if in both cases the cueball only had natural roll?


It's all attributable to the different speeds of the cueball just before the collision.
 
What is it?

1) Angular momentum.

2) Linear momentum.

The first is counterintuitive.
 
Neil said:
I understand what you are saying, BUT... you know what a follow stun shot is (rolls forward a few inches after contact), Why then, if I feel I am using the same speed, will I get more follow using tospin?

Because in the follow stun shot, the cueball has not achieved natural roll by the time it strikes the object ball.
 
Thanks Tom. Always great to hear from another BCA Master Instructor......SPF=randyg
 
How are we defining overspin exactly? I'm thinking (assuming standard balls 2.25" diameter)

2.25" ---> 5.71500cm ---> 17.954202 cm circumference

So overspin would be the ball doing more than one full rotation over ~17.954cm travelled in a straight line?
 
Neil said:
Then why does it roll forward at all, and why can I vary the distance it rolls?

Not trying to be argumentative here, it just comes natural.:D Actually trying to learn something , but I'm not totally convinced yet.
'Cause it's half rollin'. The less speed and the higher you cue the faster you'll get natural roll.
 
hejests said:
How are we defining overspin exactly? I'm thinking (assuming standard balls 2.25" diameter)

2.25" ---> 5.71500cm ---> 17.954202 cm circumference

So overspin would be the ball doing more than one full rotation over ~17.954cm travelled in a straight line?
Jesis. Where's my calculator!
 
Neil said:
I understand what you are saying, BUT... you know what a follow stun shot is (rolls forward a few inches after contact), Why then, if I feel I am using the same speed, will I get more follow using tospin?

I would love to have someone with one of those robot players do this for an experiment if it hasn't already been done. Same speed, different heights of contact on the cueball, see if the follow after contact with the ob is the same or not.

"Stun shot" means the CB arrived at the impact skidding (no roll, no backspin, no overspin). Let's say you hit center CB at a certain speed. It starts off skidding, and gradually, the friction with the cloth causes it to assume natural roll. If the CB is still skidding at impact, you get the stop action you describe. If it is not fully rolling yet (skidding less as it approaches roll), you'd still have that little bit of roll in the CB after the collision takes out some of the linear energy. If full roll had been attained before the collision, you'd have more roll in the CB, and thus more follow action. In your example, the higher CB hit resulted in the CB rolling more fully at impact than the lower hit CB.

So, to try to address your question, I'd say that yes, tip height matters, in that the higher you hit above center, the sooner the CB attains full natural roll, for any given speed. Why be skidding - or somewhere in between skid and roll - on follow shots? You can get more consistent speed control and ball action by hitting high on the CB.
 
Neil said:
Then why does it roll forward at all, and why can I vary the distance it rolls?

Not trying to be argumentative here, it just comes natural.:D Actually trying to learn something , but I'm not totally convinced yet.

Because it does have forward spin, just less than the natural roll amount.

A rolling cueball going 2 mph has a spin of 300 rpm

A rolling cueball going 4 mph has a spin of 600 rpm

So let's see the range of what you can do with a 4 mph cueball and a full hit.

The maximum forward spin you can get is 600 rpm. Usually achieving the maximum of something is hard to do. But here it's by far the easiest spin to achieve.

Let's say the 600 rpm cueball will roll 6 feet.

A stop shot (0 rpm at ball contact) is also pretty easy to do.

By hitting slightly higher than the stop-shot spot on the cueball, perhaps the cueball will have 50 rpm of forward spin and will roll forward a few ball widths.

The different follow distances for the 4 mph cueball come from different spins between zero and 600 rpm.
 
Neil said:
I knew that would be the answer. But, then that puts me back at square one. Supposedly, all the cueball can attain is a 1:1 ratio. Now, once the friction of the cloth takes over, and the ball starts rolling, whether it has achieved a complete revolution or not, it has attained a 1:1 ratio. It definently has after a revolution or two.

But, since the foward momentum is the same. And the revolution can not be varied, they should go the same distance. Yet, they don't.
Right, but you don't get a full revolution with stun follow. Friction hasn't entirely won out against skid yet.
 
I'm sitting here wondering how knowing any of this might improve my game and, as of now, I'm drawing a blank here. Regardless of "why" I think the cue ball rolls forward after contacting another ball, it's still going to do just that if I hit the cue ball high.

I don't agree with the "simplicity by omission" approach, but I'm unable to see a practical application of this knowledge. I'm not saying that one doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I'm unable to see it.
 
Too much thinking makes my brain hurt!!

Jimmy,

We are in the same boat. Over analyze may lead to mental paralysis for some. I don't see it and could care less. That's just me though! YMMV


Jimmy M. said:
I'm sitting here wondering how knowing any of this might improve my game and, as of now, I'm drawing a blank here. Regardless of "why" I think the cue ball rolls forward after contacting another ball, it's still going to do just that if I hit the cue ball high.

I don't agree with the "simplicity by omission" approach, but I'm unable to see a practical application of this knowledge. I'm not saying that one doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I'm unable to see it.
 
hejests said:
How are we defining overspin exactly? I'm thinking (assuming standard balls 2.25" diameter)

2.25" ---> 5.71500cm ---> 17.954202 cm circumference

So overspin would be the ball doing more than one full rotation over ~17.954cm travelled in a straight line?
Correct.

Jim
 
Back
Top