Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[snari]

What a topic!

As a beginner I have to say that I've begun to understand game physics, thanks to the lively conversation and educational videos provided in here.
Here's my contribution to the topic, sorry for the bad technique.
https://youtu.be/fjc7Y6q3_7Y

PS. I don't own any cues

[travisbickle]

And the millions could find only you, biggie and Ramon to represent them, biggie who's trying to blow Dizzy Gillespies trumpet with a tongue swollen with lies, Ramon with a high break of 16 and you who could be your gran

You tried my simple black yet maxi boy???

[travisbickle]

Leave them to it vmax. All they know how to do is harass anyone who doesn't agree with them. I've never tried to push people to change their beliefs and ESPECIALLY over a subject as trivial as this. Most of the members of this forum will only use the intervening ball shot be it with SIT or curving into BOB and all of them would make them whether they were aware of SIT or not. First known of in 1835 but then never heard of for another 150 years or so because it was not so readily believed then. At least I learned someone was playing billiards in some form that long ago.

When I see someone change the contact point on an object ball by 15* on a decent snooker table then I might re-think my belief in SIT.

No one is trying to change your mind Tel.
But your believes are wrong and people need to know.
You can carry on holding the CB with check side and aiming for correct BOB 100% of the time for all I care.
But there is a lot more to this game then you think.

[Terry Davidson]

4.5"" , lots of margin for error then, Tel

I am amazed there are snooker players on here who are ready to believe someone who doesn't even play snooker, although he does have 20 cues. There are tons of different techniques coming out of the States all the time and nowadays most have video 'proof'. There has to be about 30 'foolproof' aiming systems for starters one can Google.

That must be why the pool pros did so well in the World Champs a few years back and why the British women dominated the US Woman's pool scene for years. It leads me to believe snooker players are doing it right or at least better than pool players and that our theories are correct. If we weren't how come Steve Davis made the last 16 of the World 9-ball Champs and how come snooker players win those Chinese 10-ball tournaments for big bucks? Why can snooker players play pool well when they try it but pool players don't do so well in snooker?

[Ramon]

And the millions could find only you, biggie and Ramon to represent them, biggie who's trying to blow Dizzy Gillespies trumpet with a tongue swollen with lies, Ramon with a high break of 16 and you who could be your gran

I only represent Dr. Harold !!

[Ramon]

This post better than any other shows you know sod all about pool, snooker and especially side.

Vmax,

your theory is mostly based on what Ray Reardon said, regarding using side and helping side.
Which I have to admit he was right ( for his own time ) .
As already mentioned (about 1600 times ?? ), no one says there is no deflection and swerve in a shot.

Ray Reardon was the one who admitted many years later he was'nt able to see many things in his own time, because of lack of camera technology.
of course, he could play the game and this mostly without been aware of what realy happened.
But whether he could play or not , is not relevant to this topic.

[throtts]

4.5"" , lots of margin for error then, Tel

[Terry Davidson]

This post better than any other shows you know sod all about pool, snooker and especially side.

You have it wrong though vmax, pool players get down centre-ball and then swivel the cue to the side of the cueball. That's something that must work on pool tables but no good snooker player has ever done and wouldn't consider doing. Watching all those great pool shots on the vids referred to and then thinking 90% of those shots would never go on a snooker table unless we had 4.5" pockets and straight jaws. Any shot down the cushion is a dead cert.

[Terry Davidson]

And the millions could find only you, biggie and Ramon to represent them, biggie who's trying to blow Dizzy Gillespies trumpet with a tongue swollen with lies, Ramon with a high break of 16 and you who could be your gran

Leave them to it vmax. All they know how to do is harass anyone who doesn't agree with them. I've never tried to push people to change their beliefs and ESPECIALLY over a subject as trivial as this. Most of the members of this forum will only use the intervening ball shot be it with SIT or curving into BOB and all of them would make them whether they were aware of SIT or not. First known of in 1835 but then never heard of for another 150 years or so because it was not so readily believed then. At least I learned someone was playing billiards in some form that long ago.

When I see someone change the contact point on an object ball by 15* on a decent snooker table then I might re-think my belief in SIT.

[vmax]

Good players don't need to adjust for deflection mate.

This post better than any other shows you know sod all about pool, snooker and especially side.

[vmax]

Mostly you & vmax it seems

And the millions could find only you, biggie and Ramon to represent them, biggie who's trying to blow Dizzy Gillespies trumpet with a tongue swollen with lies, Ramon with a high break of 16 and you who could be your gran

[j6uk]

tel and max are tenacious fighters so, hats off to them especially terry.



-

[Ramon]

Up until your 'revelation' I've never seen or heard anything about CIT & SIT. You would think if it was true it would have been promulgated world-wide in the billiards community so some must not have believed your Frenchman or else no one gave a flying f***, just like me.

That's because you have been dealing with high standard max breakers ( likes Tomwalker 147 ) in recent years. These players able to run at least a few max breaks per hour.
hence they have no time to use side.

i would keep it on the old track just as you did in the past years , if i were you, Terry .

Goodluck with your match !!

[throtts]

Good players don't need to adjust for deflection mate.

You are relentless..

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The same shot as j6's first turn it in video but played a bit harder to go up for the blue, dead easy really when you've been playing with side for nearly forty years and know what the cue ball is going to do. Biggie and travis are somehow deluded that I struggle to make a 30 break, but the fact is my highest match break is 86 and I had a total clearance in practise once and have made many 50's 60's and 70's. OK so not two centuries a week, but I take that with a pinch of salt from someone of that alledged standard who doesn't let on who he is and posts a few easy side shot videos that I was making when I was 17 a week after being shown how to do it from an old billiards bloke who played in our pool team, basic stuff really.
If I was making two or more tons a week everyone would know who I was and I'd have the trophies to prove it too, and for the likes of Ramon to have a dig, really, highest break of 16 and he has the nerve to preach to me :hopelessness: nothing short of embarrassing himself.



Actually biggie, striking the cue ball unitentionally off the vertical centre line results in deflection off the line of aim (watch that predator video I linked to again) and that's why the OB is missed if you're not compensating your aiming to allow for it as you do when deliberately striking off the vertical centre line on the cue ball as you do when playing with side. Thought you could play with side biggie, sounds again like you haven't a cue.

Good players don't need to adjust for deflection mate.