Spin revisited...

Spin revisited...

Post by JoePisk » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:25:57


    Ok, over time I have found that power draw and increased spin are in
part a function of how well you hit the ball. I have no problem drawing
the ball the length of the table on fast equipment and there are some
big draw trick shots are within my reach as well, but two things make me
look for yet more spin. One is watching Mike Massey hit his maximum
power draw shot at a local room. From five+ diamonds away, he drew the
ball the length of the table to the short rail and it bounced back to
the other short rail. The other is my own stroke. Every once and a while
I hit the ball so good (meaning I put more spin on it) that instead of
getting one diamond of draw I get four feet. A real difference in spin
to speed ratio. In developing my stroke and working with several
practice balls I have theorized that spin to speed is more of a function
of hitting the ball further off center. (The actual contact point of
radically off center shots is nowhere close to where I thought it was,
due to the curvature of the tip.) Being able to hit more off center is a
function of hitting the ball with a cue that is accelerating more. Such
is my theory as it stands at the moment. I know ask how to get yet more
spin? How to hit more off center? How to make the cue accelerate more?
It would seem that many good players use some amount of wrist action
in their stroke. I know I do in mine, but I have hit some mean draw
shots without it. I have also hit some power draw shots with my break
stroke with some interesting results. (No one has ever been hurt while
doing this, but I would suggest that people reading this not try this at
home and if you do to take the appropriate safety precautions.) So I try
to get this subject going again, thoughts, comments, suggestions?
    Joe.

--
http://www.kudraband.com

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by Patrick Johnso » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:09:54

Quote:

> ... spin to speed is more of a function
> of hitting the ball further off center. (The actual contact point of
> radically off center shots is nowhere close to where I thought it was

I agree with this analysis (although I don't think it has very much to
do with tip curvature).

Quote:
> ... Being able to hit more off center is a
> function of hitting the ball with a cue that is accelerating more.

I'd say "hitting the ball ACCURATELY with a cue that is MOVING FASTER"
(meaning the cue doesn't have to be accelerating at the moment of
contact - if that's what you meant).

There are three factors in getting maximum draw:

1.  Tip offset
2.  Cue speed
3.  Tip/ball accuracy

These are interrelated.  You can't get as much tip offset if your
tip/ball accuracy is low (the margin for error is lower the farther from
center you're trying to hit).  Stroke speed affects tip/ball accuracy,
which affects the amount of tip offset you can get.

So the solution is simple to understand, but not so simple to attain:
get more accurate at higher cue speed.  This takes (you guessed it) lots
of practice - and maybe a coach to help you identify stroke/stance problems.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by JoePisk » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:34:54

Quote:

> I'd say "hitting the ball ACCURATELY with a cue that is MOVING FASTER"
> (meaning the cue doesn't have to be accelerating at the moment of
> contact - if that's what you meant).
> 3.  Tip/ball accuracy

Ok, point taken and we seem to be arguing in similar directions. By 'accurately'
do you mean that the tip of the cue is moving in more of a straight line? That
is an argument that I would be inclined to agree with.
    Joe

--
http://www.kudraband.com

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by Patrick Johnso » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:55:02

Joe:

Quote:
> .... By 'accurately'
> do you mean that the tip of the cue is moving in more of a straight line?

I think the tip should move in a straight line for tip/ball contact to
be accurate, but I'm really only talking about the results -- the tip
hitting precisely where you want it to time after time.  The straight
tip motion is a means to this end.

By the way, I don't mean that one should do whatever's necessary to
entirely eliminate the "up and down" motion of the tip when viewed from
the side.  I think it's better to set up correctly so the tip reaches
the CB at the bottom of your swing, where the tip is "naturally"
travelling horizontally.  Of course, I do think it's best to eliminate
side-to-side motion.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by JoePisk » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:41:54

Quote:

> I think the tip should move in a straight line for tip/ball contact to
> be accurate, but I'm really only talking about the results -- the tip
> hitting precisely where you want it to time after time.  The straight
> tip motion is a means to this end.

Ok. Point clarified. The accuracy in this model allows for the player to get
just a little more off center and therefor a higher spin/speed ratio. Do you
see the spin speed ratio increasing as you get further from center? In other
words, does being able to hit just that little bit further off center allow a
considerable increase in spin? Do you find that you ever reach a point of
diminishing returns?

Quote:

> By the way, I don't mean that one should do whatever's necessary to
> entirely eliminate the "up and down" motion of the tip when viewed from
> the side.  I think it's better to set up correctly so the tip reaches
> the CB at the bottom of your swing, where the tip is "naturally"
> travelling horizontally.  Of course, I do think it's best to eliminate
> side-to-side motion.

Ok, so no backhand english... Lol... I would assume by your comments here that
you do not see any advantage in using wrist action to increase spin. Is that
correct? Just comparing notes.
    Joe

--
http://www.kudraband.com

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by Patrick Johnso » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:12:29

Quote:

> ... does being able to hit just that little bit further off center allow a
> considerable increase in spin?

Yes, and it seems to increase at a greater rate the farther from center
you are.  In other words, if you start at 1/2 tip low and add a couple
millimeters more offset, it might produce, say, 12 inches more draw.
But if you start at a full tip low and add a couple millimeters more
offset, it might produce, say, 36 inches more draw (these are just made
up numbers to illustrate my point).

Quote:
> Do you find that you ever reach a point of
> diminishing returns?

Only from miscues.

Quote:
> ... I would assume by your comments here that
> you do not see any advantage in using wrist action to increase spin. Is that
> correct? Just comparing notes.

Actually, I use a *little* wrist and believe it adds more speed than I
lose in accuracy, which should produce more net spin.  I don't think
everybody should do that -- it depends on your physiology:  if your
wrist hinges right and doesn't add too much variable.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by lfiguero » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:40:53

Something that I feel has really helped me in this regard is trying to
modulate my stroke to maximize spin.  IOW, it's like driving in snow or on
gravel  --  there's an optimum combination of gas and clutch you can use to
achieve the best traction.  When I need a lot of draw or follow, I try and
visualize this and attempt to create the best tip speed for the hit on the
cue ball I've selected.

Lou Figueroa


Quote:
>     Ok, over time I have found that power draw and increased spin are in
> part a function of how well you hit the ball. I have no problem drawing
> the ball the length of the table on fast equipment and there are some
> big draw trick shots are within my reach as well, but two things make me
> look for yet more spin. One is watching Mike Massey hit his maximum
> power draw shot at a local room. From five+ diamonds away, he drew the
> ball the length of the table to the short rail and it bounced back to
> the other short rail. The other is my own stroke. Every once and a while
> I hit the ball so good (meaning I put more spin on it) that instead of
> getting one diamond of draw I get four feet. A real difference in spin
> to speed ratio. In developing my stroke and working with several
> practice balls I have theorized that spin to speed is more of a function
> of hitting the ball further off center. (The actual contact point of
> radically off center shots is nowhere close to where I thought it was,
> due to the curvature of the tip.) Being able to hit more off center is a
> function of hitting the ball with a cue that is accelerating more. Such
> is my theory as it stands at the moment. I know ask how to get yet more
> spin? How to hit more off center? How to make the cue accelerate more?
> It would seem that many good players use some amount of 'wrist' action
> in their stroke. I know I do in mine, but I have hit some mean draw
> shots without it. I have also hit some 'power draw' shots with my break
> stroke with some interesting results. (No one has ever been hurt while
> doing this, but I would suggest that people reading this not try this at
> home and if you do to take the appropriate safety precautions.) So I try
> to get this subject going again, thoughts, comments, suggestions?
>     Joe.

> --
> http://www.kudraband.com

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by Ron Shepar » Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:26:57



Quote:
> Yes, and it seems to increase at a greater rate the farther from center
> you are.  In other words, if you start at 1/2 tip low and add a couple
> millimeters more offset, it might produce, say, 12 inches more draw.
> But if you start at a full tip low and add a couple millimeters more
> offset, it might produce, say, 36 inches more draw (these are just made
> up numbers to illustrate my point).

It depends on what exactly is held constant. If the cue ball speed
after the tip hits the ball is the thing that is constant, then the
above is correct.  Here is a quick explanation.

The spin/speed ratio is proportional to the tip offset -- for a
fixed speed, this means that if you double the tip offset then you
double the spin.

Then the cue ball hits the object ball, this removes the speed
(assuming a straight in shot) and leaves the spin.  That spin works
with the ball-cloth friction to accelerate the cue ball until it
achieves the natural roll condition.  At this point the natural roll
ball speed is proportional to the original spin -- for a fixed
initial cue ball speed, this means that if you double the tip offset
you double the natural roll cue ball velocity.

Now the cue ball rolls until it stops due to the rolling resistance.  
The distance that the cue ball rolls depends on its initial natural
roll energy -- double the energy and you double the distance.  But,
the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
(T=(1/2)*M*V^2).  This means that if you double the natural roll
speed, then the energy increases by a factor of four.

So, if you followed all these steps, this means that for a constant
initial cue ball speed, if you double the tip offset the rolling
distance increases by a factor of four.  The general relationship
between the tip offset and the rolling distance is that it is a
parabola, so it does increase faster than a simple linear function.

There is also the sliding distance to consider, and if you work
through the equations, the sliding distance also increases like a
parabola as a function of tip offset.  The total draw distance is
the sum of the sliding distance and the rolling distance, both of
which are parabolas with respect to the tip offset.  The details are
in Problem 2.6 of APAPP.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

Spin revisited...

Post by Patrick Johnso » Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:15:40

Quote:

>>... if you start at 1/2 tip low and add a couple
>>millimeters more offset, it might produce, say, 12 inches more draw.
>>But if you start at a full tip low and add a couple millimeters more
>>offset, it might produce, say, 36 inches more draw
> ... If the cue ball speed
> after the tip hits the ball is the thing that is constant, then the
> above is correct.

Is the above also correct with the cue STICK speed being constant (and
presumably the cue BALL speed being somewhat less)?

Pat Johnson
Chicago