PDA

View Full Version : Sigel says throw doesn't exist?!?!



phil in sofla
07-14-2002, 09:28 PM
July's BD column from Mike Sigel has him answering a couple of questions.

One is whether English on the cue ball can affect the line of the object ball. Sigel says, in his experience, no, unless the balls are either kissing or within a very short distance from one another, which is the only situation in which the 'throw' can take effect.

A very good local player/cue maker of some local reputation also takes this position on throw (that it doesn't exist). Asking him how he explains the apparent throw, he thinks it is rather that the cue ball is masse-ing a little to under cut the line, to make it appear that it has been thrown.

I cannot compare myself to this local guy as a player, or obviously, to Captain Hook. However, how come I can see a shot that definitely doesn't go, play it softly with a lot of side (only, no high or low, although low side works as well), and have it take a little different line that makes the shot go in the hole?

Is denial of throw's existing some crank position of a tiny minority of elite players, or is there something to what they're claiming?

jjinfla
07-15-2002, 05:15 AM
I noticed that comment by Sigel too but I just dismissed it as my not understanding what Mike was referring too. Surely, I am not about to jump to the conclusion that Mike is wrong. I would rather think that I didn't quite understand what he was referring to. But I am sure that he has received a few e-mails concerning throw and I will be curious to see if it is addressed in the next issue. Jake

TomBrooklyn
07-15-2002, 06:01 AM
Phil,

I was very surprised by Sigel's comments in regarding CB spin not causing OB throw. I meant to post about it, but you did it first, so good.

I have read in a number of different books that CB spin causes OB throw. Posters here have discussed it before.

I hardly ever use spin, as I prefer to get better at controlling with high/low first. However, sometimes when I cannot hit the right contact point on the OB due to an interfering ball, but I can get close, I have been able to pot the OB with spin induced throw.

I have also on occasion experimented with throwing an OB in practice. It is either happening or I am imagining it.

I am dumbfounded by Sigels comments.

Ryan
07-15-2002, 06:27 AM
I haven't read the article, but the only basis that I can figure is that side spin on a single ball does not change its path unless it is struck at a vertical angle (masse).

Assuming that a perfectly level stroke is used to strike the CB, there is no reason to assume that the OB would alter its path under these circumstances.

Of course, I have used "throw" on numerous occasions and have had no problem in altering the path of the OB, but I am also striking the CB at an angle when I do so.

Of course, I could be absolutely wrong, but this is the most logical explanation that I could figure.

ObeOne
07-15-2002, 09:53 AM
I'm pretty sure throw exists. It is especially apparent on frozen combonation shots that aren't pointed dead-on to the pocket.

Vapros
07-15-2002, 10:22 AM
Throw with side spin exists and is easy to demonstrate. It is made possible by the little bit of friction involved when the CB contacts the object ball. For an instant, the CB has a 'grip' on the OB. One can pocket a ball with a shot that is not lined up straight-in, and leave the CB parked right where it makes contact. That's true even if the gap between them was only a few inches, which would guarantee there was no CB masse possible.

The amount you can throw an object ball is governed by the condition of the balls. Dirty balls throw the most. Clean ones throw the least.

That's what I believe, anyway.

PoolFan
07-15-2002, 10:32 AM
I read that same article and I was surprised to see his comment on cueball induced throw.

There is a local pro player in my area who also believes that an object ball can not be thrown by applying side spin to the cue ball.

07-15-2002, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil in sofla:</font><hr> July's BD column from Mike Sigel has him answering a couple of questions.

One is whether English on the cue ball can affect the line of the object ball. Sigel says, in his experience, no, unless the balls are either kissing or within a very short distance from one another, which is the only situation in which the 'throw' can take effect.

READ WHAT IT SAYS!!!!! UNLESS BALLS EITHER KISSING OR WITHIN A VERY SHORT DISTANCE ---- I AGREE 100%. WHERE DOES THIS SAY THROW DOES NOT EXIST???

phil in sofla
07-15-2002, 03:15 PM
Yes, I know he said, and I mentioned he said (as you quoted me, I think), that throw does exist, and moves the object ball off the normal line you'd expect, due to the spin of the cue ball throwing the object ball.

The surprise is that Sigel claims that only occurs so far as his experience goes when the placement of the two balls, OB &amp; CB, are either kissing, or very close together.

To the contrary, I periodically and routinely make balls that cannot be made, if there was no throw. Hit soft, use a fair amount of English, and I see the object ball going significantly offline compared to the standard line you'd predict. While I might agree this effect is strongest when the balls are kissing, it still can be significant when the balls are some distance apart, IMO. It is only his denying that it occurs when the balls are further apart that is in question here.

phil in sofla
07-15-2002, 03:18 PM
Is that Dennis Searing, by any chance? He's the one in my area I referred to in the first post in the thread.

When I heard of his opinion a couple of years ago, I didn't believe he was right even then. I checked with his co-worker/helper in cue making a month or so ago to find out if he still believed that, and I was told he did. Both the guy I asked and I shook our heads in disbelief, since we are both convinced it certainly does exist.

Tom_In_Cincy
07-15-2002, 04:50 PM
I think what Mike Sigel was trying to say.. and I have read the article.. is that you change the way the cue ball strikes the object ball.. the OB does not change its path... the way you hit the cue ball is what is changing.

Throw is making the object ball travel in a direction other than the natural angle.. To do this, you have to have something on the cue ball. English induced 'grab' or 'cling' is almost like keeping the OB in the same directin of travel as the cue ball, then it releases and the natural takes over and you get what is called "Throw"


Sigel's comments are 90% accurate as far as I am concerned.. and for the beginning to average player, that is good enough to know.. until futher experience and some professional instruction tells them different.

If you read the very next article in BC... Larry Swartz explains how to 'Throw' the ob and change its Path..

07-15-2002, 06:47 PM
I wonder what some of the BCA Master Instructors would say about Sigel's comment?......randyg

SpiderMan
07-16-2002, 08:09 AM
If the effect occurs for small separations it occurs for large separations as well. The object ball does not know how far the cue ball traveled enroute to their meeting. All that matters is the dynamics at the moment of contact.

With a large separation, though, it would be very difficult to judge exactly what happened because of the difficulty in determining the exact point of contact. With frozen or very close balls, the alignment at contact is pretty obvious so it's easy to quantify the cling/throw.

SpiderMan

07-16-2002, 12:36 PM
with a soft hit and a fair amount of english expect a tad of cb squirt/deflection -- at close distance spin is greatest due to less friction between cb &amp; cloth -- more throw --------at longer distance expect speed &amp; spin to cause the cb to curve (slight) back on line from its deflective path -- timed right you can hit a blocked ob a tad right or left of the aim point ----- now is this throw or just the actual cb to ob contact point??

07-16-2002, 02:54 PM
The BD thread on Sigel's article is entertaining. I agree with one of the first postings by 'Tom in Cincy': Sigel is fairly knowledgeable, and I can only question whether or not his point was received by readers the way he intended. "Floridian Bob Prudhoe asks whether English on the cue ball can affect the object ball's path." Sidenote: 'affect' should be replaced with 'effect'... I typed verbatim from the article. Mr.Sigel wrote three brief paragraphs that barely begin to cover the details of the throw phenomenon (skid or rate of spin at contact, angle of entry, pinched balls, etc..). I am sure he is well aware of this and was trying to be specific to the question from Mr.Prudhoe. In the end if you answer the question within the limits of its own words, English (sidespin) will only marginally effect the resultant path of the object ball. For the best possible results you should be in as direct a line as possible with the cue ball striking the object ball. However, be advised that the errors created by striking the cue ball off of its vertical center will almost assuredly create more negative issues (cue ball squirt, massť) for the shooter than any perceived positive results. If a shot strays from being straight in, the balls don't stick together long enough for the spin to have any desirable throw on the object ball final path. The entirety of whatever throw is produced comes from collision induced throw, not spin-induced throw. I wish Mr.Sigel had devoted the whole article to the phenomenon and not just a mystifying taste of the truth. Of course, a one-page article leads to two and then a chapter. As printed, that small part of his article left me with a 'rule of thumb' outlook with practical use in teaching beginning students whom you are trying to avoid confusing. Also, if the cue ball and object ball are frozen together to begin with they can be struck as one unit and the throw is collision induced and not spin-induced (tip colliding with a two ball unit off of the line of centers). The energy from the tip of the cue tip at contact travels in two lines: one through the center of the cue ball and another in line with the cue. The cue ball and the object ball take paths somewhere in between the two line of force, depending on the duration of contact and the friction between surfaces. Once there is space between the cue ball and the object ball, the distance between them is very important. Why? Because even though you will maximize effective collision-induced throw by having a skidding cue ball at the moment of contact, at a close distance you can make the cue ball skid at contact without generating a large amount of linear speed. Therefore the shooter has more control over the quantity of linear force applied to the shot, and if desired the cue ball can be made to skid at contact with just enough linear force to complete the shot. The slower linear speeds that are available at the shorter cue ball distances to the object ball allow slightly more time for the cue ball and object ball to marry (cling) at contact... and increase the release angle of the thrown ball. In addition (to get back to spin-induced throw), if you spin the cue ball and you are not straight into the object ball, you will not gain enough spin-induced throw to make up for the collision-induced throw you lose.
This is consistent with my teachings as a B.C.A. instructor. I also believe this line of reasoning to be very consistent with the opinion of my fellow instructors and B.C.A.Master Instructors in the Dallas, Texas region. I would gladly take any feedback or opinions they might have to offer.


Carl Oswald - Plano, TX
a.k.a. Oz

Ross
07-16-2002, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: B.C.A.Instructor:</font><hr> "Floridian Bob Prudhoe asks whether English on the cue ball can affect the object ball's path." Sidenote: 'affect' should be replaced with 'effect'... I typed verbatim from the article. <hr></blockquote>

Not to be picky, but affect is correct in this context. Websters: AFFECT - to produce an effect upon: as a : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in &lt;paralysis affected his limbs&gt; b : to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to effect a response : INFLUENCE

Nostroke
07-16-2002, 03:48 PM
That one always got me too-I thought 'affect' was strictly used as in "affecting an accent" or similar for the longest time but aparently that is the #2 meaning- the primary meaning is exactly the same as 'effect'. Can't say why though.


PS-Lorri, Could you speak to the people over at Webster's and have one of them deleted while im in Cardiff?

Scott Lee
07-16-2002, 04:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: B.C.A.Instructor:</font><hr> "Floridian Bob Prudhoe asks whether English on the cue ball can affect the object ball's path." Sidenote: 'affect' should be replaced with 'effect'... I typed verbatim from the article. Carl Oswald - Plano, TX
a.k.a. Oz
<hr></blockquote>

Oz...Very nice explaination! However, check your dictionary. "Affect" is the correct term to use in this situation...it means 'to influence'. Otherwise, nice post, with a lot of good information.

Scott Lee

07-16-2002, 05:58 PM
Interesting. Steve Davis, the world #1 in snooker for years, said the same in an instructional video wrt. banking the ball. He figured that there was no contact induced throw or english, and because that was so, there was no way that english on the CB could influence banks.

That's all changed now that he's playing pool !! Any good player knows the effect of throw (whether contact with touching balls, or induced with english) and of english imparted to the OB when banking the OB.

Even the top pro's are not immune to gaps in knowledge and observation. Some guys learn purely by unconsciously memorising the effects of various shots and use shots that they can't explain.

In terms of physics, the ideal angle only applies when the collisions are purely elastic, where there's no loss of energy on impact, and on impact the energy in the CB is split between the CB and OB depending only on the angle between the CB direction at impact and the line between the centres of the two balls.

Unfortunately (actually it's highly fortunate when you get out of position), things don't quite work that way, and because of the friction in the cloth, follow, draw and english on the CB, and natural friction and grease, muck and chalk on the surface of the balls, the balls are in contact for slightly longer than you'd expect.

If you have english on the CB, for the time that the balls are touching, there's a gear effect, so the english on the CB is transferred to the OB, AND for that time, both balls rotate as a cluster, changing the angle that both the CB and the OB take after collision.

So with outside english, the OB is cut further than the natural angle, and the CB departs at a shallower angle than the natural angle. With inside english, the opposite is true.

In banks, OB throw affects the rail contact point, while transferred english affects the angle off the rail.

And, of course, CB throw and squirt due to hitting the CB hard can 'appear' to cancel out the effects of contact throw. But it doesn't. It may balance the effect that these have on the aiming point, but what happens at the collision and after the collision is very different.

That's what makes pool such a fascinating sport. There are players who are great because they have great fundamentals and weight control, and great players who don't have the same touch, but amazing creativity and use english to force the ball around the table, with the CB approaching every following shot right along the aiming line.

WRT instructors, I've seen many instructors who insist that some of the finer points of pool do not exist, believing that you should concentrate on the fundamentals. I believe that they're robbing people of the most valuable tools, observation and investigation. The fact is that the biggest lesson on the way to being a half decent player is to realise that there's no substitute for observation. When you learn to _see_ what really happens, then you can use that information later. And a sound knowledge of what actually happens means that you're in a position to be creative, and to try new things, without waiting for your instructor to decide that you're ready for page 6 of their book of lessons.

Scott Lee
07-16-2002, 07:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> WRT instructors, I've seen many instructors who insist that some of the finer points of pool do not exist, believing that you should concentrate on the fundamentals. I believe that they're robbing people of the most valuable tools, observation and investigation. The fact is that the biggest lesson on the way to being a half decent player is to realise that there's no substitute for observation. When you learn to _see_ what really happens, then you can use that information later. And a sound knowledge of what actually happens means that you're in a position to be creative, and to try new things, without waiting for your instructor to decide that you're ready for page 6 of their book of lessons. <hr></blockquote>

I would disagree with you on one point only. Without strong fundamentals and mechanics, the knowledge you talk about is useless. Being able to actually stroke the CB well, which also encompasses being able to hit the CB exactly where you are aiming, are tantamount to the application of strategic knowledge! This is why most GOOD instructors will focus on stroke first, and later on infuse information on fancier manipulation of the CB. Other than that, I enjoyed your informative post.

Scott Lee

07-16-2002, 10:32 PM
well, this certainly can be proven true or false,

freeze the cb and the ob, aligned to hit the corner of a pocket. set up the obstructing ball by freezing it to both balls on their outside. remove the cb and now you have an ob that cannot be pocketed because of the obstructing ball.

so now just try to use english on the cb to throw the ob in since cutting it in is impossible. have another person watch the roll to make sure the ob doesn't drift in.

Rod
07-17-2002, 12:47 AM
Well said Carl, you are of course refering to clean equipment.

07-17-2002, 01:37 AM
I should review Webster's then. I'm using an American Heritage 2nd.ed. I read up on 'affect' and 'effect' before my first posting and here's some of what I found:

"Affect(1)...tr.v... 1.To have an influence on; bring about a change in. 2.To touch or move the emotions of. 3.To attack or infect, as a disease." The noun usages are psychological and emotive, as is the one 'obsolete' definition. 'Affect(2)' is less relevant (to the usage shown in BD), being tied to affectation in meaning by way of 'simulate or imitate' and 'display preference for'.
Also, " 'affect' and 'effect' have no senses in common. As a verb, affect(1) is most commonly used in the sense of 'to influence'. 'Effect' means 'to bring about or execute'."
Under 'Effect', I found "n. 1.Something brought about by a cause or agent; result. 2.The way in which something acts upon or influences an object: the effect of a drug [cue ball] on the nervous system [object ball]. 3.The power or capacity to achieve the desired result;influence."

Failing all that, I regret to inform the board I have succumbed to the reverberating echoes of 'affect' and 'effect' to the point where I will probably take this to my English-major mommy and see what she says. What a disaster, eh? How to get to the steak when we're stuffed full of potato... er..tomato -- you get the gist.

Oz

07-17-2002, 07:58 AM
SCOTT LEE: OZ really made a great post. I'm impressed.

I wonder if Bob Jewett is lurking around? Wonder what he would have to say.

Don't forget to call me when you get into town......randyg

07-17-2002, 08:51 AM
ugggggg I agree with Scott on this one... no matter what someone may observe if they can not execute the shot exactly the way they want too then thier observations may seem one way when they are looking at it but when they try it themselves they may have something totally unexpected happen to them all due to the fact that they just didnt hit it properly this will cause mixed signals and the good information that they have aquired may be lost.

phil in sofla
07-17-2002, 02:51 PM
Re-reading Billie Billings' instruction book, she mentions a 'throw shot' as one where two object balls are kissing or within 1/8th inch or so. If THIS is the setup in question, affecting the second ball in a two ball situation by spin on the cue ball, transferred to the second (middle) ball, to change the travel line of the 3rd ball, I would agree with Billings and Sigel. Trying to get the THIRD ball to move off its normal line by applying English to the cue ball, get it to take on the second ball enough to affect the last ball, would indeed require that the two balls be kissing or very close. Transfers of transfers of English just aren't efficient.

Since Billings didn't foreclose the case where throw is from the cue ball to the next ball, maybe that is something she doesn't consider a 'throw shot' in the above sense, and maybe that was what Sigel was thinking about as well, although the question he was answering didn't appear to about the above 3 ball situation, but a general question.

That's the only thing I can figure, because probably almost all of us think we can throw the object ball a little off the line using spin on the cue ball, because we have done so.

I don't think the masse over to a thinner cut line angle explanation can explain the throw I see, for various reasons. First, if I were hitting it that way, I'd be deflecting the cue ball the OTHER way first, before it masse-d back toward a potential over cut line. I'm pretty sure that deflection amount would be greater than any masseing back, leaving me with an thicker hit rather than a thinner hit.

SpiderMan
07-17-2002, 04:23 PM
That's an excellent test. Have you already done it?

Logically, if so-called "helping english" cancels cling-induced throw, then additional cueball spin should produce a measureable amount of throw in the other direction.

My mental picture says I can easily pocket that ball. Am I right or wrong?

SpiderMan