Why can't I tranfer spin on this shot?

[Cornerman]

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

Good video. I'd like for you to have not said "quite a bit to the right" since in reality, it wasn't. It was just a bit to the right. Certainly not to the extent that others like to draw (here and in books)

But, in the end, this shot with dirty balls on Shot #2 is only a little bit of spin induced throw. It's not the tremendous amount, nor is it a trivial thing to try to hit the object ball fairly full and throw it over. Shot number #2 is really what the OP was trying to do. I think this is a significant amount of throw to miss a shot, but it's not 1" per 12" either. It looks like 2" over 8 feet.

So, I think the answer still is: in the shot that the OP set up, you can't significantly throw that ball over to the left of the diamond like they're trying. And if they're using clean balls, they've got no shot whatsoever.

Fair or not fair?

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

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.

Exactly. And that's why he won't see that object ball throw to the left ,regardless of what beautiful stroke some posters want him to use.

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

The shot wasn't a frozen shot, Colin. So, it doesn't seem wrong to me

I believe he used those balls just to line things up. Page 2 was the shot. He's pulled the cueball back in line, and pulled the other ball. It's the same shot that Dr. Dave uses in his throw bank shot 2.1 and his spin-induced throw full-in-the-face shot NV B.21.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

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

Sorry, I meant NV A.21.

I like this NV A.21 better because it shows the same exact shot that the OP is shooting, without being mislead by camera angle, perspective, etc. We see just what the OP saw. Straight shot into the cushion, stick and spin the cueball, object ball straight into the diamond, not to the left of it, and the spin brings the cueball left.

You've got dirty balls, Dave. That shot doesn't normally go on clean equipment. Not like that. People are going to try this stuff in pool halls and tournaments only to find out that's even less than what's shown in NVB.21. And they'll blame it on their stroke. That's a travestyl.


Fred

 

[cigjonser]

SIT, SIS Experiment

You could probably show both SIT and SIS with this shot. Lock three balls together with the 10 ball stripe line dead straight parallel to the side rails. Put the CB a TINY bit offline (even less offline than cuetable will allow, maybe a millimeter). Then shoot the 10 with some right english. Since you'll be shooting the 10 slightly away from the 1 ball the only way it could possibly hit it and move the 2 ball is if there is some SIT happening. Also, without SIS the 10 will spin counterclockwise. If there is SIS happening the 10 will stay straight or spin clockwise. (Although, the friction between the 10 and the 1 might be enough to stop SIS from happening at all, or at least reduce it greatly).

CueTable Help

Edit: I couldn't get cuetable to give me a second page (or I just don't know how), but the CB should be pulled back so it's not locked to the 10 and slightly offline so it's a tiny cut to the right to have the 10 go straight.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's a better setup.

CueTable Help

You should be able to transfer enough spin through an OB to a second OB to get some throw and some sidespin on the second OB - enough to bank it in the corner. Don't overpower the shot, use only about 1/2 maximum sidespin and be sure to hit a stop shot.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Here's a better setup.

CueTable Help

You should be able to transfer enough spin through an OB to a second OB to get some throw and some sidespin on the second OB - enough to bank it in the corner. Don't overpower the shot, use only about 1/2 maximum sidespin and be sure to hit a stop shot.

FYI, many variations of this shot are demonstrated in NV A.21.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

in all fairness

... So, I think the answer still is: in the shot that the OP set up, you can't significantly throw that ball over to the left of the diamond like they're trying. And if they're using clean balls, they've got no shot whatsoever.

Fair or not fair?

Fair, especially if they are using clean and polished balls, and if the CB is not very close to the OB.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

You've got dirty balls, Dave. That shot doesn't normally go on clean equipment. Not like that. People are going to try this stuff in pool halls and tournaments only to find out that's even less than what's shown in NV B.21. And they'll blame it on their stroke. That's a travestyl.

Fred,

I admit my pool ball hygiene is probably not as good as it could be, but my pool balls seems to react similarly to balls at local pool halls and bars. Now, I agree with you that new, clean, and polished tournament balls would exhibit less (maybe much less) throw and spin transfer than with typical pool hall or bar conditions. Also, the amount of "turn" created off the rail due to spin transfer will vary significantly with cloth conditions and humidity.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Isn't "travesty" a little too strong of a word here?

 

[Scott Lee]

Colin...It is useless to debate this. The shot shown can be made, throwing the OB with NO spin whatsoever. Therefore, english is not needed to throw the OB into the pocket. You're right...if they're frozen, the OB throws 1" per foot...which is exactly what I said. Oh, and yes I do teach bank pool...pretty well, in fact. This is my last post in this ridiculous thread.

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

 

[Cornerman]

Fred,

I admit my pool ball hygiene is probably not as good as it could be, but my pool balls seems to react similarly to balls at local pool halls and bars. Now, I agree with you that new, clean, and polished tournament balls would exhibit less (maybe much less) throw and spin transfer than with typical pool hall or bar conditions. Also, the amount of "turn" created off the rail due to spin transfer will vary significantly with cloth conditions and humidity.

It all depends where you go, I guess. In my area, the bars are mostly filthy, but there are a few that keep the balls clean and dry.

The tournaments I've been playing, the balls are generally in pretty clean conditions. Maybe that's why I only go to pool halls during tournaments.

PS: Isn't "travesty" a little too strong of a word here?

No, I don't think so. Okay maybe some other word, but what would it be??? I think this shot has been lied about for decades, and even today people will still tell you that you can throw by spin alone some unbelievable amount. People base their entire teaching of english on this. Others write books about it. Others will never try it on a table, but put the shot up on the Wei table like it's gospel. That's a travesty.

 

[SirScratchALot]

hey people, but i havent read the entire thread but heres my view nonetheless........i play with a predator, a non deflective shaft...and i can hit a ball to side rail, straight on, perpendicular to that rail...and bank it in the side pocket.....with no spin, the object ball should come straight back at me.....but hittin it with spin, and a non deflective shaft which my means my cueball is still staying true to its original line (dead straight and perpendicular to the object ball and rail) must mean there is throw on the object ball for it to change direction of the rail and make the bank.....any oppinions??

 

[CueAndMe]

I apologize...

I mistitled the entire thread. I didn't mean to refer to spin transfer. I should have asked why I couldn't throw the ball on that shot.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[CueAndMe]

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 is right about what I was trying to accomplish, though I could have been clearer about my objectives.
Edit: Actually, I didn't care if the cueball struck the blocking 3-ball. I just wanted the 3-ball there to show that the 1-ball couldn't possibly be cut.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Fred is right about what I was trying to accomplish, though I could have been clearer about my objectives.
Edit: Actually, I didn't care if the cueball struck the blocking 3-ball. I just wanted the 3-ball there to show that the 1-ball couldn't possibly be cut.

Fred is also right about some authors exaggerating the usefulness of "cutting a ball in with throw." This is the technique of keeping the cue ball from moving to the side on a nearly straight-in shot by hitting the shot straight and using side spin to throw the ball in the pocket. This is sort of the shot that you are looking at.



The goal is to make both the cue ball and the object ball move towards the rail to the left. Or, you can try to make the cue ball end exactly a ball from the cushion -- just like it starts -- and cut the object ball to the left to the far corner pocket. The question is whether this is possible, and if it is, how far apart can the two balls be and still get them to both go to the left (or have the OB move to the left and not have the cue ball move to the right.
Hint: at some separation, it is possible to make the object ball in the far pocket and make the cue ball hit the cushion to the left. (And without a cheat such as masse -- it can be done with a level stick.)

The "GB" is there to let you know if the OB has moved to the left. Remove it if you are trying to pocket the the OB.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin...It is useless to debate this. The shot shown can be made, throwing the OB with NO spin whatsoever. Therefore, english is not needed to throw the OB into the pocket. You're right...if they're frozen, the OB throws 1" per foot...which is exactly what I said. Oh, and yes I do teach bank pool...pretty well, in fact. This is my last post in this ridiculous thread.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Scott,
The point was that you claimed that SIT cannot throw a frozen ball. On that point you are wrong. Of course CIT can throw the ball too, by a similar amount.

The reason I often prefer to use SIT on this shot is that I have many more options as to final CB position.

It's funny how threads become ridiculous after you make a claim that is challenged. Or do you still deny that SIT throws the ball relative to the LOC of the contact point?

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hint: at some separation, it is possible to make the object ball in the far pocket and make the cue ball hit the cushion to the left. (And without a cheat such as masse -- it can be done with a level stick.)

Bob,
That's an interesting challenge.

I'd expect the throw force leftward on the OB is the same and opposite to the throw force rightward on the CB.

But as the OB is moving against the cloth already, the relative friction opposing the leftward movement is less than the friction exerted on the CB. Hence the OB travels further to the left than the CB does to the right.

Could there be another explanation?

Colin

 

[CueAndMe]

Bob, if that can actually be done, what is happening there? Is the contact with the tip long enough to deflect the CB to the left beyond the blocking ball? Besides right english, is a very soft push through the cueball necessary?

 

[Jal]

Bob,
That's an interesting challenge.

I'd expect the throw force leftward on the OB is the same and opposite to the throw force rightward on the CB.

But as the OB is moving against the cloth already, the relative friction opposing the leftward movement is less than the friction exerted on the CB. Hence the OB travels further to the left than the CB does to the right.

Could there be another explanation?

Colin

Colin and Jeff, I believe the trick is to place the cueball close enough to the object ball such that you can aim the cueball to the left of the targeted pocket. When you then compare the cueball's pre-impact sideways velocity component (toward the left side cushion) against the object ball's corresponding post-impact velocity component, conservation of momentum dictates that both ball's will move to the left after impact; that is, if there's enough throw to make the OB go left. This isn't exact, but I think close enough to get a feel for what's going on. The more throw you can muster, and the closer the balls are to each other, the more the cueball can be aimed to the left of the pocket and still drive the OB toward it. As you point out, throw cancels a lot of this out, thus the requirement for aiming to the left of the pocket.

Cloth friction has essentially no effect on ball/ball collisions. The friction between the balls can easily be several tens of pounds, whereas cloth friction is about 0.2 x (6/16) pound. Even if a ball is driven downward by ball/ball friction, its displacement during the short collision period is so small that no appreciable cloth force has a chance to build up. It's as if the impact is taking place in outer space, for the most part. (It's also a mercifully simplifying fact when looking at the physics of a collision.)

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Bob, if that can actually be done, what is happening there? Is the contact with the tip long enough to deflect the CB to the left beyond the blocking ball? Besides right english, is a very soft push through the cueball necessary?

It's simply that the CB can contact the OB a little left of center and yet throw the OB to the left (due to ball/ball friction). No special cueing necessary.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'd expect the throw force leftward on the OB is the same and opposite to the throw force rightward on the CB.

Yes, but when the CB's leftward momentum exceeds either of these then both CB and OB can move to the left.

pj
chgo