Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[throtts]

Haha, I went with the W.......

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Those pool balls are 2 & 1/16 inches, the same size as snooker balls.



Wasn't getting any throw, most of the time I was simply showing how not to do it and trying to get the same alledged throw that Wilson got, didn't happen so I simply got down and played the shot correctly, pretty easy really, and I wasn't even wearing my glasses.



You're getting a bit desperate now biggie, quote the part of the post where I say I'm using 2.25 inch pool balls.



The shot in question at 25:30 was a bad contact from a shot that I swerved a tad too much as it was hit at a pace too slow to reach the pocket, did it again the very next try and didn't get a bad contact.
A bad contact or a kick can make either one or the other or both balls react differently, on that occasion it was the OB. All the shots I hit at the right pace to reach the pocket either missed or went into the side of the pocket. The only one of mine that did the same as the Wilson shot was the bad contact, the Wilson shot was a kick as spotted by a certain seven time world champion who was commentating on the match with his regular stooge.

The shot you mention at 21:15 went in the side of the pocket only a little bit cleaner than the others that were potted. I was surprised because I thought I'd hit it at the same pace as the others and didn't expect to pot it, and you're right the 10 ball does go a little further to my left than previous shots as I got a bit more bite into the 10 ball and spun it a tad faster.
I'm not a machine and can't hit every single shot exactly the same.

You need to download a video editing tool and watch it frame by frame. I have and there's nothing untoward happening, all contacts made with the exception of the bad contact are bang on where the OB should end up.

I just assumed they were normal sized pool balls, they certainly look like it. Who made them? I don't think I've ever seen snooker sized pool balls before, but i have played with English sized American pool balls and they were horrendous - heavy and dead, no action at all. They would not be a good choice to use for an experiment such as this.

I don't think any experiment to replicate Wilson's shot should be done with anything other than 1Gs.

But you haven't answered my question: why do you think the CB ended up where it did? I'm sure you will have noticed Wilson's CB had the same reaction, and landed in the same position, as yours did.

[Ramon]

Ramon

Shot one
image one shows cueing parallel to the line of aim but not compensating my aiming so the shot is missed to my left.
image two shows balls about six inches apart, not at the point of contact and the 10 ball is not dead straight to the 11 as it has deflected to the right, look again.
image three shows I've missed to my left because I didn't compensate my aiming

the three images for shot two show the result of not bending around the intervening ball enough, no throw and your contact image is way off to come to any conclusion about throw.

the images for shot three show I'm compensating my aiming to make the red hit the right hand jaw, but hit it too hard and get too much deflection of the cue(10) ball so miss to the left.

This is what you have to do when playing with side, compensate your aiming in accordance with the pace of the shot to allow for deflection and swerve of the cue ball and I think I showed every aspect of this in the video.

Again I ask you to download a video editing tool like Kinovea and watch it frame by frame.

At the time of contact both balls making a plant to the pocket . If you did'nt compensating your aiming than something must push the OB off it's path . right ?
I wonder what that is ? maybe a kick ? who knows !! :snooker:


I did download your vid and watched it in slowmotion . otherwise i would'nt be able to make those schreen shots .
I was hoping by uploading those schreen shots , give you a image from my point of view . Not to mention , i was hoping you pay abit more attention as well ?

It's true, in some of the shots you played the CB indeed approach the OB from a diff angle. ( not all of them ).

playing a shot with side spin makes no diff to playing other kind of shots ( in term of cueing and creating amount of spin.) .

You play a stright screw back shot and you strike the CB at its lowest point in order to create max spin.
Well, it's the same when you play the shot with side spin.

If you pay attention and take a good look at your cue at the time of striking, you can clearly see that you're playing a swerve shot.
Button abit higher than normal, and strike the CB at lowest point. ( not to mention in some of the shots putting the cue across the CB )
play the vid slowmotion and look at the end of the shots ( some of shots not all of them ) how much you did raised the butt of the cue. and how you put the cue across the ball.

Could be you did this without having to be aware of it.
OR, could be you did this on purpose to show us that CB can indeed approach the OB from a diff angle.
tbh , i do'nt know what did you have on your mind at that time .

But my point is , yes you're right . IF you play a swerve shot and put the cue across the CB , than you gonna creat alot of deflection and swerve.
In this case , the CB goes off it's path and approach the OB from a diff angle.

As i mentioned earlier, playing a shot with side is neither easy Nor necessary all the time. ( regardless of who the player is and his level ).
As a matter of fact, most professionals try to avoid using side as much as possible .

Anyway , looks like we are disagree when comes to this matter.
It's okey with me my friend and many thanks for your replay.

[Terry Davidson]

I just assumed they were normal sized pool balls, they certainly look like it. Who made them? I don't think I've ever seen snooker sized pool balls before, but i have played with English sized American pool balls and they were horrendous - heavy and dead, no action at all. They would not be a good choice to use for an experiment such as this.

I don't think any experiment to replicate Wilson's shot should be done with anything other than 1Gs.

But you haven't answered my question: why do you think the CB ended up where it did? I'm sure you will have noticed Wilson's CB had the same reaction, and landed in the same position, as yours did.

I used to have a set of 2-1/16" pool balls by Aramith and I think they can still be bought over here. Those were the balls I used in my side experiment but I also used a set of Vitalite and also Aramith Pro cup balls where I put a solid stripe on the object ball. No difference in any of the results across the 3 types of balls. (The pool balls were almost new and hardly used).

[Terry Davidson]

At the time of contact both balls making a plant to the pocket . If you did'nt compensating your aiming than something must push the OB off it's path . right ?
I wonder what that is ? maybe a kick ? who knows !! :snooker:


I did download your vid and watched it in slowmotion . otherwise i would'nt be able to make those schreen shots .
I was hoping by uploading those schreen shots , give you a image from my point of view . Not to mention , i was hoping you pay abit more attention as well ?

It's true, in some of the shots you played the CB indeed approach the OB from a diff angle. ( not all of them ).

playing a shot with side spin makes no diff to playing other kind of shots ( in term of cueing and creating amount of spin.) .

You play a stright screw back shot and you strike the CB at its lowest point in order to create max spin.
Well, it's the same when you play the shot with side spin.

If you pay attention and take a good look at your cue at the time of striking, you can clearly see that you're playing a swerve shot.
Button abit higher than normal, and strike the CB at lowest point. ( not to mention in some of the shots putting the cue across the CB )
play the vid slowmotion and look at the end of the shots ( some of shots not all of them ) how much you did raised the butt of the cue. and how you put the cue across the ball.

Could be you did this without having to be aware of it.
OR, could be you did this on purpose to show us that CB can indeed approach the OB from a diff angle.
tbh , i do'nt know what did you have on your mind at that time .

But my point is , yes you're right . IF you play a swerve shot and put the cue across the CB , than you gonna creat alot of deflection and swerve.
In this case , the CB goes off it's path and approach the OB from a diff angle.

As i mentioned earlier, playing a shot with side is neither easy Nor necessary all the time. ( regardless of who the player is and his level ).
As a matter of fact, most professionals try to avoid using side as much as possible .

Anyway , looks like we are disagree when comes to this matter.
It's okey with me my friend and many thanks for your replay.

A question for you then...if you lined up the cueball and blue for a shot directly into the middle and using side (of course why would anyone?) without an intervening ball would you be aiming off to compensate for side? Of course you would be aiming off and this means the CB approaches the blue ball from a slight angle depending on how much distance between the 2 balls. You could now place an intervening ball and do the same shot to curl around that ball and pot the blue but you would be potting it from a slight angle.

I'm going to try my spotted cueball and pot it using a very slight angle and see if it has any spin on it. I will be wiping down both balls and taking the chalk off my tip to eliminate any other causes. I suspect the spotted will head directly to the pocket without any spin. I will then try the same shot using helping and check side to see if there's any difference (although I will have to chalk my tip I'll hit just below the centre line of the cueball so I don't contaminate the experiment..

It may be because the contact between the balls is not dead-in there may be some small rotation of the spotted. I don't know at this point.

[acesinc]

....

I'm going to try my spotted cueball and pot it using a very slight angle and see if it has any spin on it. I will be wiping down both balls and taking the chalk off my tip to eliminate any other causes. I suspect the spotted will head directly to the pocket without any spin. I will then try the same shot using helping and check side to see if there's any difference (although I will have to chalk my tip I'll hit just below the centre line of the cueball so I don't contaminate the experiment..

It may be because the contact between the balls is not dead-in there may be some small rotation of the spotted. I don't know at this point.

Hi Terry. I think I have already documented this same experiment if I understand your thought process correctly. You may want to look here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNpQFqNqlic

[Ramon]

A question for you then...if you lined up the cueball and blue for a shot directly into the middle and using side (of course why would anyone?) without an intervening ball would you be aiming off to compensate for side? Of course you would be aiming off and this means the CB approaches the blue ball from a slight angle depending on how much distance between the 2 balls. You could now place an intervening ball and do the same shot to curl around that ball and pot the blue but you would be potting it from a slight angle.

I'm going to try my spotted cueball and pot it using a very slight angle and see if it has any spin on it. I will be wiping down both balls and taking the chalk off my tip to eliminate any other causes. I suspect the spotted will head directly to the pocket without any spin. I will then try the same shot using helping and check side to see if there's any difference (although I will have to chalk my tip I'll hit just below the centre line of the cueball so I don't contaminate the experiment..

It may be because the contact between the balls is not dead-in there may be some small rotation of the spotted. I don't know at this point.

In that case you not gonna make a full ball contact with OB Terry . situation what you describe is about the same as what Ted did in his video (cutting the red with blue spoting very close to it. Almost touching the red with blue). If i undrstand you well of cours .

Unless you play a swerve shot .

In that case , NO . this means the CB makes a full ball contact with blue . and send it in to the pocket . (assuming that your aiming off of cours ).
Using alot of side ( not top spin side or chk side ) will compensate the amount of degrees that you aimed off in the first place .


you gonna have to see it this way,

Depending of amount of side spin what you are creating , this can effect the OB (more or less)

Even if those 2 balls are in a stright line you can still use the side and pott the ball in the corner of the pockt.
( not in the center of the pocket )
All you have to do is using a touch of top spin side.
That is cheating the pocket.
pros doing that all the time . ( well , sometimes ). as you already knew .

Take a look in slowmotion how this player cheat the pocket . ( those 2 shots with side in the md pocket )

[Terry Davidson]

Hi Terry. I think I have already documented this same experiment if I understand your thought process correctly. You may want to look here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNpQFqNqlic

I watched that experiment earlier and although he did get a slight wobble on the spotted ball when he used side it wasn't actually rotating so I thought I would try it with a little more distance between the balls and thus more side. I went to my table and just now tried it. When I cut the spotted in from about 170* or so there was no wobble at all and the spot stayed on the side of the ball. I could not detect a 'gear effect'.

When I tried the same shot using side I had a little difficulty potting the spotted dead centre in the middle pocket (to eliminate any wobble caused by friction with the cloth) but when I managed to do that I got just a very small bit of wobble on the spot on the side but it hardly moved around more than 1/4" or so. When I potted the spotted to the side of the pocket I got more wobble so I assume this was caused by cloth friction.

Maybe there is a different effect when Dr. Dave uses larger and heavier pool balls on a napless cloth? I don't know as there are far to many variables to pin it down to just one cause, to my mind anyway.

[itsnoteasy]

In that case you not gonna make a full ball contact with OB Terry . situation what you describe is about the same as what Ted did in his video (cutting the red with blue spoting very close to it. Almost touching the red with blue). If i undrstand you well of cours .

Unless you play a swerve shot .

In that case , NO . this means the CB makes a full ball contact with blue . and send it in to the pocket . (assuming that your aiming off of cours ).
Using alot of side ( not top spin side or chk side ) will compensate the amount of degrees that you aimed off in the first place .


you gonna have to see it this way,

Depending of amount of side spin what you are creating , this can effect the OB (more or less)

Even if those 2 balls are in a stright line you can still use the side and pott the ball in the corner of the pockt.
( not in the center of the pocket )
All you have to do is using a touch of top spin side.
That is cheating the pocket.
pros doing that all the time . ( well , sometimes ). as you already knew .

Take a look in slowmotion how this player cheat the pocket . ( those 2 shots with side in the md pocket )

When you see how often the balls bounce around, it's a wonder we can pot anything.

[Terry Davidson]

In that case you not gonna make a full ball contact with OB Terry . situation what you describe is about the same as what Ted did in his video (cutting the red with blue spoting very close to it. Almost touching the red with blue). If i undrstand you well of cours .

Unless you play a swerve shot .

In that case , NO . this means the CB makes a full ball contact with blue . and send it in to the pocket . (assuming that your aiming off of cours ).
Using alot of side ( not top spin side or chk side ) will compensate the amount of degrees that you aimed off in the first place .


you gonna have to see it this way,

Depending of amount of side spin what you are creating , this can effect the OB (more or less)

Even if those 2 balls are in a stright line you can still use the side and pott the ball in the corner of the pockt.
( not in the center of the pocket )
All you have to do is using a touch of top spin side.
That is cheating the pocket.
pros doing that all the time . ( well , sometimes ). as you already knew .

Take a look in slowmotion how this player cheat the pocket . ( those 2 shots with side in the md pocket )

You may have misunderstood what I wanted to do. I believe the cueball does a little swerve or bend around the intervening ball and does not contact the blue at full ball but rather fairly close to it at around 170* or so (didn't measure it) and I think the CB contact a spot on the blue ball directly opposite the pocket. This is a judgement call based on distance between the balls and power used. I don't believe what the commentators say 'he threw that ball into the pocket'. I think he actually contacted BOB.

Just to be sure there was nothing going on I cut the blue in from 170* using no side, just centre-ball. When I hit the centre of the pocket there was no movement of the spot however when I hit closer to the jaw I did get a little bit of spin but not a lot. When I tried the side and hit the middle of the pocket I didn't get any opposite side spin on the object ball.

Again, maybe with Dr. Dave's videos the larger and heavier pool balls with napless cloth do allow some kind of spin transfer but it wouldn't be something a player could use except in very odd situations. Also, the larger pockets would make it easier. All I know is I couldn't get any spin to transfer (clean balls and no chalk on contact points, 6811 cloth not ironed).

[Little Reggie]

When you see how often the balls bounce around, it's a wonder we can pot anything.

When you see some videos, it's amazing that glazers aren't swamped with work.

[Ramon]

When you see how often the balls bounce around, it's a wonder we can pot anything.

lol, could'nt agree more. You will be surprised howmany times that happens and we do'nt see it. Hence, an effortless cueing is important imo. The more effort you put on that piece of wood, the more chance those balls jumping in the air like a crazy chicken.
And you do'nt get the required result.

Terry is right btw, this could be slitly diff with pool balls. because they are heavier. ( I think J6 mentioned this as well )

[acesinc]

I watched that experiment earlier and although he did get a slight wobble on the spotted ball when he used side it wasn't actually rotating so I thought I would try it with a little more distance between the balls and thus more side. I went to my table and just now tried it. When I cut the spotted in from about 170* or so there was no wobble at all and the spot stayed on the side of the ball. I could not detect a 'gear effect'.

When I tried the same shot using side I had a little difficulty potting the spotted dead centre in the middle pocket (to eliminate any wobble caused by friction with the cloth) but when I managed to do that I got just a very small bit of wobble on the spot on the side but it hardly moved around more than 1/4" or so. When I potted the spotted to the side of the pocket I got more wobble so I assume this was caused by cloth friction.

Maybe there is a different effect when Dr. Dave uses larger and heavier pool balls on a napless cloth? I don't know as there are far to many variables to pin it down to just one cause, to my mind anyway.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you here. I think when we use the phrase "spin transfer" or something similar to that, then in our minds we think that the white makes the OB start spinning and it will continue to spin. In my view, that is not the case at all. I believe that the White will transfer just a very small percentage of its spin to the OB and it is such a small amount that friction with the cloth will very rapidly eliminate the "spin" so then the OB begins to travel in a straight line. I believe this "transfer of spin" really only results in maybe about a quarter turn to a half turn of the object ball. That is it. Then after that, the OB starts rolling straight again and we see the "measle" wobbling the way it does. In my mind though, what occurs during that short "half turn" of spin is critical. During that critical time, the OB might travel a few inches or a foot and we can see a very slight arcing of the the object ball just in its very initial couple inches of travel. Similar to if we swerve the White, it will "squirt" out to one side in the first few inches, then come back toward the original line in the next few inches, but after that, it will continue to travel in a straight line from that point on. It certainly is not one continuous evenly spaced arc...the spin is rapidly worn off by the cloth. (Unless you are Jimmy White in that famous masse shot! )

I believe that small quarter- to half-turn of "spin transfer" can have an effect on the OB travel, though very small, perhaps 1/8" or maybe 1/4" over some distance of what its "natural" line would have been.

P.S. - By the way...in that video, it wasn't "he", it was "me".

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

For the millionth time: please stop dribbling on about spin transfer. That is not what is being discussed.

I really don't know how many times this needs to be said before it finally sinks in.

https://youtu.be/E83PSa-QHOo

[Byrom]

and you say family guy is last decade