Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

the way i see it , Terry and Vmax are saying by using side the CB makes some kind of swerve and approach the OB from a diff angle in order to alter the OB's path .
Are you saying they did'nt say that ?

On a power shot I've always said the CB doesn't have a chance to recover due to spin, whether it's 7" or 7'. All shots that are 'proving' SIT are slow shots using side and drag for the most part. Only the j6 one had a bit of pace and his CB didn't recover in his first shot because of the pace and the ball was under-cut whereas subsequent shots he had less power and made the pots.

[Ramon]

Ramon, on that picture, you can't see the cue!

playing that white there on that brown with the cue coming straight at that angle, misses WIDE to the left of the pocket... Very wide... you're talking 8/10 inches.

To get close with that once from that angle you need to play with EXTREME right hand side... Even then it's close

But you can see where he hits the CB ? do'nt you ?

If he picks up the angle what he normaly does for center ball striking and hits the ball there with extreem side , than he's gonna miss the shot , bud.

So , in this case , you do'nt have to see the cue . bcuz you can see how the balls are lined up and where he's gonna hit the CB .

[Terry Davidson]

This is how you gonna have to cue in orde to get so much deflection in a distance of 6" .

Ramon...so if I understand you correctly you believe there's no need to aim-off when doing a power shot with side? I can tell you EVERY player except you will compensate with aim-off when using side on a power shot. The cueball has to deflect in a direction opposite to the side and with power it will never have the chance to recover. This shot of Jimmy's is a pure (and well done) masse shot which I have to say I could never do without a ton of practice so I would have to use a couple of cushions on this shot. I have never seen another pro do a masse shot that well.

[pottr]

So you get the same effect on CB when you cue as jimmy does here as when you keep the cue parallel to the table. ( in a distance of 6" ) ??

well, than I owe you a apologies !!
Thnaks .

Of course not.

When you spin around in a circle you get dizzy too...

Nothing to do with CIT or SIT but neither does any of your posts on the thread...

Oh and Nairobi is the capital of Kenya.

[Terry Davidson]

It's not a swerve shot, but the effect on the white is the same, only less accentuated.

The main players on this debate are:
travis
HMBS
Terry
Vmax

If one of those four come forward and say that you are commenting on what they are, I will bow down to you and call you master x

Deflection of the CB when using side happens instantaneously on contact and the CB pushes off to the opposite direction. Some of those shots into the middle by the pros use side and some don't and I don't remember pottr using side on his example.

[Ramon]

On a power shot I've always said the CB doesn't have a chance to recover due to spin, whether it's 7" or 7'. All shots that are 'proving' SIT are slow shots using side and drag for the most part. Only the j6 one had a bit of pace and his CB didn't recover in his first shot because of the pace and the ball was under-cut whereas subsequent shots he had less power and made the pots.

Well , than it's the Devil's work Terry .

Bcuz , the way i see it , sumthing must change and alter the OB's path .
I can'nt think of anything except Devil !! :snooker:

[pottr]

But you can see where he hits the CB ? do'nt you ?

Sort of... not clearly... you need the reference point of the player and the cue to draw the trajectory.

If he picks up the angle what he normaly does for center ball striking and hits the ball there with extreem side , than he's gonna miss the shot , bud.

What does that even mean? you don't aim the shot and then move the cue tip for side... you line the shot up with the side accounted for... At least that's what I do?

So , in this case , you do'nt have to see the cue . bcuz you can see how the balls are lined up and where he's gonna hit the CB .

You do. Coz from there, if he hits that blue mark, for my money he misses and misses wide. But if the cue comes in at a different angle and hits the same point it would pot it.

I don't like arguing with you, Ramon... you're one of the good guys on here but you really have missed the boat on this one.

I don't know what more I can say to get you to understand?

Deflection of the CB when using side happens instantaneously on contact and the CB pushes off to the opposite direction. Some of those shots into the middle by the pros use side and some don't and I don't remember pottr using side on his example.

Just a trace

[Ramon]

Of course not.

When you spin around in a circle you get dizzy too...

Nothing to do with CIT or SIT but neither does any of your posts on the thread...

Oh and Nairobi is the capital of Kenya.

read the post NR 758 again please .

[pottr]

Ramon...so if I understand you correctly you believe there's no need to aim-off when doing a power shot with side? I can tell you EVERY player except you will compensate with aim-off when using side on a power shot. The cueball has to deflect in a direction opposite to the side and with power it will never have the chance to recover.

Correct

This shot of Jimmy's is a pure (and well done) masse shot which I have to say I could never do without a ton of practice so I would have to use a couple of cushions on this shot. I have never seen another pro do a masse shot that well.

Mental shot... such talent

[Ramon]

Sort of... not clearly... you need the reference point of the player and the cue to draw the trajectory.


What does that even mean? you don't aim the shot and then move the cue tip for side... you line the shot up with the side accounted for... At least that's what I do?


You do. Coz from there, if he hits that blue mark, for my money he misses and misses wide. But if the cue comes in at a different angle and hits the same point it would pot it.

I don't like arguing with you, Ramon... you're one of the good guys on here but you really have missed the boat on this one.

I don't know what more I can say to get you to understand?

Take my advice and put your bet ( money ) on sumthing else !!!

Btw, I do'nt argue with you friend . we just talk .
Looks like we disagree . so i'm gonna leave it here .

[Terry Davidson]

Well , than it's the Devil's work Terry .

Bcuz , the way i see it , sumthing must change and alter the OB's path .
I can'nt think of anything except Devil !! :snooker:

vmax and I say it's the CB altering and forget your 7" because for instance Wilson's CB was a lot farther away than that. These pro shots you've put up have nothing to do with SIT but where side is used there is CB deflection and no time for any spin to take effect until the CB hit a cushion. Look at the Barry Stark video again and see if you can determine whether the CB is curling to the right near the end of the shot and just before it contacts the blue. Slow the speed down to 25% and take a good look or better yet use frame-by-frame and you'll see it.

Try this yourself and see what happens. Set up a 3/4 blue and play it with extreme power and also a ton of side and the CB will deflect but run straight and note where the CB hits the cushion and then try the same shot with extreme power but absolutely so side and see where the CB ends up. I think you will feel more confident potting the blue with no side and the only difference to where the CB ends up is once the shot with side hits the cushion and deflects.

But both shots will hit the cushion at the same spot or should if you hit the same spot on the pocket.

[pottr]

Ok, you wrote this:

KW shot, the one travis also played.
tbh , i do'nt think you can folow what my point is .
As long as you can'nt undrstand the concept of the side, you wont be able to understand that one too.
What you and Vmax are suggesting here is that the CB in a distance of 7 inches makes sum kind of magical swimming/ turne and hit the OB frome a diff angle.
That's simply impossible.

I already commented on this.

What you say is impossible... Terry and Vmax agree with you.

I don't and neither do the majority of the thread... My posts to you have been that you think this argument is about the effects of 'deflection' which is pretty basic stuff when it's about CIT and SIT which is much much more complicated to understand how to control to your advantage.

In essence, we're discussing particle physics and you're telling us about how the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees... You're not wrong, I'm saying you're not following the conversation... yet you keep chiming in to defend the triangles

[Terry Davidson]

Ok, you wrote this:

I already commented on this.

What you say is impossible... Terry and Vmax agree with you.

I don't and neither do the majority of the thread... My posts to you have been that you think this argument is about the effects of 'deflection' which is pretty basic stuff when it's about CIT and SIT which is much much more complicated to understand how to control to your advantage.

In essence, we're discussing particle physics and you're telling us about how the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees... You're not wrong, I'm saying you're not following the conversation... yet you keep chiming in to defend the triangles

Wait a minute there pottr. I don't agree with Ramon and I'm surprised you disagree with me that on a slow shot with the CB traveling around 18" or so with a lot of side that it won't 'curl' in the direction of the side as it slows down. In the Travis video with the lines you can see the CB pushing off to the left slightly and then it starts recovering before it passes the pink and then remains on that new line until contact with the OB.

I'm saying I have problems believing in SIT because if you hit a 3/4 ball with maximum power and maximum spin you should get a maximum of SIT but on any shots with power it disappears. This says to me that it was never there or else it disappears for some reason when there is maximum energy transfer to the OB. If you believe in SIT and with your experience can you explain why it goes away under what should be maximum conditions.

The other aspect of this is SIT is not present in a straight in shot, you need an angle to see it apparently and I think this is a telling point and what they are actually seeing is CIT otherwise knows as impact throw on the OB. Travis says up to 15* is what he can get but both BS and the Dr. say it's less. On the Nic Barrow video with his contraption that is what we saw as it increased when he played the shot harder. I liked that the roll on the table actually had more impact on the OB than the CIT.

When I think of my career and all the years I wasted by not being aware of CIT & SIT I am crying to myself. Had I known about those 2 things in the words of Rocky Balboa 'I could have been a contender' NOT

[pottr]

Wait a minute there pottr. I don't agree with Ramon and I'm surprised you disagree with me that on a slow shot with the CB traveling around 18" or so with a lot of side that it won't 'curl' in the direction of the side as it slows down. In the Travis video with the lines you can see the CB pushing off to the left slightly and then it starts recovering before it passes the pink and then remains on that new line until contact with the OB.

Terry, it's completely out of the context now where before it was in line of his posts before and since... You're discussing two separate things.
He kept banging on about looking at post 758 even though I addressed it in the flow so I copied and pasted it again.

You even cropped my reply from that initial message and used it yourself in one of your own replies.

Ramon is saying that SIT doesn't exist. Just like you and vmax.

I think it does, but am more than happy to be told I am correct or wrong because I find it irrelevant knowledge.

[Terry Davidson]

Terry, it's completely out of the context now where before it was in line of his posts before and since... You're discussing two separate things.
He kept banging on about looking at post 758 even though I addressed it in the flow so I copied and pasted it again.

You even cropped my reply from that initial message and used it yourself in one of your own replies.

Ramon is saying that SIT doesn't exist. Just like you and vmax.

I think it does, but am more than happy to be told I am correct or wrong because I find it irrelevant knowledge.

Ramon is saying 'something' is altering the OB's path and says it must be the devil at work. Then I don't understand what Ramon is on about because in my book nothing but impact throw can alter the OB's path at contact.

I do agree with you though, whether it exists or not it is 'irrelevant knowledge' and why I put up that career comment. Just thing, if you had known about this years ago you could have been a contender too