Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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 )

It makes not one jot of difference if the balls are the same size and weight. That is the point of that video.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

and you say family guy is last decade

FT is timeless mate, unlike FG, which was a generic and inferior Simpson's rip off in the first place.

[itsnoteasy]

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.

I pretty much agree with you Terry, cloths, humidity, ball condition, players cueing, pace , being good enough to hit exactly where you think you are must all have an effect on the outcome. How many of these shots do we see that we don't really know exactly what has happened but we claim it for our own side so to speak. For me we get too hung up on one thing, so it has to be total throw or total swerve otherwise it doesn't count, when in fact it's probably a mixture of cueing,contact, cloth, balls , swerve, and throw that all comes together to make one shot.

[vmax]

[QUOTE=Byrom;937208PS V-MAX that glove ....hahahahhaha - ooops sorry am I being personal (smack)[/QUOTE]

If you paid a little more attention to how the balls are spinning and less on what I'm wearing then you might just have a change of mind.

[B]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 ?

Those screen shots you made of the actual contacts are way off Ramon, at least a foot to six inches between the balls so you cannot argue any case on the back of those.
If you've watched the video in slow motion and studied the spin of the balls I don't see how you can see something different to me, so just for you I'll go through it shot by shot.

against the nap.

1. Played at 3 o'clock, cue parallel to the line of aim with no offset of aiming to show the deflection off the line (blue tape) and the transition from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis and the ball goes into the side of the pocket.
2. same again but slower to show how the ball spinning against the nap moves to the opposite direction of the spin and again goes into the side of the pocket.
3. struck at 4 o'clock to show a bit more deflection and swerve, ball now drops into the centre of the pocket.
4. struck at 4 o'clock to swerve past an intervening ball, must do this against the nap as 3 o'clock doesn't give enough bite and what happens in shot 2 would mean the ball won't drop.
5. miscue
6. same as shot 4, notice no offset of my aiming to show how the ball deflects to go past the intervening ball into the side of the pocket.
7. struck a 3 o'clock with no offest of aiming but at the right pace to pt the ball into the side of the pocket, no throw on the OB.
8. struck at 3 o'clock but too hard to get enough swerve before contact, no throw on OB so OB not potted
9. struck at 3 o'clock but too slow so get too much swerve and the OB is missed to the other side, no throw on OB.
10. same as shot 7
11. struck at 3 o'clock but now with offset aiming and make the ball in the middle of the pocket, no throw on OB.
12. same pace as shot 11 but with no offset aiming to show you need to offset your aiming, no throw on OB
13. exactly the same as shot 12 to prove my point, no throw on OB
14. struck at 3 o'clock with no offset of aiming but at a slower pace so a tad more swerve to contact OB a tad right of exact centre and OB goes into the other side of the pocket, no throw on OB
15. same as shot 14 and you can see how the 10 ball is moving away from the direction it's spinning.
16. too slow, a tad too much swerve so pot is missed, again no throw on OB.
17. repeat of shot 1 as a reminder of how the ball deflects and then straightens but doesn't swerve back in time to go centre pocket due to the pace it's struck at.
18. struck at 3 o'clock but a tad harder and from further away to shot the same effect as shot 17
19. struck at 4 o'clock but harder and ball only goes into the the pocket off the jaw due to the side, would have stayed out with no side
20. further away and struck at 4 o'clock and a bit softer and ball doesn't touch the jaw but still in the side of pocket
21. miscue
22. struck at 4 o'clock from further away but softer and ball now goes close to middle of pocket
23. struck at 5 o'clock, aiming offset but struck too hard so OB missed on my left.
24. struck at 5 o'clock, aiming again offset, a tad softer and lucky to make the OB off the jaw
25. struck at 5 o'clock aiming offset too much for the pace of the strike and pot is missed again to my left
26. struck at 5 o'clock aiming offset not enough for the pace of the shot and pot is missed again to my left
27. struck at 5 o'clock with perfect pace for the offset aiming and OB is potted cleanly but not exactly centre of pocket
28. struck at 3 o'clock at exactly the right pace to make the OB, no throw on OB
29. same as shot 28 but 11 ball stripe upright to show no transfered side, wobble is due to contact not being dead on.
30. same as shot 29, notice how 10 ball moves off line after contact due to spinning against the nap.
31. same again, just showing I can make these pots every time if I want to.
32. and yet again
33. struck at 5 o'clock with offset aiming to allow for deflection only as ball hit too hard for any swerve before contacting OB, to screw back slightly, OB goes into the side of the pocket and 10 ball comes back on the right line of the contact, no throw on OB
34. struck at 5 o'clock but harder, again aiming offset to allow for deflection only and OB goes into the side of the pocke, 10 ball comes back opposite to the contact made on the OB, again no throw on OB.
35. No offset of aiming so ball is missed to the left due to deflection of 10 ball to the right.

with the nap

36. struck at 4 o'clock with aiming not offset enough for the pace of the shot.
37. aiming offset a little more and make the pot.
38. now I'm looking for that Wilson shot and the alledged throw of the OB that he gets, striking at 9 o'clock, offset aiming, a little swerve, same contact he got but no throw of OB
39. again no throw of OB
40. a tad harder so not enough swerve but again no throw
41. correct pace to make the pot into the side of the pocket but again the OB did not throw into the other side of the pocket like the Wilson shot
42. hit a tad too hard to make the pot, again no throw of OB
43. hit at the exact pace to deflect and swerve the 10 ball to make a full ball contact on the OB and make the pot, again no throw on the OB
44. same as shot 43
45. same again just to show I can do this every time if I want to.
46. a tad harder to show less swerve, again no throw of OB
47. same as shot 43
48. played too slow, OB almost didn't reach, wondered if gotten a bad contact.
49. further away, offset aiming to show the spin on the 10 ball taking it towards the right jaw as it spins in the same direction as the nap
50. closer and slower pace to show the same effect
51. now looking for that Wilson shot again but with the 9 as an intervening ball of about 5 mm, all balls are about a foot apart, struck at 9 o'clock, no offset aiming, cue parallel to the line of aim, miss the pot no throw on OB
52. same as shot 51 but with offset aiming and make the pot into the side of the pocket, no throw on OB
53. same as shot 52
54. a tad harder so not enough swerve and miss the pot, no throw on OB
55. just glanced the 9 ball looking for that pocket weight shot
56. a tad harder but a bit more bite into the cue ball so more spin and make the pot, surprised myself, thought I would miss it, might have struck it tad lower, again no throw on OB
57. move the 9 ball closer to the 10 so now striking at 8 o'clock to get more swerve, no offset aiming, again no throw on OB
58. this time offset my aiming and just about make the pot into the side of the pocket, again no throw on OB
59. not enough offset of aiming so miss the pot, again no throw of OB
60. struck too hard to get the ball to swerve enough, again no throw on OB
61. just about make the pot into the side of the pocket, again no throw on the OB
62. played slower but offset aiming too much, again no throw on OB
63. played at pocket weight to swerve around the 9 ball and make a full ball contact that would have made the pot if it wasn't for the bad contact that not only slowed the OB down but kicked it to my left, same as the Wilson shot IMO where he made a contact outside full ball but red kicked to his left to make the pot.
64. almost played at pocket weight, one more roll, so a tad slower than shot 63 but no bad contact and no throw of the OB

now I'm doing a line up using helping side on every shot, sure I miss a few but I'm not wearing my glasses and as Terry pointed out my old habit of moving my head on the delivery stroke has surfaced once again. Last shot is pretty good though.

So Ramon I'm not going through this again, no throw on the OB, I think I've proved my point and rest my case but if you're seeing it then there's really very little point in trying to persuade you otherwise.

I just might do another one showing sidespin reaction directly across the table as it's a bit different again.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

If you paid a little more attention to how the balls are spinning and less on what I'm wearing then you might just have a change of mind.



Those screen shots you made of the actual contacts are way off Ramon, at least a foot to six inches between the balls so you cannot argue any case on the back of those.
If you've watched the video in slow motion and studied the spin of the balls I don't see how you can see something different to me, so just for you I'll go through it shot by shot.

against the nap.

1. Played at 3 o'clock, cue parallel to the line of aim with no offset of aiming to show the deflection off the line (blue tape) and the transition from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis and the ball goes into the side of the pocket.
2. same again but slower to show how the ball spinning against the nap moves to the opposite direction of the spin and again goes into the side of the pocket.
3. struck at 4 o'clock to show a bit more deflection and swerve, ball now drops into the centre of the pocket.
4. struck at 4 o'clock to swerve past an intervening ball, must do this against the nap as 3 o'clock doesn't give enough bite and what happens in shot 2 would mean the ball won't drop.
5. miscue
6. same as shot 4, notice no offset of my aiming to show how the ball deflects to go past the intervening ball into the side of the pocket.
7. struck a 3 o'clock with no offest of aiming but at the right pace to pt the ball into the side of the pocket, no throw on the OB.
8. struck at 3 o'clock but too hard to get enough swerve before contact, no throw on OB so OB not potted
9. struck at 3 o'clock but too slow so get too much swerve and the OB is missed to the other side, no throw on OB.
10. same as shot 7
11. struck at 3 o'clock but now with offset aiming and make the ball in the middle of the pocket, no throw on OB.
12. same pace as shot 11 but with no offset aiming to show you need to offset your aiming, no throw on OB
13. exactly the same as shot 12 to prove my point, no throw on OB
14. struck at 3 o'clock with no offset of aiming but at a slower pace so a tad more swerve to contact OB a tad right of exact centre and OB goes into the other side of the pocket, no throw on OB
15. same as shot 14 and you can see how the 10 ball is moving away from the direction it's spinning.
16. too slow, a tad too much swerve so pot is missed, again no throw on OB.
17. repeat of shot 1 as a reminder of how the ball deflects and then straightens but doesn't swerve back in time to go centre pocket due to the pace it's struck at.
18. struck at 3 o'clock but a tad harder and from further away to shot the same effect as shot 17
19. struck at 4 o'clock but harder and ball only goes into the the pocket off the jaw due to the side, would have stayed out with no side
20. further away and struck at 4 o'clock and a bit softer and ball doesn't touch the jaw but still in the side of pocket
21. miscue
22. struck at 4 o'clock from further away but softer and ball now goes close to middle of pocket
23. struck at 5 o'clock, aiming offset but struck too hard so OB missed on my left.
24. struck at 5 o'clock, aiming again offset, a tad softer and lucky to make the OB off the jaw
25. struck at 5 o'clock aiming offset too much for the pace of the strike and pot is missed again to my left
26. struck at 5 o'clock aiming offset not enough for the pace of the shot and pot is missed again to my left
27. struck at 5 o'clock with perfect pace for the offset aiming and OB is potted cleanly but not exactly centre of pocket
28. struck at 3 o'clock at exactly the right pace to make the OB, no throw on OB
29. same as shot 28 but 11 ball stripe upright to show no transfered side, wobble is due to contact not being dead on.
30. same as shot 29, notice how 10 ball moves off line after contact due to spinning against the nap.
31. same again, just showing I can make these pots every time if I want to.
32. and yet again
33. struck at 5 o'clock with offset aiming to allow for deflection only as ball hit too hard for any swerve before contacting OB, to screw back slightly, OB goes into the side of the pocket and 10 ball comes back on the right line of the contact, no throw on OB
34. struck at 5 o'clock but harder, again aiming offset to allow for deflection only and OB goes into the side of the pocke, 10 ball comes back opposite to the contact made on the OB, again no throw on OB.
35. No offset of aiming so ball is missed to the left due to deflection of 10 ball to the right.

with the nap

36. struck at 4 o'clock with aiming not offset enough for the pace of the shot.
37. aiming offset a little more and make the pot.
38. now I'm looking for that Wilson shot and the alledged throw of the OB that he gets, striking at 9 o'clock, offset aiming, a little swerve, same contact he got but no throw of OB
39. again no throw of OB
40. a tad harder so not enough swerve but again no throw
41. correct pace to make the pot into the side of the pocket but again the OB did not throw into the other side of the pocket like the Wilson shot
42. hit a tad too hard to make the pot, again no throw of OB
43. hit at the exact pace to deflect and swerve the 10 ball to make a full ball contact on the OB and make the pot, again no throw on the OB
44. same as shot 43
45. same again just to show I can do this every time if I want to.
46. a tad harder to show less swerve, again no throw of OB
47. same as shot 43
48. played too slow, OB almost didn't reach, wondered if gotten a bad contact.
49. further away, offset aiming to show the spin on the 10 ball taking it towards the right jaw as it spins in the same direction as the nap
50. closer and slower pace to show the same effect
51. now looking for that Wilson shot again but with the 9 as an intervening ball of about 5 mm, all balls are about a foot apart, struck at 9 o'clock, no offset aiming, cue parallel to the line of aim, miss the pot no throw on OB
52. same as shot 51 but with offset aiming and make the pot into the side of the pocket, no throw on OB
53. same as shot 52
54. a tad harder so not enough swerve and miss the pot, no throw on OB
55. just glanced the 9 ball looking for that pocket weight shot
56. a tad harder but a bit more bite into the cue ball so more spin and make the pot, surprised myself, thought I would miss it, might have struck it tad lower, again no throw on OB
57. move the 9 ball closer to the 10 so now striking at 8 o'clock to get more swerve, no offset aiming, again no throw on OB
58. this time offset my aiming and just about make the pot into the side of the pocket, again no throw on OB
59. not enough offset of aiming so miss the pot, again no throw of OB
60. struck too hard to get the ball to swerve enough, again no throw on OB
61. just about make the pot into the side of the pocket, again no throw on the OB
62. played slower but offset aiming too much, again no throw on OB
63. played at pocket weight to swerve around the 9 ball and make a full ball contact that would have made the pot if it wasn't for the bad contact that not only slowed the OB down but kicked it to my left, same as the Wilson shot IMO
64. almost played at pocket weight, one more roll, so a tad slower than shot 63 but no bad contact and no throw of the OB

now I'm doing a line up using helping side on every shot, sure I miss a few but I'm not wearing my glasses and as Terry pointed out my old habit of moving my head on the delivery stroke has surfaced once again. Last shot is pretty good though.

So Ramon I'm not going through this again, no throw on the OB, I think I've proved my point and rest my case but if you're seeing it then there's really very little point in trying to persuade you otherwise.

I just might do another one showing sidespin reaction directly across the table as it's a bit different again.

I only read the last bit but, sadly, you've proven nothing. It would take something fairly seismic to disprove spin induced throw - you would be in line for a Nobel prize, at a minimum. It would be pocket billiards 2.0. We'd have to tear up everything we know about the game.

That you yourself cannot do something is evidence of only one thing: you cannot do something.

Ironically, you are getting throw - your eyes can't see it and your brain won't let you see it, but it's there. And I'll await your expansion on why CB ends up where it does with interest.

[Byrom]

I only read the last bit but, sadly, you've proven nothing. It would take something fairly seismic to disprove spin induced throw - you would be in line for a Nobel prize, at a minimum. It would be pocket billiards 2.0. We'd have to tear up everything we know about the game.

That you yourself cannot do something is evidence of only one thing: you cannot do something.

Ironically, you are getting throw - your eyes can't see it and your brain won't let you see it, but it's there. And I'll await your expansion on why CB ends up where it does with interest.

It might aid some people to know all the science - geometrical things like the 90 degree rule etc are useful to learn., but its not necessary to know the intricate science behind all these things like SIT just as long as you know it is more important that you can just do it and know when to do it- pot the ball gain position and know how and when to use side when you need it to help make the pot, hit the ball or aid position.

[pottr]

Ironically, you are getting throw - your eyes can't see it and your brain won't let you see it, but it's there.

Bit like the oxygen in the air then?

It's there, great stuff... Still utterly irrelevant coz I think we all breathe without breaking the air down into it's composite parts before each breath.

I fail to see how knowing any of this is important to improving at snooker? Especially at our amateur level?

Not knocking the debate, I have no dog in the race... I am just confused as to what the point of it is? x

[pottr]

It might aid some people to know all the science - geometrical things like the 90 degree rule etc are useful to learn., but its not necessary to know the intricate science behind all these things like SIT just as long as you know it is more important that you can just do it and know when to do it- pot the ball gain position and know how and when to use side when you need it to help make the pot, hit the ball or aid position.

I missed this post... ^ What he says ^

[Terry Davidson]

I will make no comment except to say if an object was thrown I think I would see it, even on a snooker table rather than through the window. The theory then relies on something we can't see.

In the end I agree with pottr and Byrom...IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE PHYSICS, SCIENCE, ETC. AS long as a player knows how to use it. It just doesn't make common sense to me that there is something unseen going on, same thing as ghosts I guess.

[itsnoteasy]

Bit like the oxygen in the air then?

It's there, great stuff... Still utterly irrelevant coz I think we all breathe without breaking the air down into it's composite parts before each breath.

I fail to see how knowing any of this is important to improving at snooker? Especially at our amateur level?

Not knocking the debate, I have no dog in the race... I am just confused as to what the point of it is? x

The only point of it is ,does throw exist.

[pottr]

Fair enough... I'd say the answer is 'probably'

And I don't feel any need within me to seek out a more solid explanation... It really is knowledge that would just be taking up space.

[itsnoteasy]

Fair enough... I'd say the answer is 'probably'

And I don't feel any need within me to seek out a more solid explanation... It really is knowledge that would just be taking up space.

No! Not good enough you must say one way or another then start calling the other side names, you should know how this works by now.

[pottr]

Ok... Here's my take on it.

Analysing the bare physics... 100% it makes sense. Objects should be able to impart spin onto the other ball.

I also believe that in the past 100% I have made this happen on a snooker table.

When a ball is close to being able to pot, I feel I have made it able to pot by putting extreme opposite side on the white and playing the ball slow in order to pot it.

But, while I am 100% in my mind that shot exists and can be played in EXTREMELY RARE setups to snooker... I admit I could be mistaken and the ball simply may have potted naturally anyway and my eyes may have deceived me.

So in my mind, I think it exists and as a result I might play shots like it... I might have to have a little play with this over the next day or two and put it to bed with a video...

VMAX's one is great... but you need a running dialogue to explain what you are trying to make happen and your perception of what happens once you do it...
Just lining up balls and playing them is not as helpful as it could be.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter... the opportunity to play that shot comes up once every 1000 frames or so.

[pottr]

Oh and of course... obligatory insults thrown at the following:

Biggie, Vmax, Terry, ADR, itsnoteasy, Byrom, Master Blaster et al

And someone tell that handsome ******* Particle Physics to put his eye patch on and come back to the forum.

And can Cazmac build me a website?

[itsnoteasy]

It's great to hear the names from a few years back, I liked PP he liked to skelp the skin off the balls if I remember rightly but got threatened with a lawsuit lol and never came back.
On the subject of not knowing if you can see balls, I'm blind as a bat and have to ask everyone I play if I can see balls , even in matches I will ask my opponent as I just can't see, I'm very lucky everyone knows I'm blind and help me , if it was the other way round I would be saying " oh aye, nae bother, you could get abuse through there" " foul"