|
By:
marvellously put sparky!
|
|
By:
RockMonkey 19 Jan 22:29
Hitting the ball above centre thus does not impart topspin but rather prevents screw or stun being applied. This is one hundred percent correct, sir. |
|
By:
thank the lord! end of fred
|
|
By:
And, once again gentlemen, this is not a fishing thread.
I have not indulged myself in that sort of behaviour since I reeled in Ariston on the poker forum and that was some years ago. |
|
By:
I can't accept the argument that a shot with topspin only travels further cos you hit the white harder (cos I know its palpably untrue). Have been playing pool for years and its undoubtable that playing little flicks and nudges with a white ball on a congested table go alot further with topspin than a plain ball white - not going to enter into the semantics of it, but the physical action of the cueball is irrefutable - this may be an argument that cannot be won without a table and a few balls I fear though
|
|
By:
With a table in front of us, Father, I am confident I could convince you of my beliefs very quickly.
Much harder with the written word, of course, but I do my best. :) |
|
By:
And, as you mention you're a pool player, beware the affects a much smaller and lighter white has on the argument.
That bounce back effect we discussed earlier can confuse the issue somewhat if one is not careful. |
|
By:
can a cue ball move forwards whilst spinning backwards?
|
|
By:
Yes, Munch.
|
|
By:
You would also need to use a striped ball in order to observe the different rotational speeds. And, of course, a high-speed camera.
|
|
By:
But it CANNOT be rolling AND spinning in the same direction, like a dragster's tyres as it drives to the start line if you will.
Not when actioned by the tip of a cue at any rate. |
|
By:
Indeed, Naydam.
And, as luck would have it, I just happen to have those very items to hand. ;) |
|
By:
After what must be conceded as a shaky start I feel the tide may be turning a little in my favour at last. :)
|
|
By:
Since you accept that top spin can be applied to a tennis and table tennis ball, would you like to explain exactly what are the scientific principles that prevent it being applied to a snooker ball?
|
|
By:
i cant believe this has gone on for 3 pages. i have only just read it but it is plainly obvious to me that you CAN put top on a white...
the big difference between top and bottom, apart from the obvious reaction to the white, is that top is far harder to apply. when putting backspin, or bottom, the cue is higher and you strike through the white into the table. the nature of this stroke and the table bed keepin the tip in contact with the white for longer would make it impossible to reproduce this action and angle for topspin. the tip naturally wants to jump upwards away from the white and the supporting bridge is giving no resistance to this jump... IMO the difference between great top spin players and those of us that try and copy them is that they accelerate through the ball instead of hitting the ball and keeping the cue at the same speed through the stroke(same for bottom actually). This action comes naturally to them and this is why sometimes we can do it and sometimes we can't. you have to "flick" it on. when you strike the top of the white or anywhere above the centre, assuming a chalked tip, the ball will jump off the tip spinning faster than it would if just rolling on its course. As top is harder to apply, it wears off a lot faster so most shots, especially longer ones, will have zero top spin on the white by time of contact. the best example of topspin would be when a high action player like Jimmy White or Ronnie would pot a ball and follow through into the reds and you can see the white arc away from the snooker cue tip as the top spin grabs the cloth forcing it forward. this is 100% topspin FACT sometimes with a little bit of side also but that is neither here noe there in this argument. this is unarguable imo. |
|
By:
lol, and those of you comparing airborn balls to balls dragging or rolling across a surface that has friction is actually more funny than, what i am sure is a misunderstanding, from the original poster.
|
|
By:
Okay Starfish. The coefficients of friction (it's a ratio) between phenolic resin and woollen cloth is greater than the force required to impart an extra pole-to-pole rotation over and above its natural tendency to roll.
This is obviously not the case with equatorial spins however. |
|
By:
I'm preety sure my newtons third law explanation proves that topspin does not exist
|
|
By:
Or what he said ^^^^^
|
|
By:
air has friction, it is an example of liquid friction, rather than surface friction but it has an effect on drag approximately proportional to the square of the velocity
|
|
By:
Dealem: What you are describing, sir, is a form of backspin, not topspin.
|
|
By:
Air does indeed have friction, Starfish, but the rolling friction we are discussing does not apply in air does it.
|
|
By:
Thank you for your continued support on this matter Evski. :)
Keep the faith, sir. We may be in the minority at present, but I like a challenge. |
|
By:
when putting backspin, or bottom, the cue is higher and you strike through the white into the table
wrong, you lower the bridging hand and the butt when using backspin and strike the ball below centre. Start trying to play backspin with a raised butt and you will start to impart swerve on it or make it jump or miscue. |
|
By:
Burt is not quoting me there, by the way.
|
|
By:
no im not, i have described both i thought.
of course air has friction but air is all around the ball . there is no frictionous(if there is such a word) contact with anything else. |
|
By:
There's a lot of bottoms and butts in this thread!
|
|
By:
All the best threads should have them Sparky. :)
|
|
By:
Amusingly the previous post was the 147th.....
|
|
By:
my point is that the butt of the ball is higher than the tip of the white ffs, this cant be reproduced in reverse as the table would get in the way not to mention knuckles.
|
|
By:
That, sir, is a wonderfully surreal post.
|
|
By:
PM, just to be clear, are you saying that not only is it not possible to produce Top Spin on the cue ball itself for whatever reason, but that the resulting effect that everyone else believes does happen as a result of striking the cue ball high i.e. the ball to visibly roll forward after contact, does not happen?
|
|
By:
read this from Frank Callan, the finest coach to have graced the game
http://www.fcsnooker.co.uk/intermediate/top_spin/top_spin.htm |
|
By:
Could you all watch this video clip please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WzyxhCl0vs The player is not me by the way. |
|
By:
Read it Burt. Thank you for the link.
I guess it will not surprise you to learn I believe Frank's statement (printed below in bold) to be totally incorrect. By addressing the cue ball above centre, topspin will be added to the strength of the shot and will increase the distance that the ball travels. If the cueball is rolling naturally it is pace of stroke that determines this. |
|
By:
(and check out the 34 comments for different takes on it, some more meaningful than others)
|
|
By:
Indeed, Starfish, I urge you to read all the comments for I do not wish to hide anything from you.
You must surely be confused by the video, though. How would you explain it? |
|
By:
genuinely sorry - i have to go!
|
|
By:
No problem at all, sir. I have that effect on people. Thank you for your time and interest.
|
|
By:
Frank Callan's word is good enough for me over some bloke making Blue Peter videos
|