Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

its this tel

Jason:

I stopped this video at 0:08 and took a hard look. Mentally remove the red and what I see is the shot is lined up to the edge of the top cushion jaw and not to the edge of the side cushion jaw. If you viewed it from right behind that far jaw it appears to me that BOB is accessible on the black. If you do this again set the camera on the actual potting line to the far jaw and then move the red to actually cover the BOB on the black and then try potting the black using SIT.

AT 0:08 your cueball needs to move about 1.5" to the left to get on the right BOB. I tried this on my table by placing the 3 balls by hand until BOB couldn't be hit first by the CB and then tried to pot the black myself but I couldn't get it even to slop in.

Just need to ask your opinion...on the screenshot at 0:08 how much of the black do you feel is covered as to me it looks to be less that 1/4-ball

[j6uk]

No thanks but I appreciate the offer. Your idea of my timing is from either an 8yr old video done by Nic or a 5yr old video from the Canadians where conditions were far from ideal. I've been working on getting a crisper hit by lengthening my backswing and loosening the grip and it's working, but slowly.

nice one, yeah you never loose it tel..

your welcome btw

[travisbickle]

Where's your video because it should provide proof of using running side to hold the cueball and something I can agree with. pottr held his with inside side and i can hold on my table here with inside side but can't with outside. throtts apparently holds with outside side as you do. So there is some disagreement on this point.

I have never said I was absolutely correct at all as I always leave room for the other side of the argument. Your statements didn't make logical sense to me because of the curve always put on the cueball with side unless it's high power. Jason's video made sense to me and I've played those shots for a long time and I can't remember when I was shown them it was that long ago. (Discounting your 'old' comment)

https://youtu.be/Yx7Sm05-b1U
Holding black spot
https://youtu.be/rrfPsTH-qPM
Holding CB with running side/side
https://youtu.be/6daSo1VQQ5s
J6 black

J6 one doesn't seem to work. Anyone on here show me what I'm doing wrong here?

[j6uk]

Ah, more hard comments. Travis, Wilson and Selby showed me nothing proving SIT as in those shots the spin has dissipated from the cueball and not one of the SIT people can tell me how to get SIT with no remaining spin. I believe the cueball is pushed onto a different path and then recovers. Dr. Dave is proving his theories using totally different conditions to a snooker table and I can't duplicate his stuff on my table so it's either my abilities or there's something physically different regarding the conditions.

Nothing wrong with Jason's videos however the tolerance in the set-up is very tight. I wanted to see the shot from the pocket not having the cueball hidden. When I tried these shots on my table yesterday I was able to accomplish them right up until I actually covered BOB (to the edge of the pocket) and then no matter what I did to generate some SIT and pot the ball I couldn't do it. Of course you can say my skills aren't good enough but I believe they are.

do you or another member have a video of showing you using any kind of spin?

[Terry Davidson]

Jesus wept (again).

This would be much easier to understand if people stopped mangling different concepts.

1. Every shot at an angle has CIT. Unavoidable, the brain adjusts automatically, nothing to see here.
2. Every shot with side produces *some* side transfer. This does nothing until the OB hits a cushion. Then, the spin on the OB either narrows or widens the rebound angle.
3. Every shot with side produces *some* SIT. This is what we are discussing.


If people could stick to SIT as one single entity, it would be a lot easier to understand. Just as screwback is a single reaction when contact is made, so is SIT.

Again, your logic is confusing. If both CIT and SIT generate *some* throw how do you factor out the CIT?

[Terry Davidson]

pm me tel if you wanna get into any of it.

No thanks but I appreciate the offer. Your idea of my timing is from either an 8yr old video done by Nic or a 5yr old video from the Canadians where conditions were far from ideal. I've been working on getting a crisper hit by lengthening my backswing and loosening the grip and it's working, but slowly.

[j6uk]

Surely that's Impact Throw or CIT?

its this tel

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

That's my take on the subject as well. If a gear effect is happening at slow speed then side must be transfered to the OB. I understand that too fast a pace and the contact time between the balls means that there will be less friction, but in my video I proved that there was no spin transfer on a full ball contact at low speed, yet there is supposed to be on a cut shot, yet impact throw is supposed to be what happens on a cut shot and is shown by Dr. Dave to induce a tiny amount of spin, and we're supposed to differentiate between the two when the cue ball is spinning, just how is that done ?

Jesus wept (again).

This would be much easier to understand if people stopped mangling different concepts.

1. Every shot at an angle has CIT. Unavoidable, the brain adjusts automatically, nothing to see here.
2. Every shot with side produces *some* side transfer. This does nothing until the OB hits a cushion. Then, the spin on the OB either narrows or widens the rebound angle.
3. Every shot with side produces *some* SIT. This is what we are discussing.


If people could stick to SIT as one single entity, it would be a lot easier to understand. Just as screwback is a single reaction when contact is made, so is SIT.

[Terry Davidson]

You're either deluded or in denial. So far, you have been presented with:

1. The physics at play when a spinning object hits a stationary one. This has been known since 1835. You demanded proof of this but now, all of a sudden, you don't have time to look into it properly.
2. Conclusive video proof and clear explanation from Dr Dave et al.
3. Conclusive video proof fromJ6 and Travis on a snooker table.
4. Conclusive video proof from Mark Selby and keiron wilson with the camera angles you demand.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, they say. Well quite. You just continue to believe in the snooker fairies doing such things sight unseen, and we'll continue to believe the science, the evidence and the facts. Then we're all happy.

Ah, more hard comments. Travis, Wilson and Selby showed me nothing proving SIT as in those shots the spin has dissipated from the cueball and not one of the SIT people can tell me how to get SIT with no remaining spin. I believe the cueball is pushed onto a different path and then recovers. Dr. Dave is proving his theories using totally different conditions to a snooker table and I can't duplicate his stuff on my table so it's either my abilities or there's something physically different regarding the conditions.

Nothing wrong with Jason's videos however the tolerance in the set-up is very tight. I wanted to see the shot from the pocket not having the cueball hidden. When I tried these shots on my table yesterday I was able to accomplish them right up until I actually covered BOB (to the edge of the pocket) and then no matter what I did to generate some SIT and pot the ball I couldn't do it. Of course you can say my skills aren't good enough but I believe they are.

[j6uk]

I just don't agree with the logical conclusions being reached by the SIT fans. Why does it disappear using more speed? To me logic says more energy would be transferred. How does Travis get SIT effects when the spin had died on his cueball?
stun would be a factor

I'm not Mr. Spock but we have 2 different sets of 'logic' here and it is possible there is some truth in both of them. I believe Travis' shot is one where it's the angle of the curve on the cueball however if someone can put up a video of your shots Jason there might be a chance of proving this on a snooker table and not on a 7 or 8ft pool table with slow cloth, more dense balls and pockets the size of Montana. OK, so maybe I have less respect for a guy proving his theories on a kid's toy table than a man's 12ft table.
yeah maybe

The other problem I have, and maybe it's my cue action could be but I can't get the amount of side Travis and Biggy claim from what i have seen of you your timing is out so you dont seem to generate any rotation. For instance using a level cue and extreme side with drag I can only get about 3" of swerve. Of course I can get more by raising the butt. Biggy said place pink on spot and cueball 2" behind it and use maximum side and have pink just reach the cushion. He said it should be about 9" on a 9ft shot. Well, I tried it and couldn't get any more that about an inch and that was the roll in my table to the right. Then I realized even with the balls that close together you have to compensate for the side and when I did that I could get anywhere from zero to about 2ft on either side, anywhere I wanted actually. Do you see my problem with some of your 'proof'?

pm me tel if you wanna get into any of it.

[Terry Davidson]

I have been guilty in the past to which I've apologized directly.
But I don't think anyone has shown poor form against TD recently, certainly not me.
I've have been questioning his use of side when trying to hold the CB that's all.

Every player worth his salt should know it's running side without a cushion.
Only time I would use check side to hold would be if I was coming off a cushion.
So if he doesn't understand that how does he understand throw??
So really it's TD spreading misinformation to others on the forum, which he is totally against ironically.

He has said far worse to me about my game in the last few days thinking he was in the right and getting all cocky (not that I'm bothered, it's a forum, there should be a little banter). But TD simply doesn't like it when you question his knowledge on the subject and cries wolf

He has stated in the last few months that he hardly uses side when not hitting a cushion, so is clearly not an expert on the subject.

Just because he is a qualified coach doesn't mean I have to agree with him because I simply don't.
If he was my coach and come out with this nonsense I would demand my money back!

Where's your video because it should provide proof of using running side to hold the cueball and something I can agree with. pottr held his with inside side and i can hold on my table here with inside side but can't with outside. throtts apparently holds with outside side as you do. So there is some disagreement on this point.

I have never said I was absolutely correct at all as I always leave room for the other side of the argument. Your statements didn't make logical sense to me because of the curve always put on the cueball with side unless it's high power. Jason's video made sense to me and I've played those shots for a long time and I can't remember when I was shown them it was that long ago. (Discounting your 'old' comment)

[jonny66]

Anyone got a link to some live streamed American Football?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Your priceless comparison of why SIT disappears with more spin and power was totally bogus Biggy. You said trying to make my way across an ice sheet (very smooth) with a broom (coarse) in no way compares to two polished billiard balls, both smooth. Try this on for size, trying to get off a sheet of ice using a broom handle with a small sheet of ice attached to it. You'd have to wait until the ice melted and swim ashore.

What I find on this debate is the SIT supporters are very fast to feel slighted if anyone questions their faith but their explanations and comparisons are SO WEAK. We have sheet of ice and broom comparison to explain why SIT disappears with more power and spin which just begs belief. Then we have Travis showing how he gets SIT when bending around the pink or potting the pink but he can't explain how he gets that same SIT when the side has worn off the cueball. Logic dictates no spin = no SIT. Then we have Jason who puts up some impressive shots which most of us have been using for decades and his video doesn't prove much because we're down to a tolerance of millimeters and it's too hard to tell in a video. Jason! When you set up a shot tell us exactly how because you aren't shooting from the pocket. In your video check where the black/red plant is pointed. For a true 1/4-ball is has to be somewhere between the green pocket and side cushion between green and middle pocket. I couldn't really tell where yours was lined up. I tried it lined up to the green pocket but it was too easy.

Travis never shows his SIT justifying shots from behind the pocket and neither did Jason who actually hides the cueball with his body when making the shots. Put the camera behind the shots so those of use who don't believe can actually see proof we can't argue with.

I would hate to be a defendant on trial with you lot defending me, as I would surely hang and go to SIT hell. Put up a shot where it actually shows without any doubt 15* of SIT if you want me to change my mind.

Oh yes, it's going to be 82F or 27C over here today because I'm in SOUTHERN Ontario which is very close to the tropics (if you know your geography)lol. No sheets of ice yet on our lakes, sorry.

You're either deluded or in denial. So far, you have been presented with:

1. The physics at play when a spinning object hits a stationary one. This has been known since 1835. You demanded proof of this but now, all of a sudden, you don't have time to look into it properly.
2. Conclusive video proof and clear explanation from Dr Dave et al.
3. Conclusive video proof fromJ6 and Travis on a snooker table.
4. Conclusive video proof from Mark Selby and keiron wilson with the camera angles you demand.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, they say. Well quite. You just continue to believe in the snooker fairies doing such things sight unseen, and we'll continue to believe the science, the evidence and the facts. Then we're all happy.

[Terry Davidson]

it dont add up. the long posts proving superior denial has lost all its steam.

To answer your question it's simply because when you set them up they're like trick shots and a difference of 1mm can change the ability of the shot to be potted. Also because no one puts the camera over the pocket except pottr.

[Terry Davidson]

imo in a nutshell: the cb will push on impact of tip played with side, and the ob on impact from the spinning cb will push. and the variables of result will depend on distance between ob cb, pace, high low center etc on the cb, maybe conditions of equipment table cloth tip cue.. and, undoubtedly how well the shot is executed.

Surely that's Impact Throw or CIT?