Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

Very nice. If you don't JAB(!) it, it works. You may need to explain to Tel why you put R hand side on the CB when you could clearly see the pink; he won't get this!

How the hell do you know if 'I will get this'? I know exactly why he put side on with the pink so don't assume you know how much I know.

[travisbickle]

Very nice. If you don't JAB(!) it, it works. You may need to explain to Tel why you put R hand side on the CB when you could clearly see the pink; he won't get this!

The balls were pretty the same as the Wilson shot so couldn't pot the pink naturally. Camera work needs improving though. Would've looked a lot better if I got the pocket in :biggrin-new:

[Terry Davidson]

The balls were pretty the same as the Wilson shot so couldn't pot the pink naturally. Camera work needs improving though. Would've looked a lot better if I got the pocket in :biggrin-new:

A view of the pocket would have been nice. Potting the pink was good if you needed to get on one of those reds below it however a straight screw shot of 3-4in would have got you on the red nearest the pink and still give you a pink or black or is there something interfering that is not in the shot?

I understand using side and maybe a little drag to come at the pink at a different angle in order to miss the kiss on the nearest red however it's not really the most simple positional shot available, is it? Using side with drag is a shot that takes a lot of practice and experience.

[travisbickle]

A view of the pocket would have been nice. Potting the pink was good if you needed to get on one of those reds below it however a straight screw shot of 3-4in would have got you on the red nearest the pink and still give you a pink or black or is there something interfering that is not in the shot?

I understand using side and maybe a little drag to come at the pink at a different angle in order to miss the kiss on the nearest red however it's not really the most simple positional shot available, is it? Using side with drag is a shot that takes a lot of practice and experience.

Haha I knew you would say that.
I should've blocked off all other reds meaning the shot I went for was the only one on barring going into the pack.
Yeah camara work was shocking! Sorry about that.
I'll do a vid sometime next week with a slightly lower view with everything in.

[travisbickle]

The balls were pretty the same as the Wilson shot so couldn't pot the pink naturally. Camera work needs improving though. Would've looked a lot better if I got the pocket in :biggrin-new:

Sorry Reggie. Miss read this earlier.

[Little Reggie]

The balls were pretty the same as the Wilson shot so couldn't pot the pink naturally. Camera work needs improving though. Would've looked a lot better if I got the pocket in :biggrin-new:

The pocket matters not, there's many a jabber and stabber who can't play the shot. You've shown why side is used without cushions, and the man who was against using side without cushions, then explains why he understands you used it for position!

Did you detect any side xfer to the OB and did she stay straight to the pocket, or kick then go straight, or kick and curve?

[travisbickle]

The pocket matters not, there's many a jabber and stabber who can't play the shot. You've shown why side is used without cushions, and the man who was against using side without cushions, then explains why he understands you used it for position! A-duh that man!

Did you detect any side xfer to the OB and did she stay straight to the pocket, or kick then go straight, or kick and curve?

Second shot on the first vid you can see the red throw pretty much like the Wilson shot. Didn't hit any of the shots perfect so you could get the object ball to throw much more then this with the perfect strike

[Ramon]

https://youtu.be/yqHkX520bLg
https://youtu.be/7F0XQDnGKV8

Well , the picture says it all .

the time of contact .
and a second after contact.

Perfect cueing, my compliment. Stright and not putting the cue across the CB.


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Little Reggie]

Second shot on the first vid you can see the red throw pretty much like the Wilson shot. Didn't hit any of the shots perfect so you could get the object ball to throw much more then this with the perfect strike

Very nice. Just proves side xfer as Nic Barrow and Mr Stark atest. Some will be having nightmares tonight; but it can't be so, say it ain't so!!!

[vmax]

https://youtu.be/yqHkX520bLg
https://youtu.be/7F0XQDnGKV8

Well I can't see the red ball throw to the left like it did with that Wilson kick, cue ball takes a very slight swerve around the pink and the contact made is what's needed to pot the red naturally, or did it as we don't know do we as we can't see the pocket. Deliberately unclear travis ?

At least I used balls where the spin could be seen, the pocket was in view, the line of aim was clear and you could see all the effects. What they were was there to be debated, you've shown nothing either for or against.

Very nice. If you don't JAB(!) it, it works.

You're picking up where you left off before your ban splasher; your motivation is clear, and it's clear to anyone with any sense that what travis has posted proves nothing contrary to what was in my video. I played the same shots and got the same reaction, and I also played many too hard, too soft and without compensating my aiming to show just what's needed to be done to pot the ball in that situation and a few others as well.

Now where's yours ?

Ramon

You haven't answered my treatise on my video have you, choosing instead to snipe at me once again; your screen shots from my video don't show contact but the ones with travis' do, deliberate to keep face ?

[travisbickle]

Well I can't see the red ball throw to the left like it did with that Wilson kick, cue ball takes a very slight swerve around the pink and the contact made is what's needed to pot the red naturally, or did it as we don't know do we as we can't see the pocket. Deliberately unclear travis ?

At least I used balls where the spin could be seen, the pocket was in view, the line of aim was clear and you could see all the effects. What they were was there to be debated, you've shown nothing either for or against.



You're picking up where you left off before your ban splasher; your motivation is clear, and it's clear to anyone with any sense that what travis has posted proves nothing contrary to what was in my video. I played the same shots and got the same reaction, and I also played many too hard, too soft and without compensating my aiming to show just what's needed to be done to pot the ball in that situation and a few others as well.

Now where's yours ?

Ramon

You haven't answered my treatise on my video have you, choosing instead to snipe at me once again; your screen shots from my video don't show contact but the ones with travis' do, deliberate to keep face ?

Wow! Totally clueless :biggrin-new:

Put a straight edge to the right hand edge of the CB & OB and you can see the pink is sticking out meaning I can't pot it naturally. Also the CB doesn't swerve at all.
If you look closely you can see the CB is further to left when the red was struck, so no swerve.

Also the pink puts to bed the TD theory that you have to hit the correct line to pot a ball (BOB).
You can see quite clearly the CB hits the pink about 1mm to the left (wrong side to pot it) and it's throwing 2in to the left.

[vmax]

Wow! Totally clueless :biggrin-new:

Put a straight edge to the right hand edge of the CB & OB and you can see the pink is sticking out meaning I can't pot it naturally. Also the CB doesn't swerve at all.
If you look closely you can see the CB is further to left when the red was struck, so no swerve.

Also the pink puts to bed the TD theory that you have to hit the correct line to pot a ball (BOB).
You can see quite clearly the CB hits the pink about 1mm to the left (wrong side to pot it) and it's up throwing 2in to the left.

The cue ball approaches the red from a different line because it's swerved slightly so the contact isn't the same as it would be if the pink wasn't in the way and it could be hit direct. The contact made doesn't throw the red at all, and we can't see the pocket so have no idea of the correct line of aim, if the red was potted into the centre of the pocket, the side of the pocket or even if it was potted at all.

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

I'm betting you can't, I'm betting that left hand side will deflect the cue ball into the pink and in order to miss the pink you'll need to offset your aiming and with the left hand side also swerving the cue ball the other way you'll miss the red altogether.

[travisbickle]

The cue ball approaches the red from a different line because it's swerved slightly so the contact isn't the same as it would be if the pink wasn't in the way and it could be hit direct. The contact made doesn't throw the red at all, and we can't see the pocket so have no idea of the correct line of aim, if the red was potted into the centre of the pocket, the side of the pocket or even if it was potted at all.

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

I'm betting you can't, I'm betting that left hand side will deflect the cue ball into the pink and in order to miss the pink you'll need to offset your aiming and with the left hand side also swerving the cue ball the other way you'll miss the red altogether.

Get your Kinovia on it that you and TD like so much and you'll see the CB pretty much keeps its line and is further to the left then before it was struck, so the red had to throw in as I couldn't see the potting angle in the first place!!!
Camara angle was bad, but all balls were potted, you can clearly see that.

This is a battle you simply can't win

I'm off to the beach, have a nice day

[Terry Davidson]

Funny how some people use side to swerve a cueball on a normal shot but then swear when they use side in this situation it doesn't swerve at all, but the induced throw pots the ball not the fact the cueball moves to the correct potting point.. Despite what Mr. B.S. says about physics and Dr. Dave and maybe even Nic Barrow I still believe the OB moves directly away from the point of contact in a straight line. The only way the OB would turn a bit is if it had transferred side on it and I haven't seen that in any of these videos that supposedly prove the CIT or spin induced throw.

Or do you believers think there is some other effect which causes the OB to move in another direction apart from a pure 180* from the point of contact because I haven't seen anything in these videos that prove otherwise. As I said before you can believe what you like as long as it works for you but please allow me my own beliefs which are different from your own without all the insults. You guys are just like born again christians trying to convert everybody to their own beliefs. Well...give it a break please. I don't happen to believe in your induced throw god and I believe in freedom of thought whereas you Travis and B.S. and Reggie just want to shove your own theories down everyone's throat because you believe you are right and are on an induced throw mission.

[j6uk]

so logically it seems some are arguing that the idea of missing a ball because of unintentional side is a fiction, and that would mean the term is miss leading and all the pros and pundits have it wrong. but if side has no affect on the ob why do the top players work on center ball striking so much, or is it obvious? is ti that their simply avoiding the dreaded swerve shot?