Why can't I tranfer spin on this shot?

[dr_dave]

throw and spin transfer do exist, and they are important!

Jeff...It's not that it doesn't exist...it does. However, the AMOUNT of sidespin transfer you can induce, between the CB & OB, is neglible.

Scott, this is not true. There are shots that cannot be made without throw and/or spin transfer! If people still doubt this, please carefully review all of the articles (with experimental evidence) and videos (with shot demonstrations) referenced here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#spin​

On top of that, certain conditions have to exist (dirty balls, for example), for it to happen much at all.

It is true that dirty and old balls throw more than clean, polished, new balls, but the effects are not negligible on certain shots (see the video examples). Also, for more info on this, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#cling​

Your friend is quite correct, in that, for most circumstances, where there appears to be S-I-T, the CB is merely striking a different place on the CB (due to squirt/deflection), than a straight line shot would produce (as in your diagram).

This is not true. See NV A.21 and NV B.20.

For the record, this issue is a can-o'-worms, and I'm not going to get into an argument over it, with the folks who believe the opposite.

Finally, we agree on something.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Randy and Scott disagree on at least one thing

I can't believe that it doesn't work.....SPF=randyg

Now ... if you could only convince Scott.

Regards,
Dave

 

[CueAndMe]

I use spin all the time to throw object balls left or right, so I know that spin-induced throw exists, but the way I set up the blocking 3-ball seemed to keep it from working on this shot, at least for me. It seems others were able to actually move the object ball left of the diamond. Maybe it was the way I was stroking it.

I'm not really concerned about proving that spin is transferred to the object ball. I'm more concerned about throwing the object ball off of the line of centers.

Since the 3-ball didn't allow the cueball to change the line of centers, the spin didn't seem to be enough to throw the 1-ball. If I stroked it properly, which I may not have, what it showed me was that spin causes the lines of centers to change and that in return creates a new cut angle which appears to be a throw but isn't.

 

[JoeyA]

Now ... if you could only convince Scott.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,
Are you saying there is opposite views on spin induced throw, between Randy Goettlicher and Scott Lee?
JoeyA

 

[Cornerman]

I use spin all the time to throw object balls left or right, so I know that spin-induced throw exists, but the way I set up the blocking 3-ball seemed to keep it from working on this shot, at least for me. It seems others were able to actually move the object ball left of the diamond. Maybe it was the way I was stroking it.

It's your setup. Which tells me there are things about throw that you're either misunderstanding or making assumptions that aren't true. If you expect the cueball to stay in place, yet still throw the object ball, good luck. This isn't what happens, though some people will swear it does. Then when asked to show it, they can't. The cueball has to try to go to the right if you expect the object ball to go to the left (standard collision physics). If the cloth is thick (friction-wise) enough, it can hold the movement of the cueball back.

I'm not really concerned about proving that spin is transferred to the object ball.

You should be, considering you weren't really able to prove it given your setup. Plus, that's what you've been talking about all along: spin transfer. Unless, when you said "transfer spin" you actually meant something else. {edit: and I can see by re-reading your post, you indeed really meant spin-induced throw, though you titled your message about spin transfer}

I'm more concerned about throwing the object ball off of the line of centers..

There are subtleties to exactly where the cueball has to hit that object ball, given your setup. If you were expecting to throw the object ball to the left, then the cueball has a force towards the right (right into the objectballs). If you see what I wrote in my other post, to drive that object ball straight forward and keep the cueball in a straight line with a touch of transferred left spin (and spin off the cushion), then you actually have to hit the object ball with just a hair of cut to the right using right spin on the cueball. That is, the cueball should hit just a hair left of center of the object ball in order for it to go straight. That's standard throw concept, right?.

The good news about your setup is you're able to gage how much (or really just how little) throw & spin transfer there is. I think you expected more. There isn't more. Are you interested in proving that to yourself?

Fred

 

[Scott Lee]

When the balls are frozen, there is NO spin-induced-throw. Sidespin has no effect on how much frozen balls throw. In fact, you could throw in the shot in the first diagram, if they were frozen. The rule of thumb for frozen CB/OB throw is about 1" per 1 foot of distance to the pocket. That shot will throw in no matter where you aim on the CB. That doesn't happen the same way, when they are apart, like in your first diagram.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Alright, Scott, how about this then?

CueTable Help

Balls are touching and you can throw that one ball pretty far to the right or left over the length of the table. I agree with you 100% about dirty balls etc... that's exactly what I meant in my first post about many variables.
MULLY

 

[Scott Lee]

JoeyA...Nope, there aren't. Randyg and I have exactly the same opinion on this issue. It CAN happen, but generally only under specific conditions...and when it does, it's not to a significant enough degree to really worry about. In other words, it is an inconsistent principle. We teach principles which occur ALL the time. not just some of the time.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Dave,
Are you saying there is opposite views on spin induced throw, between Randy Goettlicher and Scott Lee?
JoeyA

 

[Scott Lee]

Wow dave...did you even READ my first post? I agreed that it does exist...and no, Randy and do not disagree on this AT ALL!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Now ... if you could only convince Scott.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

Don't hit the shot too hard. Just enough for the spin to still be on the ball when it hits the rail.

Maximum transfer occurs at low speed, when the CB is sliding (so play it just a touch below center ball) and not with maximal sidespin. About 70% out to the miscue point should work fine.

The sliding CB and low speed are the main factors for transfering spin and for maximal throw.

Colin

 

[Cornerman]

Scott, this is not true. There are shots that cannot be made without throw and/or spin transfer!

I don't want to speak for Scott, but on this particular shot, I'm not sure the OP could accomplish what he was thinking he could accomplish. Do you agree or disagree?

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

When the balls are frozen, there is NO spin-induced-throw. Sidespin has no effect on how much frozen balls throw. In fact, you could throw in the shot in the first diagram, if they were frozen. The rule of thumb for frozen CB/OB throw is about 1" per 1 foot of distance to the pocket. That shot will throw in no matter where you aim on the CB. That doesn't happen the same way, when they are apart, like in your first diagram.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Scott,
In our Australian game, we are allowed to play push shots, so not only have I played touching and almost touching balls about a thousand times, I've actually practiced throwing them using both SIT and CIT for many hours learning how to control them.

SIT most certainly does work on frozen balls I assure you, and I have won many games thanks to applying it in a controlled way.

I can turn a ball about 1 inch in 12 from the LOC from a touching ball using purely SIT. That's about 8 inches of deviation over the length of the table. Go hit some. Use soft stun, about 1 tip english.

I think you were trying to say that the balls could be thrown in using CIT? And that you could hit the CB anywhere. That's not true, but you are very unclear about decribing what you mean.

btw: You obviously don't teach bank pool if you don't think transferred side is practical.

Colin

 

[secretsquirrel]

spin induced throw

Just my point of view, take it or leave it. If your buddy doesn't believe in throw then either ask him if he wants to play some or quit having battles of wits with UNARMED people.

 

[dr_dave]

throw and spin transfer debate

Dave,
Are you saying there is opposite views on spin induced throw, between Randy Goettlicher and Scott Lee?
JoeyA

This debate has a long history. Bob Jewett and Mike Sigel had a public debate over this many years ago in the pages of Billiards Digest. And Scott, Randy, and I (with others) have debated this for many years on the BD CCB forum. Randy's position has seemed to have softened some over the years. Scott also seems more accepting, but not as much as Randy. Although, it still seems to me that they both still think throw and spin transfer are not important effects and are "negligible;" although, I should let them speak for themselves. I contend there are quite a few shots that cannot be pocketed without throw and/or spin transfer;and I have provided over the years many articles, experimental results, math and physics, videos, and example shots to prove it.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

I can turn a ball about 1 inch in 12 from the LOC from a touching ball using purely SIT. That's about 8 inches of deviation over the length of the table. Go hit some. Use soft stun, about 1 tip english.

I think you guys really need to go back to the original poster's question, look at both pages of the Wei table, and see what he's really trying to do. I think if you do, you will then agree with me. And with Scott. Both you and Dave are correct in what you're saying, but it's not what the original poster is asking.

He's trying to line two balls straight to the diamond, throw with spin the object ball to the left of the diamond, and not hit the object ball on the right with his cueball. I'm telling him it's not easy to do. No matter what good stroke these wonderful posters are telling him to use. In fact that's been the challenge shot I've diagrammed years ago trying to tell people that spin throw doesn't do what people think it does. Of course it exists, but it doesn't throw a ball over without throwing the cueball over to the opposite side. This is one of those shot in 99 Critical Shots that I believe is a down right lie and something that's mislead good people for decades now.

Dr. Daves NV 2.1 is exactly the same shot as the OP's page 2, you can clearly see that he's not throwing the object ball to the inside of the diamond either. Only the transferred spin makes the bank. If he throws that ball over at all, it's a smidge at best.

Fred <~~~ thinks the question is a fair question that should prove something to the original poster: that spin throw doesn't do what he thinks it can do.

 

[dr_dave]

frozen-ball SIT

When the balls are frozen, there is NO spin-induced-throw.

Then how do you explain the shot in NV 7.6?

Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I don't want to speak for Scott, but on this particular shot, I'm not sure the OP could accomplish what he was thinking he could accomplish. Do you agree or disagree?

I assume you are talking about the shot in the original message of this thread. Obviously, whether or not you could make it depends on ball, cloth, and cushion conditions. I haven't tried it, but I would think it is possible (especially with old and dirty bar or pool hall balls and cloth in a humid climate).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

I assume you are talking about the shot in the original message of this thread. Obviously, whether or not you could make it depends on ball, cloth, and cushion conditions. I haven't tried it, but I would think it is possible (especially with old and dirty bar or pool hall balls and cloth in a humid climate).

Regards,
Dave

You've already shot his shot (Page 2 of his Wei diagram) on your own video. NV 2.1 {edit: NV A.21}You come up with the same results as the original poster.

Answer: he can't throw with spin-induced throw the object ball over to the left of the diamond and not expect to hit the object ball on the right. In other words, spin-induced throw isn't nearly as much as he thought it was.

Fred

 

[dr_dave]

effect of throw on CB

... spin throw doesn't do what people think it does. Of course it exists, but it doesn't throw a ball over without throwing the cueball over to the opposite side. This is one of those shot in 99 Critical Shots that I believe is a down right lie and something that's mislead good people for decades now.

Fred,

I'm sorry I misinterpreted your earlier message about whether the shot could be made.

FYI, my July '07 article touches on this topic. Also, see NV B.21.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

moving the CB and OB in the same direction

You've already shot his shot (Page 2 of his Wei diagram) on your own video. NV 2.1 You come up with the same results as the original poster.

Answer: he can't throw with spin-induced throw the object ball over to the left of the diamond and not expect to hit the object ball on the right. In other words, spin-induced throw isn't nearly as much as he thought it was.

Fred,

Do you mean NV B.21? In the first shot of that video, the CB and OB do move to the right. The physics-based proof is given in TP A.29. Practical application of the results is also illustrated and explaned in my July '07 article. Now, it is not easy to have the CB and OB move the same direction, especially with new, clean, and polished balls, but it can be done. It's a lot easier the closer the CB is to the OB, and if you add a chalk smudge at the point of contact (which was not done in NV B.21).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think you guys really need to go back to the original poster's question, look at both pages of the Wei table, and see what he's really trying to do. I think if you do, you will then agree with me. And with Scott. Both you and Dave are correct in what you're saying, but it's not what the original poster is asking.

He's trying to line two balls straight to the diamond, throw with spin the object ball to the left of the diamond, and not hit the object ball on the right with his cueball. I'm telling him it's not easy to do. No matter what good stroke these wonderful posters are telling him to use. In fact that's been the challenge shot I've diagrammed years ago trying to tell people that spin throw doesn't do what people think it does. Of course it exists, but it doesn't throw a ball over without throwing the cueball over to the opposite side. This is one of those shot in 99 Critical Shots that I believe is a down right lie and something that's mislead good people for decades now.

Dr. Daves NV 2.1 is exactly the same shot as the OP's page 2, you can clearly see that he's not throwing the object ball to the inside of the diamond either. Only the transferred spin makes the bank. If he throws that ball over at all, it's a smidge at best.

Fred <~~~ thinks the question is a fair question that should prove something to the original poster: that spin throw doesn't do what he thinks it can do.

Fred,
I see your point, that the CB will be thrown toward the other ball after impact. Hence the shooter needs to aim further left to avoid the collision. Cancelling out much of the intended throw.

But if the goal was to just shoot legally. i.e. The 1 ball first, regardless of the CB then kissing the other ball, the 1 can be turned about 2 inches from that line by the time it hits the rail.

Does that seem wrong to you?

Colin