PDA

View Full Version : Sigel explained throw?

jjinfla
09-30-2002, 06:25 PM
Reading Sigel's explanation of throw left me at a loss. If I understand him correctly the reason the object ball is thrown is not because it is thrown but because the cue ball deflects due to curve or squirt and consequently strikes the object ball in a different place than where you aimed at and because of that the object ball goes off line. Huh? So then explain if I put an object ball 8 inches from the side pocket and the cue ball another 8 inches behind it so that they are in a straight line and when I stroke the cue ball with a tip of left, or center ball, or a tip of right, and the contact point of the two balls is identical in every instance, then why does the object ball go in three different paths? I guess I will have to wait for some more of those 50 pages to understand his explanation. Jake~~~I still don't see any clothes on the emperor.

09-30-2002, 06:47 PM
i THINK he was saying that when you put english on the CB, anticipating that it will throw the OB, what it really does is masse to the OB and strikes it properly in a line directly to the pocket rather than throwing it to the pocket. well, if it works for him who am i to say sigel is wrong. however, i would like to hear what reyes or some other top pro says.

as i recall, sigel is vague when he talks about hitting the OB with center or inside english on the CB. however, he explains clearly why many use running english so that the OB takes a true path to the pocket. i was wondering why then if by hitting the CB with center or inside english affects the true path of the OB, isn't he saying, in effect, that english DOES alter the path of the OB?

anyway, this phenomenon can be tested.

SPetty
09-30-2002, 06:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> So then explain if I put an object ball 8 inches from the side pocket and the cue ball another 8 inches behind it so that they are in a straight line and when I stroke the cue ball with a tip of left, or center ball, or a tip of right, and the contact point of the two balls is identical in every instance, then why does the object ball go in three different paths? <hr></blockquote>Hi Jake,

That's exactly the experiment I'm going to do one day - when I remember - but I figure that in order to make sure that you're hitting the ball in the same place every time, you need to put some guard balls on either side and in front of the object ball, to leave just enough room for the cue ball to come in and hit the object ball. There are some that will say that you are in fact hitting the ball differently due to the spin you're putting on the cue ball. If you put the guard balls around the path to the object ball, then you must hit the object ball in the same place in order to not hit the guard balls. Try it and let us know.

Tom_In_Cincy
10-01-2002, 09:34 AM
I read M. Sigel's explaination.. and I also am a bit confused.. according to Mike.. there isn't "throw" ..

I like to show this example of what I think 'throw' is to new players.. asking..

In this setup.. the 1 and 9 are frozen together. And, they are lined up (path A) directly at the 8 ball (on the rail just below the middle diamond) This is the natural path.. if the one ball is struck along the same path as "A".

Path "B" is where I shoot the cue ball into the one.. at pocket speed to make the one in the corner pocket.

Path "C" is the "throw" path..

What I have always considered, is that the impact of the cue ball into the frozen 1 and 9 balls,,, actually moves the 1 and 9 ball (both at the same time) further down table and this is what I consider a 'throw' effect.
This action accounts for the 9 ball to move away from path "A" and follow path "C"

Please set it up and watch the reaction..

START(
%Ac9I7%HN3D0%Ib6I4%Pi5F9%QY5E8%RU3Q4%ST9G5%UP0D8%V a6I1%WE9Y9
%Xh7G3%YF8D9%Za9I7
)END

BTW, you can get the same effect of 'throw' if you replace the 1 ball with the cue ball frozen to the 9 ball and jackup the cue, aim along path 'A' and use right english..

10-01-2002, 09:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> Reading Sigel's explanation of throw left me at a loss. If I understand him correctly the reason the object ball is thrown is not because it is thrown but because the cue ball deflects due to curve or squirt and consequently strikes the object ball in a different place than where you aimed at and because of that the object ball goes off line. Huh? So then explain if I put an object ball 8 inches from the side pocket and the cue ball another 8 inches behind it so that they are in a straight line and when I stroke the cue ball with a tip of left, or center ball, or a tip of right, and the contact point of the two balls is identical in every instance, then why does the object ball go in three different paths? I guess I will have to wait for some more of those 50 pages to understand his explanation. Jake~~~I still don't see any clothes on the emperor. <hr></blockquote>

As much as I'd hate to disagree with a man who has won over 100 tournaments, I completely disagree with Mr. Sigels' explaination of throw vs. squirt or curve. If you've ever played at a bar with those dirty, grimy, never-been-cleaned balls they use often, and tried to cut a thin cut, only to have it hit the long rail about a foot from the pocket when you know you hit it perfectly, it should be a little evidence that the friction between the two balls causes the one being hit to veer off path enough to cause quite a miss over the length of a 8 or 9 foot table.

Another thing, is he contradicts himself by saying that pro players usually use outside english to get a "true" cut.. and the reason why, is because if they don't use the outside english to make the cueball "roll" off the object ball rather than "rub" against it, then it turns a routine cut shot into something unpredictable and nerve racking. I've heard him say a few times that he uses outside english on cut shots as often as possible because it's the only way to achieve consistancy with cut shots, since the friction between the balls is inevitable and always present.

I don't know.. maybe he puts oil on the balls before he uses them to eliminate the throw effect.. I don't know..

Fred Agnir
10-01-2002, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> So then explain if I put an object ball 8 inches from the side pocket and the cue ball another 8 inches behind it so that they are in a straight line and when I stroke the cue ball with a tip of left, or center ball, or a tip of right, and the contact point of the two balls is identical in every instance, then why does the object ball go in three different paths? <hr></blockquote>
I have never met anyone that could demonstrate what you're suggesting with unremarkable pool balls (like really super dirty). This has been my challenge shot that I've described for at least 4 years on this board. It's a modification of the shot in 99CS.

I agree with Sigel's explanation, but not wholly. I absolutely agree that what most people think they see as "throw" due to spin is really due mostly to a different contact point due to swerve.

That is, throw due to spin is definitely a reality, but it pales in comparison to other spin effects. Because the result of swerve is in the same direction as spin-induced throw, they are usually lumped together and assumed to be the same. They're not. From an application standpoint, this tidbit may not really matter.

Fred

Fred Agnir
10-01-2002, 11:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> If you've ever played at a bar with those dirty, grimy, never-been-cleaned balls they use often, and tried to cut a thin cut, only to have it hit the long rail about a foot from the pocket when you know you hit it perfectly, it should be a little evidence that the friction between the two balls causes the one being hit to veer off path enough to cause quite a miss over the length of a 8 or 9 foot table. <hr></blockquote>
Although it's all the same friction, the collision/cut induced throw that you're talking about has different parameters than the spin-induced throw that Sigel is referring. The friction is reduced as the relative surface speed increases. A spinning ball has a much higher relative surface speed when compared to a sliding ball.

From a layman point of view, Sigel is treating cut throw and spin throw as two different phenomena.

Fred

HOWARD
10-01-2002, 02:46 PM
Jake, I do not claim to know what Mr. Sigel theory is but for an example to where you seem to be going I can give you the following. (a good player call this stroke practice) take the cb and the ob -space them about twenty four inches apart at the second diamond on the long rail and the first diamond on the short rail - so the ob is up by the side and the cb is behind. Say to your left side. Line the cb and ob so that they are dead straight between the diamonds on the short rail. (9' foot table) Now hit the cb with a full tip of right english and follow through. We use call this turning the ob ball. But another possiblity is if you look where your follow threw stopped -from that spot the ob could be straight in. - Oh by the way hit it a medium speed and it should turn the ob straight into the top left corner pocket. - Did I give the emporor a fig leaf anyway. -Howard

Bob C
10-01-2002, 03:27 PM
I absolutely agree that what most people think they see as "throw" due to spin is really due mostly to a different contact point due to swerve.
&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

On long shots this may be true, but not on shots where the CB and OB are just a few inches apart. If anything, squirt/deflection would cancel the throw of the english.

For example, if the OB and CB are three inches apart and aligned to hit just to the right of the side pocket and you can cut the ball some but not enough to make it, then hitting the CB very softly with heavy right english will, IMHO, throw the OB to the left and thus into the pocket. Bob C

10-01-2002, 05:59 PM
And if a player spends any time actually thinking of any of this while they're playing, they have little-to-no chance of making a ball! /webbbs/images/icons/laugh.gif I see that you like the technical aspects of pool. You may really like G.O.L.F. (Geometrically Oriented Linear Force). Basically, a man named Homer Kelly wrote a book back in the late sixties called "The Golfing Machine" (www.thegolfingmachine.com). It was the result of a 28 year study of the physics of motion behind the golf swing. His work, although often uncredited, is responsible for much of the information that the so-called "top teachers" in the world have in their arsenal - including, if you're up on names in golf, the starting point of Mac O'Grady's study of the golf swing (many consider Mac to be THE authority on the golf swing). I only tell you about all this because 1) I'm a T.G.M. disciple myself /webbbs/images/icons/wink.gif and 2) you seem interested in this type of material. If you're a golfer, you may be thanking me for pointing you to this book! /webbbs/images/icons/smile.gif Also, there is a web board out there run by a man named Chuck Evans who is a TGM instructor if you wanted to learn more about it. The url to his board is: <a target="_blank" href=http://pub30.ezboard.com/bthetruthaboutthegolfswing9747>http://pub30.ezboard.com/bthetruthaboutthegolfswing9747</a>

Ken
10-01-2002, 06:32 PM
The reason Sigel says there is no throw was revealed in rack 11 of the PPV broadcast. In that game Mike stated that he would perform a cut shot by "sliding the one in with left english". This was a cut to the right. Clearly, what others call "throw" Mike calls "slide". That was similar to shots that I have missed often by applying too much "slide". And I always thought it was the "throw" that got me.

Many self-styled gurus have to create controversy by claiming they know something that everyone else doesn't. Thus, they either don't fully explain what they mean or they are deliberately confusing so that they can come back with an "I gotcha" when they explain what they really meant. It's even happened here.
KenCT

10-01-2002, 11:23 PM
<hr></blockquote>
Although it's all the same friction, the collision/cut induced throw that you're talking about has different parameters than the spin-induced throw that Sigel is referring. The friction is reduced as the relative surface speed increases. A spinning ball has a much higher relative surface speed when compared to a sliding ball.

From a layman point of view, Sigel is treating cut throw and spin throw as two different phenomena.

Fred <hr></blockquote>

There is also "cling" and "skids" that happen because of friction, so I don't know how a pro player could out and out deny that english does not change the path of the object ball. I guess if you always play with a new, polished set of balls everytime you play, you might not have enough throw to notice.. but otherwise, I make 30-50% of my shots, or more, using english and aiming to actually MISS the pocket, knowing that doing so will make the object ball go right in the pocket. (usually.. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif) also called "spinning" them in I guess.. Since throw is inevitable, I figured I'd learn how to control it to my advantage, rather than fight against it.. but I'm still a big fan of the center-ball hit if it's practical. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Anyhow, to me, it seems Mr. Sigel is confusing squirt, masse, and curve with throw, cling, and cut-induced throw. Perhaps he still wants to keep it a secret from the general public.. seeing as how it's also the reason I think alot of new players miss their strait-in shots. (accidental english)the phenomenon of throw is what makes the centerball hit so important to hit when you need to.

Whatever Mr. Sigel is smoking, I want some of it. ;&gt;

Fred Agnir
10-02-2002, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr>
There is also "cling" and "skids" that happen because of friction, so I don't know how a pro player could out and out deny that english does not change the path of the object ball. <hr></blockquote>

But cling and skid are generally not associated with english, so I don't understand your point.

Fred

Fred Agnir
10-02-2002, 06:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Bob C:</font><hr> For example, if the OB and CB are three inches apart and aligned to hit just to the right of the side pocket and you can cut the ball some but not enough to make it, then hitting the CB very softly with heavy right english will, IMHO, throw the OB to the left and thus into the pocket. Bob C <hr></blockquote>
So people say. People have been saying this for umpteen years. As I said, I do believe in spin-induced throw, but in most cases, the majority of what people think they see is spin-induced throw is really a result of swerve. Short shot, long shot, medium shot, it doesn't matter.

Fred

Fred Agnir
10-02-2002, 06:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Joe Bloe:</font><hr> And if a player spends any time actually thinking of any of this while they're playing, they have little-to-no chance of making a ball! <hr></blockquote>

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> I see that you like the technical aspects of pool.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think this is a surprise to anyone here. "Like" maybe the wrong word, however. But when someone asks a question that deserves a technical answer, I think it should be addressed as such. "Throw" is something that is so misunderstood that even those who consider themselves as experts at its education misunderstand it. I'd say that counts for like 99% of the people who think they understand throw.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> You may really like G.O.L.F. (Geometrically Oriented Linear Force). <hr></blockquote>
I am the greatest golf fan to never play. I'd be so bold to say that it might be that I've watched more televised golf than everyone on this board combined! But, if I ever decide to take up the game and make a fool of myself, I hope I never look at the technical aspects of it.

Fred

jjinfla
10-02-2002, 06:47 AM
blockquote&gt;
I have never met anyone that could demonstrate what you're suggesting with unremarkable pool balls (like really super dirty). This has been my challenge shot that I've described for at least 4 years on this board. It's a modification of the shot in 99CS.

I agree with Sigel's explanation, but not wholly. I absolutely agree that what most people think they see as "throw" due to spin is really due mostly to a different contact point due to swerve.

That is, throw due to spin is definitely a reality, but it pales in comparison to other spin effects. Because the result of swerve is in the same direction as spin-induced throw, they are usually lumped together and assumed to be the same. They're not. From an application standpoint, this tidbit may not really matter.
Fred <hr></blockquote>
Well Fred, I guess the only solution to this problem is for someone to demonstrate this in the lab with slow motion cameras and a way to show the exact contact point. Perhaps the eye is seeing what the mind is telling it to see and not what is really happening. I can follow yours and Sigel's theory and maybe the contact point really does change by as little as 1/64" and that is really what changes the line of the OB and not the spin of the CB. And maybe the term "throw" was coined because it was easier to explain to the general pool playing public. Those of us who will never really understand the finer technical details of the game. But I think I will just continue to call the shot "throw" and not complicate my life any further then it already is. Of course this can all be a devious plot by Sigel to have his image permanently emblazoned in every pool players mind whenever he attempts a "throw" shot. I'll bet BD got more comments on Mike's article than all the other ones put together. Or is Mike just hustling us ala "Fats". LOL Jake

Fred Agnir
10-02-2002, 06:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> Well Fred, I guess the only solution to this problem is for someone to demonstrate this in the lab with slow motion cameras and a way to show the exact contact point. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't realize that there was a "problem" that needed a solution.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> Perhaps the eye is seeing what the mind is telling it to see and not what is really happening. I can follow yours and Sigel's theory and maybe the contact point really does change by as little as 1/64" and that is really what changes the line of the OB and not the spin of the CB. And maybe the term "throw" was coined because it was easier to explain to the general pool playing public. <hr></blockquote>
I think you do understand what I'm saying about the contact point changing, but I don't think you understand that I *do* believe in spin-induced throw. Let me say it again. I do believe in spin-induced throw. It's just not as much as people think it is, especially with relatively clean (not necessarily super clean). The amount can easily be seen in a straight in spin shot where you leave the cueball sitting and spinning at contact. The amount of spin-induced throw is minimal and not the great amount that is shown in 99CS.

Fred

10-02-2002, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Anonymous:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;
There is also "cling" and "skids" that happen because of friction, so I don't know how a pro player could out and out deny that english does not change the path of the object ball. &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

But cling and skid are generally not associated with english, so I don't understand your point.

Fred <hr></blockquote>

the point is, cling and skids change or alter the path of the object ball. Mr. Sigel makes it sound like the only way the object ball could change paths is because of squirt, and not because of any type of friction between the two balls colliding with one another. However, it is sometimes necessary to USE english to AVOID skids or cling. I believe the original quote from Mr. Sigel was that "the object ball path cannot be changed by applying english to the cueball." yet he always recommends useing [outside] english to avoid skids or cling or to get a "true" cut...

I think it's pretty obvious that english DOES change the path of the object ball, which is why a centerball hit is so important, especially on long strait-in shots.

10-02-2002, 11:51 AM

I am the greatest golf fan to never play. I'd be so bold to say that it might be that I've watched more televised golf than everyone on this board combined! But, if I ever decide to take up the game and make a fool of myself, I hope I never look at the technical aspects of it.

<hr></blockquote>

I think that knowing the technical aspects of the golf swing is much more useful for a golfer than knowing the technical aspects of pool for a pool player. As I say that, I know it sounds like an idiotic statement, and being at work, I don't have a lot of time to explain why I believe that (maybe I'll come back to this one), but I do believe it is true. As you stated, 99% of the players out there misunderstand throw, yet a lot of those players play pretty damn good. Compare that to the 99% (probably more) of the people who misunderstand the golf swing, and it is no wonder that only 2% of them can break 100! Anyway, I'll end the golf talk (for now /webbbs/images/icons/wink.gif).

jjinfla
10-02-2002, 12:06 PM
I think you do understand what I'm saying about the contact point changing, but I don't think you understand that I *do* believe in spin-induced throw. Let me say it again. I do believe in spin-induced throw. It's just not as much as people think it is, especially with relatively clean (not necessarily super clean). The amount can easily be seen in a straight in spin shot where you leave the cueball sitting and spinning at contact. The amount of spin-induced throw is minimal and not the great amount that is shown in 99CS.
Fred <hr></blockquote>

But the point is that Sigel doesn't believe in spin induced throw. At least that is what I think he thinks. Maybe this is all just a communication problem. We have to remember he is a lefty and they always see things differently. LOL And what is 99CS? Today I tried the short shot to the center pocket and realy tried to make sure the contact points were the same and yes the OB went off line. But I do understand your point about also moving the contact point and that creates a greater off line shot. I personally think the amount of throw depends on both the amount of spin on the CB and the change in the contact point. Plus the amount of foreign substance (dirt,dust)on the balls. Another example would be placing an OB on the spot with the CB behind it lined up straight at the far center diamond. A perfect center ball hit on the CB with a perfect center ball contact points (the exact centers of both the CB and OB meeting) will result in the OB striking the far diamond. Now, keeping everything else constant and striking the CB with low right and the OB goes off line to the left missing the diamond. Unless I completely missunderstood what Sigel said in his article, this should not happen. And what actually happens is that the center of the CB strikes a bit off of the center of the OB. Ah well, maybe it is just another mystery of life. I really am not good enough of a player to be doubting any pro who has spent their entire life dedicating themselves to the game. Jake