Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[itsnoteasy]

I don't think so as Nic, myself and all my students have been emailing Vivek for the past 8 years trying to get him to put up our profiles on their website. I even met with him face-to-face at the World Champs in India and he promised to put up the profiles but he never has and has never even responded to Nic who is supposed to be their Head Coach.

It just doesn't seem right that we all paid 200GBP to have them recognize us and nothing has ever happened. I know Nic had some problems with them too but when the IBSF and WS negotiated their MOU Nic was supposed to develop the coach training but then WS went their own way and canceled the MOU and started their own coaching scheme. Under the MOU all the IBSF Master Coaches were recognized as Level III WS or WPBSA coaches and as an Examiner I was supposed to be a Level IV.

No it doesn't seem right, it's bloody terrible, eight years! Beyond a joke, I thought you had been on it but taken off recently, I hadn't realised he had been mucking you around for that length of time.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Ramon & Byrom:

All I have been doing is asking for some video proof to convince me that CIT & SIT actually exist. The Nic Barrow video with the board on the table convinced me there was some CIT factor and I've admitted this. As for SIT, Dr. Dave's videos are nice but they never show the whole shot and are done on an old cloth on a home 4x8 table with dirty balls and I would like to see something done on a snooker table with a good cloth and clean balls and perhaps Travis will produce one.

The other problem is I've tried the shots here at home (at least the Barry Stark one) and I can always do it but it looks to me as if the cueball curls into the potting position but it all happens fast. Pehaps I'll get ambition and video a shot myself and then run that through Kinovea and see if I can take a screen shot with the blue and CB just contacting and then post the video to youtube although I have never done that it must be fairly user-friendly.

Everyone got upset with me because I won't accept the videos from Dr. Dave but I am a snooker coach and player and I want to see definitive proof done on a snooker table with a shiny new nap and clean balls because I figure there are probably about 3* of SIT (maybe) and the other 12* or so is attributable to CB curl.

But you are right, I can't agree with some of the negative people on here so I've decided to not rise to their bait.

Everyone of us who understands this discussion has said, from the very first post, SIT increases when the balls are dirty etc. This is simple physics and is not news. I even gave you an extreme example of when throw might not exist at all.

But the wilson and selby shots proved a snooker table is not adverse to the laws of physics after all.

[itsnoteasy]

Since I was struggling to describe why you can't aim at the middle of the pocket all the time, because of throw, and how we all compensate for it,I tried to find sometching that did it better, I hope this helps a bit. Just for folk who maybe got confused with my gibberish.
https://youtu.be/sMtMTD0P9-g

[Ramon]

Ramon & Byrom:

All I have been doing is asking for some video proof to convince me that CIT & SIT actually exist. The Nic Barrow video with the board on the table convinced me there was some CIT factor and I've admitted this. As for SIT, Dr. Dave's videos are nice but they never show the whole shot and are done on an old cloth on a home 4x8 table with dirty balls and I would like to see something done on a snooker table with a good cloth and clean balls and perhaps Travis will produce one.

The other problem is I've tried the shots here at home (at least the Barry Stark one) and I can always do it but it looks to me as if the cueball curls into the potting position but it all happens fast. Pehaps I'll get ambition and video a shot myself and then run that through Kinovea and see if I can take a screen shot with the blue and CB just contacting and then post the video to youtube although I have never done that it must be fairly user-friendly.

Everyone got upset with me because I won't accept the videos from Dr. Dave but I am a snooker coach and player and I want to see definitive proof done on a snooker table with a shiny new nap and clean balls because I figure there are probably about 3* of SIT (maybe) and the other 12* or so is attributable to CB curl.

But you are right, I can't agree with some of the negative people on here so I've decided to not rise to their bait.

Terry ,


Many decent and experienced players, can play very well without being aware of how they do it. I do'nt have to tell you this, you're a good and experienced coach as well as a decent player. You should know this.
But this does'nt mean that The Law of physics does not exists and aint happening.
when it comes to cue sport , The law of physics is thr and result is the same, BUT , the outcome could be diff, and this due to the diff technical aspects /tables/cloth /balls and so on.......

for example.,
When someone asks me, does spin effect the OB's path. than my answer is most defo yes.
If anyone asks me. can you create same amount of spin as your cousin does at the same shot?
Than, my answer would be; most definitely no. because we have 2 different techniques an his cue action is much better than mine.

On another note ,
I've seen many of your posts repeatedly claming that someone here has said, the effect of the spin can make the OB swerve.
No one has said that. And that is not true. Despite the fact that Big shot and many others have told you this, you keep coming back talking about making the OB swerve.

So what is my point ?

I am not in a position to force you to do something (i do'nt think anyone is),
But I would expect that you ( as a more experienced player as well as a coach ) , to show abit more patience and pay more attention to what others have to say. ( what happened to your hard skin ? ) .
And this is in order to prevent the unnecessary frustration in debate, as well as realizing that this guys are actually agree with many things you already mentioned.

I have not seen anyone saying that deflection or swerve does not exist and aint happening.
I have not seen anyone saying, you do'nt need to put hard work in it.
I have not seen anyone saying you gonna have to put side in every shot you're playing.
And this as well as many other points are things you have mentioned repeatedly in many of your posts in orde to defend yourself (not realizing that these guys are actually agree with you).
Do'nt get me wrong, I do'nt back up anyone here.
As a matter of fact , I think there is some misunderstanding from both sides.

But at the end,

I realy think, despite of all these facts, if you can'nt agree with each other. then it's the right time to bury the discussion.

Just my opinion .

[vmax]

It's up to you to prove to me the CB swerves. Good luck with that!
At that pace the CB will hold its line. Try it, but don't jack your cue up when you do
Pink is prove enough that I didn't hit correct BOB

I did on my video, everything was clearly in view. In yours the camera was placed at an angle to the line of aim, we couldn't see the whole of your cue, we couldn't see the pocket and we couldn't see you. For all we know your mother played the shot.

Now I take this latest refusal as proof that you can't make the same contact point on the OB striking plain ball or with left hand side as you did with right hand side. I take this latest refusal that you tried, failed and are desperately trying to save face.

There is always swerve on the cue ball with off centre striking, at slow pace it's tiny and can't be seen in real time, but if you're snookered by 2 or 3mm then tiny is all you need. The fact that you can make certain contacts on the OB and positions that can't be made with centre ball and opposite side striking proves it. There's no magic going on, no transfered spin, so pure logic based on the results you get means swerve must be happening.

If you need more than tiny then you lower the strike on the cue ball, if you need lots then you raise the butt of the cue, it's all relative,

FREE HAND MADE CUE TO ANYONE WITH A VIDEO OF THEMSELVES THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE

Now I'm waiting for itsnoteasy to contact Dr. Dave and ask him about the cue ball rolling at a 30ish degree angle to the vertical axis when loaded with side and how that actually affects the contact on the OB. Could be more than 30, could be less, I don't know if it's measured from the top or bottom, could be 45 degrees ? but it rolls forward spinning on an angled axis just like our planet orbits the sun.
Free cue for Dr. Dave maybe, but I doubt it and definitely not if he shows something involving a plant or set.

Also, I have yet to understand what's happening with a frozen plant where you cut the first OB in a different direction to make the pot. I find it hard to believe the 'squeeze effect' the commentators use but with the mass of 2 balls present it might be again similar to the bank shot where the cueball remains in contact with the first OB (or squeezed somehow). I can do it but I can't explain it which is frustrating as an Engineer.

Squeeze is probably the wrong terminology Tel, push is what's really happening as the balls are all touching and moving together for a split second and when they eventually break apart the end ball of the plant has been pushed by the mass of the others onto a different line.

It's how table croquet, that became billiards, was played using the mace before it was turned around and used as a cue. The flat of the mace (now on the butt of the cue) was the playing end and was laid on the table and the balls were pushed along and many angles could be made depending on how prolonged the contact between mace and ball/s was.
It's the reason why push shots are outlawed now as when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push. Try it and see.

[cole46]

"when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push"

I think that is what happens when a ball has siidespin on it, the effect is the same. the contact is longer.

[Terry Davidson]

Ramon:

Someone stated they could get the OB to swerve around an intervening ball. Now was that a typo? Did he mean CB? What happened (in my mind) is I was getting unfairly criticized by some for not agreeing with CIT & SIT or at least not agreeing they had much measurable effect on a snooker table and stating they couldn't be effectively replicated on every shot. I also questioned whether the blue ball pot shown by Barry Stark wasn't really cueball swerve. For that I got crapped on from a great height, called stupid, ignorant, ignoring the laws of physics and everything else under the sun.

I did not start all the negative comments but I did respond to them. From your post: 'But I would expect that you ( as a more experienced player as well as a coach ) , to show abit more patience and pay more attention to what others have to say. ( what happened to your hard skin' ? ) . Why am I required to show restraint and people like Reggie are not required to in your mind? Is that fair or honest. I'm claiming age discrimination!

Because you are thinking a coach should somehow be super-human and ignore really negative comments and not respond in kind. First of all these people are not my students, they don't pay me for coaching and I am not the sort of person to bend over for them with or without lubricant. I have a temper sometimes, being human, I let it get out there because I thought I was asking sensible questions but I was disagreeing with their conclusions regarding their religion. I want spin transfer freedom on TSF, just like religious freedom.

Right now I have seen no video which proves or disproves this 'law of physics' you refer to. Please give me that law of physics which states two perfect spheres will cling together longer if one of them is spinning because I've never seen such a law. What I do see is videos purporting to prove the two balls cling together a bit longer than they normally would if spin were not present, otherwise known as a 'kick' (which Dr. Dave acknowledges by the way). If you think about it it's VERY difficult to hit an object ball with a cueball that ISN'T spinning as it would have to be a perfect stun shot with the cueball skidding and would have to be timed perfectly. So my question to anyone who says 'the law of physics dictates that spin is transferred' then we should be concluding every shot ever played (except for perfect stun shots) will have some amount of SIT on the OB and there will be a variance in the direction it leaves the cueball. However if you do hit the CB on it's centreline you would minimize any spin transfer but not much you can ever do about CIT except for fine cuts according to Dr. Dave. Perhaps this is why snooker coaches recommend new players not use side spin.

The problem as I see it is no one on here has taken their arguments to their logical conclusion, which is the scientific method I was taught. You can see spin transfer under certain conditions but my belief is it is not consistently repeatable and cannot be altered for a given shot by something one does to the cueball. I'm sure Dr. Dave would disagree and he's allowed to disagree and I'm not going to get all up tight and criticize him and his methods.

Here is an experiment which could be tried. Hit a shot with any amount of spin and observe whatever spin transfer you can see, try and maximize it. Now hit the shot as a perfect stun shot with the cueball not spinning in any direction and note the difference in transferred spin. It's minimal to begin with even under conditions which encourage it and with that high speed camera over such a short distance it will be very difficult to see if the CB is perfectly still. Oh, and show us the whole shot from in front of the object ball or even beside it but show more of the table please. This is the way to prove spin transfer is something that can be played with for the same type of shot and can be used to precisely send the OB on its way.

[Terry Davidson]

"when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push"

I think that is what happens when a ball has siidespin on it, the effect is the same. the contact is longer.

That's what Dr. Dave says and that is the definition of a 'kick' and he says that too but because of the camera speed and type of shot he uses it cannot be seen or measured. I'm not sure if snooker player want to go around trying to calculate the amount of OB throw from a mini-kick. My initial statement stands in my mind and that is that outside of some specific purposes this information is of no use to players except to try and understand what's going on.

[travisbickle]

I did on my video, everything was clearly in view. In yours the camera was placed at an angle to the line of aim, we couldn't see the whole of your cue, we couldn't see the pocket and we couldn't see you. For all we know your mother played the shot.

Now I take this latest refusal as proof that you can't make the same contact point on the OB striking plain ball or with left hand side as you did with right hand side. I take this latest refusal that you tried, failed and are desperately trying to save face.

There is always swerve on the cue ball with off centre striking, at slow pace it's tiny and can't be seen in real time, but if you're snookered by 2 or 3mm then tiny is all you need. The fact that you can make certain contacts on the OB and positions that can't be made with centre ball and opposite side striking proves it. There's no magic going on, no transfered spin, so pure logic based on the results you get means swerve must be happening.

If you need more than tiny then you lower the strike on the cue ball, if you need lots then you raise the butt of the cue, it's all relative,

FREE HAND MADE CUE TO ANYONE WITH A VIDEO OF THEMSELVES THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE

Now I'm waiting for itsnoteasy to contact Dr. Dave and ask him about the cue ball rolling at a 30ish degree angle to the vertical axis when loaded with side and how that actually affects the contact on the OB. Could be more than 30, could be less, I don't know if it's measured from the top or bottom, could be 45 degrees ? but it rolls forward spinning on an angled axis just like our planet orbits the sun.
Free cue for Dr. Dave maybe, but I doubt it and definitely not if he shows something involving a plant or set.



Squeeze is probably the wrong terminology Tel, push is what's really happening as the balls are all touching and moving together for a split second and when they eventually break apart the end ball of the plant has been pushed by the mass of the others onto a different line.

It's how table croquet, that became billiards, was played using the mace before it was turned around and used as a cue. The flat of the mace (now on the butt of the cue) was the playing end and was laid on the table and the balls were pushed along and many angles could be made depending on how prolonged the contact between mace and ball/s was.
It's the reason why push shots are outlawed now as when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push. Try it and see.

It was my gran playing actually. And she proved more in a few shots then you managed in 30 minutes lol

[Ramon]

Ramon:

Someone stated they could get the OB to swerve around an intervening ball. Now was that a typo? Did he mean CB? What happened (in my mind) is I was getting unfairly criticized by some for not agreeing with CIT & SIT or at least not agreeing they had much measurable effect on a snooker table and stating they couldn't be effectively replicated on every shot. I also questioned whether the blue ball pot shown by Barry Stark wasn't really cueball swerve. For that I got crapped on from a great height, called stupid, ignorant, ignoring the laws of physics and everything else under the sun.

I did not start all the negative comments but I did respond to them. From your post: 'But I would expect that you ( as a more experienced player as well as a coach ) , to show abit more patience and pay more attention to what others have to say. ( what happened to your hard skin' ? ) . Why am I required to show restraint and people like Reggie are not required to in your mind? Is that fair or honest. I'm claiming age discrimination!

Because you are thinking a coach should somehow be super-human and ignore really negative comments and not respond in kind. First of all these people are not my students, they don't pay me for coaching and I am not the sort of person to bend over for them with or without lubricant. I have a temper sometimes, being human, I let it get out there because I thought I was asking sensible questions but I was disagreeing with their conclusions regarding their religion. I want spin transfer freedom on TSF, just like religious freedom.

Right now I have seen no video which proves or disproves this 'law of physics' you refer to. Please give me that law of physics which states two perfect spheres will cling together longer if one of them is spinning because I've never seen such a law. What I do see is videos purporting to prove the two balls cling together a bit longer than they normally would if spin were not present, otherwise known as a 'kick' (which Dr. Dave acknowledges by the way). If you think about it it's VERY difficult to hit an object ball with a cueball that ISN'T spinning as it would have to be a perfect stun shot with the cueball skidding and would have to be timed perfectly. So my question to anyone who says 'the law of physics dictates that spin is transferred' then we should be concluding every shot ever played (except for perfect stun shots) will have some amount of SIT on the OB and there will be a variance in the direction it leaves the cueball. However if you do hit the CB on it's centreline you would minimize any spin transfer but not much you can ever do about CIT except for fine cuts according to Dr. Dave. Perhaps this is why snooker coaches recommend new players not use side spin.

The problem as I see it is no one on here has taken their arguments to their logical conclusion, which is the scientific method I was taught. You can see spin transfer under certain conditions but my belief is it is not consistently repeatable and cannot be altered for a given shot by something one does to the cueball. I'm sure Dr. Dave would disagree and he's allowed to disagree and I'm not going to get all up tight and criticize him and his methods.

Here is an experiment which could be tried. Hit a shot with any amount of spin and observe whatever spin transfer you can see, try and maximize it. Now hit the shot as a perfect stun shot with the cueball not spinning in any direction and note the difference in transferred spin. It's minimal to begin with even under conditions which encourage it and with that high speed camera over such a short distance it will be very difficult to see if the CB is perfectly still. Oh, and show us the whole shot from in front of the object ball or even beside it but show more of the table please. This is the way to prove spin transfer is something that can be played with for the same type of shot and can be used to precisely send the OB on its way.

Because you are like a big brother to all of us in TSF. I can'nt imagine a TSF without Terry lol,. So we like to mess up with your mind from time to time !!!

[itsnoteasy]

I did on my video, everything was clearly in view. In yours the camera was placed at an angle to the line of aim, we couldn't see the whole of your cue, we couldn't see the pocket and we couldn't see you. For all we know your mother played the shot.

Now I take this latest refusal as proof that you can't make the same contact point on the OB striking plain ball or with left hand side as you did with right hand side. I take this latest refusal that you tried, failed and are desperately trying to save face.

There is always swerve on the cue ball with off centre striking, at slow pace it's tiny and can't be seen in real time, but if you're snookered by 2 or 3mm then tiny is all you need. The fact that you can make certain contacts on the OB and positions that can't be made with centre ball and opposite side striking proves it. There's no magic going on, no transfered spin, so pure logic based on the results you get means swerve must be happening.

If you need more than tiny then you lower the strike on the cue ball, if you need lots then you raise the butt of the cue, it's all relative,

FREE HAND MADE CUE TO ANYONE WITH A VIDEO OF THEMSELVES THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE

Now I'm waiting for itsnoteasy to contact Dr. Dave and ask him about the cue ball rolling at a 30ish degree angle to the vertical axis when loaded with side and how that actually affects the contact on the OB. Could be more than 30, could be less, I don't know if it's measured from the top or bottom, could be 45 degrees ? but it rolls forward spinning on an angled axis just like our planet orbits the sun.
Free cue for Dr. Dave maybe, but I doubt it and definitely not if he shows something involving a plant or set.



Squeeze is probably the wrong terminology Tel, push is what's really happening as the balls are all touching and moving together for a split second and when they eventually break apart the end ball of the plant has been pushed by the mass of the others onto a different line.

It's how table croquet, that became billiards, was played using the mace before it was turned around and used as a cue. The flat of the mace (now on the butt of the cue) was the playing end and was laid on the table and the balls were pushed along and many angles could be made depending on how prolonged the contact between mace and ball/s was.
It's the reason why push shots are outlawed now as when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push. Try it and see.

Contact him yourself, I posted up his email.

[travisbickle]

I did on my video, everything was clearly in view. In yours the camera was placed at an angle to the line of aim, we couldn't see the whole of your cue, we couldn't see the pocket and we couldn't see you. For all we know your mother played the shot.

Now I take this latest refusal as proof that you can't make the same contact point on the OB striking plain ball or with left hand side as you did with right hand side. I take this latest refusal that you tried, failed and are desperately trying to save face.

There is always swerve on the cue ball with off centre striking, at slow pace it's tiny and can't be seen in real time, but if you're snookered by 2 or 3mm then tiny is all you need. The fact that you can make certain contacts on the OB and positions that can't be made with centre ball and opposite side striking proves it. There's no magic going on, no transfered spin, so pure logic based on the results you get means swerve must be happening.

If you need more than tiny then you lower the strike on the cue ball, if you need lots then you raise the butt of the cue, it's all relative,

FREE HAND MADE CUE TO ANYONE WITH A VIDEO OF THEMSELVES THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE

Now I'm waiting for itsnoteasy to contact Dr. Dave and ask him about the cue ball rolling at a 30ish degree angle to the vertical axis when loaded with side and how that actually affects the contact on the OB. Could be more than 30, could be less, I don't know if it's measured from the top or bottom, could be 45 degrees ? but it rolls forward spinning on an angled axis just like our planet orbits the sun.
Free cue for Dr. Dave maybe, but I doubt it and definitely not if he shows something involving a plant or set.



Squeeze is probably the wrong terminology Tel, push is what's really happening as the balls are all touching and moving together for a split second and when they eventually break apart the end ball of the plant has been pushed by the mass of the others onto a different line.

It's how table croquet, that became billiards, was played using the mace before it was turned around and used as a cue. The flat of the mace (now on the butt of the cue) was the playing end and was laid on the table and the balls were pushed along and many angles could be made depending on how prolonged the contact between mace and ball/s was.
It's the reason why push shots are outlawed now as when balls are touching or very close together you can effect the angle with a prolonged contact or push. Try it and see.

https://youtu.be/pdlbCohmiCw
https://youtu.be/hz_uP_JlpUs

Pause on contact. First vid nowhere near correct BOB contact.
Second vid is exactly the same as Wilson's shot minus the kick or the pot :biggrin-new:

[vmax]

Contact him yourself, I posted up his email.

I missed that, sorry.

[itsnoteasy]

I missed that, sorry.

No probs I will put it up again. Get in touch with him Vmax, I do think you have one point that is worth discussing imo and that is whether there is a maximum range you can play these shots from as he says you get most throw from a skidding ball at slow pace with medium spin, so at long range I'm not sure you could get a sliding cue ball at low pace as it would start to roll, but there will be better players than me who can say if it can be done. Although the first video Travis has posted above, is pretty clear.
David.Alciatore@colostate.edu
There you go pal.

[vmax]

https://youtu.be/pdlbCohmiCw
https://youtu.be/hz_uP_JlpUs

Pause on contact. First vid nowhere near correct BOB contact.
Second vid is exactly the same as Wilson's shot minus the kick or the pot :biggrin-new:

Ask your gran to set up the same shots and also play them with left hand side and centre ball striking to prove you can make the same contact point without using right hand side to swerve the cue ball.
That's what I asked you to do and to get your gran to do otherwise is ducking out.