Nevermind.
Last edited:
Using draw causes more misses?
- Thread starter scottjen26
- Start date
No matter how hard you hit the ball there is an instant the balls touch, at that moment of impact the draw is imparting top spin on the ob ball for that brief moment. The one ball that Efren hit was so close to the pocket you could not see the effects of the colission, but if balls were farther apart it would be more noticable. there are other factors that play into this aswell, IE. dirty balls
friction from the cloth etc. hope this clears it up a little for you.
It's ok bro.
SFC9ball...Please read post #21...it might help clear things up for you!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
No matter how hard you hit the ball there is an instant the balls touch, at that moment of impact the draw is imparting top spin on the ob ball for that brief moment. The one ball that Efren hit was so close to the pocket you could not see the effects of the colission, but if balls were farther apart it would be more noticable. there are other factors that play into this aswell, IE. dirty balls
Remind me never to air-barrel you.
We all are going to have preferences in cues...seems like you could use a
lighter cue than the average person.
But the main value of having your own cue is how it spins.If it deflects
too much, the cue becomes a handicap.
When I'm shopping for a cue I shoot the 'spot shot' with high inside english.
If I miss the FIRST shot by too much I either tweak it or don't buy it.
Try it and report please..remember, just one shot.
That's my link. I'm just trying to prove something to you. There was minimal spin imparted onto the one ball. You would think at that speed, the spin imparted would increase but it doesn't.
It's actually elementary stuff. Accelerating objects inside a moving vehicle is moving at a faster speed than the car. Same for spin on a moving ball. That said tho, the transfer is negligible in the pocketing of ob equation.
Efren didn't spin the ball.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at. There is no spin imparted on the one ball. He cheats the pocket and draws the ball back. That isn't a spin shot, it's a draw shot. How can you determine the spin effect when the ball is 8 inches from the pocket and the cue ball doesn't touch a rail?
I don't see how this proves your point, or mine for that matter.
And, if you want to get technical, the small amount of left spin he put on the cueball was cancelled by the collision induced throw (as Freddy the Beard calls it) to essentially straighten the object ball back out. This game can get pretty interesting sometimes.
Last edited:
There is minimal spin transferred when the cue ball is hit with spin - draw -> follow, left -> right, etc. But especially at the speeds I'm talking about, the effect would be even more minimal. Even if some follow transmitted to the OB on the shots I'm talking about, I don't think that would result in the OB being pocketed less often.
From the discussions, seems like the consensus is that tighter pockets or pockets that play tighter because of design are exactly that - tight. The harder you shoot, the more accurate you have to be, regardless of spin, but because many people do hit harder than necessary on draw shots, or jack up and bounce the ball slightly, the draw itself could be blamed for the increased inaccuracy. I think all of us have a tendency to hedge slightly toward the rail on these shots because you know you will miss if you are too far outside, and visually the pocket looks bigger by including the rail, since there's always a chance it bounces in if it hits the rail first. I found you really have to focus on what part of the pocket you are aiming into as your shot speed increases. I don't think shaft size or grip type has anything to do with it either way. A smooth and accurate stroke will put the ball in the hole no matter what.
Except as someone said, on certain types of pocket designs (Olhausens spring to mind) you have a very, very, very small target because you have to miss the rail going in and the opposite pocket facing has to be hit perfectly as well because of the design of the pocket. Not impossible, but I asked David Howard one time about a particular shot on these types of tables, knowing he had played around the world on many types of equipment, and he said you have to hit it so perfect that often you are better off hitting it softer and accepting a longer shot or just choosing a different shot altogether since the odds of you missing are just too high. But then again, those guys rarely end up screwing themselves on angles where a hard stroke like that is necessary...
Scott
From the discussions, seems like the consensus is that tighter pockets or pockets that play tighter because of design are exactly that - tight. The harder you shoot, the more accurate you have to be, regardless of spin, but because many people do hit harder than necessary on draw shots, or jack up and bounce the ball slightly, the draw itself could be blamed for the increased inaccuracy. I think all of us have a tendency to hedge slightly toward the rail on these shots because you know you will miss if you are too far outside, and visually the pocket looks bigger by including the rail, since there's always a chance it bounces in if it hits the rail first. I found you really have to focus on what part of the pocket you are aiming into as your shot speed increases. I don't think shaft size or grip type has anything to do with it either way. A smooth and accurate stroke will put the ball in the hole no matter what.
Except as someone said, on certain types of pocket designs (Olhausens spring to mind) you have a very, very, very small target because you have to miss the rail going in and the opposite pocket facing has to be hit perfectly as well because of the design of the pocket. Not impossible, but I asked David Howard one time about a particular shot on these types of tables, knowing he had played around the world on many types of equipment, and he said you have to hit it so perfect that often you are better off hitting it softer and accepting a longer shot or just choosing a different shot altogether since the odds of you missing are just too high. But then again, those guys rarely end up screwing themselves on angles where a hard stroke like that is necessary...
Scott
That video is a very poor example. We don't have the camera angle or video resolution to make a fair assumption of anything. Not only that, the one ball is far too close to the pocket.
Here you're talking about effects of spin on the cue ball along the rails. You're wrong due to the reason I pointed out above.
This is a completely different matter. "At that speed", I agree with you that practically it won't matter (although there is still an infinitesimal top spin transferred to the one ball), but that was not my original point, and I thought it neither was yours.
No one thinks that "at that speed" the spin imparted onto the one ball would increase, but you. In fact, it is just the opposite:
The spin imparted on the one ball depends on the "time of contact", and the friction force between the cue ball and the one ball "during" the time of contact.
Obviously, the harder the hit, the shorter the time of contact, hence the smaller the amount of spin transferred.
Your analogy here is not helping. In fact, I have a hard time even making sense out of it. Accelerating objects inside a moving vehicle are moving faster than the speed of the car in which reference frame?
I'm not going to explain all this. It's easy to understand. He smashed the one ball. It should have jumped off the table. The sound of it rattling inside the pockets should tell you everything.
Are you kidding me? There was Zero spin on any balls until the cue ball made its way half a diamond from impact.
I hate all of you.
The very fact that the ball didn't jump off the table suggests that pockets are as they should be.
Don't try everything you see on the internet at home or at your pool hall :thumbup:
Don't hate the player, hate the game or physics itself, but it doesn't matter about the latter
edit: hint: just because you can't see it doesn't mean there was zero spin on the balls. I suggest you watch Dr. Dave's high speed videos. Later...
Last edited:
Don't hate the player, hate the game or physics itself, but it doesn't matter about the latter
edit: hint: just because you can't see it doesn't mean there was zero spin on the balls. I suggest you watch Dr. Dave's high speed videos. Later...
Ok ok .....I'm tapping out. I'm going to watch Dr. Dave's Videos, read quantum physics books, peel potatoes to Dr Dave Videos. Sir, yes sir!
That would be pretty bad ass if you could impart spin on the cueball after contact with object balls. That would totally change the way the game was played.
NO! Unless the combo is frozen......randyg
This could be a fact.....randyg
many players when using draw hit down ward on the cue ball instead of lowering their bridge and having a level cue stick.
this is like using a masse shot. anytime you hit down it is easy to make the cue ball curve. hold you stick level and draw shots become easy. no reason a player of moderate speed cannot draw the cue the length of the table on a medium long shot.
this is like using a masse shot. anytime you hit down it is easy to make the cue ball curve. hold you stick level and draw shots become easy. no reason a player of moderate speed cannot draw the cue the length of the table on a medium long shot.