Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Ramon]

Can't argue with the last bit Ramon.

About a month ago now TD said you can only move the OB a tiny amount so it would be impossible to pot a 3/4 ball...full ball. That has been proved totally wrong yet him and vmax carry on with this correct BOB nonsense!

I really don't care anymore what either has to say on the subject

Let them bounce away in their tiny little bubble

you're a decent players my friend. plenty of threads in tsf which requires your attentions .
lets get on with our lives gents .

just back hom from the night shift so, bed time for me. gonna dream about running a 5.20 seconds 147 break.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Ramon...I have no idea what in hell you are talking about. 'snooker is not a popularity contest'? I've never said it was and I don't understand the point you are trying to make. When someone hides his identity with an anonymous one it says he doesn't have the courage to back up his statements. It's not because of the anonymous id that I think BS is wrong, it's because I don't believe the theory that he parrots on here. He puts himself up as the resident genius but isn't creative enough to talk about his own theories, just the theories of others. At least vmax and myself talk about our own theories.

'Very poor and weak from your side'...now that's just great. Who in hell elected you to be the policeman for this Forum and call me poor and weak? Are you yet another snooker genius who can absolutely determine what's right and wrong? Don't take the decision you are the arbiter of everything that is right as that shows you have one gigantic ego. I'll tell you right now that neither you nor I are right all the time but at least I'm working from a little experience and willing to admit when I think I'm wrong.

I believe I learn something about snooker every day is what Joe Davis said many years ago in his book and I agree with him as I do too. Decent players talk about their snooker all the time unless they're naturally shy.

Please quit with your pithy comments towards as I don't need a lecture from you. Sorry about that but you've shown nothing but confused thinking on the Forum and I can't respect that at all as it plainly shows your knowledge base is sorely lacking. Get some experience and learn from it before you attempt to lecture, or is that what you like to do with everyone? I haven't seen you lecturing anyone else so I guess in your mind I am the worst offender on here, which I strongly disagree with. Look in a mirror.

Lol. This is great trolling, it really is. You give Reggie the 7 ball, you really do.

Just in case you're not trolling, imagine you are on an ice rink, with a brush in your hands, and are trying to use that brush to propel yourself forwards. Now do two things. Firstly. Brush the ice as quickly as possible. Secondly, use more careful, SLOWER strokes.

Which will get you moving forward more quickly?

[travisbickle]

You do'nt back up your statements with your identity, Terry .
Bcuz regardless of your identity , you could be wrong.

Using* the identity is the way to scape from debate bcuz* you know you're wrong and thr is no other way to back up your arguments .
Using facts and prove and logic , is the way to go.
As far as i'm concerned , you had plenty of all of it in those 2 threads .
If you like to ignore them , so be it . It's your choice.
Btw , no one said you have no* experience !!

Can't argue with the last bit Ramon.

About a month ago now TD said you can only move the OB a tiny amount so it would be impossible to pot a 3/4 ball...full ball. That has been proved totally wrong yet him and vmax carry on with this correct BOB nonsense!

I really don't care anymore what either has to say on the subject

Let them bounce away in their tiny little bubble

[Ramon]

Ramon...I have no idea what in hell you are talking about. 'snooker is not a popularity contest'? I've never said it was and I don't understand the point you are trying to make. When someone hides his identity with an anonymous one it says he doesn't have the courage to back up his statements. It's not because of the anonymous id that I think BS is wrong, it's because I don't believe the theory that he parrots on here. He puts himself up as the resident genius but isn't creative enough to talk about his own theories, just the theories of others. At least vmax and myself talk about our own theories.

'Very poor and weak from your side'...now that's just great. Who in hell elected you to be the policeman for this Forum and call me poor and weak? Are you yet another snooker genius who can absolutely determine what's right and wrong? Don't take the decision you are the arbiter of everything that is right as that shows you have one gigantic ego. I'll tell you right now that neither you nor I are right all the time but at least I'm working from a little experience and willing to admit when I think I'm wrong.

I believe I learn something about snooker every day is what Joe Davis said many years ago in his book and I agree with him as I do too. Decent players talk about their snooker all the time unless they're naturally shy.

Please quit with your pithy comments towards as I don't need a lecture from you. Sorry about that but you've shown nothing but confused thinking on the Forum and I can't respect that at all as it plainly shows your knowledge base is sorely lacking. Get some experience and learn from it before you attempt to lecture, or is that what you like to do with everyone? I haven't seen you lecturing anyone else so I guess in your mind I am the worst offender on here, which I strongly disagree with. Look in a mirror.

You do'nt back up your statements with your identity, Terry .
Bcuz regardless of your identity , you could be wrong.

Using* the identity is the way to scape from debate bcuz* you know you're wrong and thr is no other way to back up your arguments .
Using facts and prove and logic , is the way to go.
As far as i'm concerned , you had plenty of all of it in those 2 threads .
If you like to ignore them , so be it . It's your choice.
Btw , no one said you have no* experience !!

[Terry Davidson]

Terry ,
*Snooker is not popularity contest .* some people may have some limitations which doesnt allow them to talk about their lives ?? is this the way u back-up your arguments?
i do'nt know your name so you can'nt be right?
very poor and weak from your side.

One other note ,

They asked Ronni after he won the grand parix final 2004,
What's your plan and how come you can play so well ??
You know what he said ?
'' Thr is still mutch to learn for me and i'm gonna working on it''.


Decent players are not used to talk about thr standard that often .. Hopfuly some day you undrstand that.

Ramon...I have no idea what in hell you are talking about. 'snooker is not a popularity contest'? I've never said it was and I don't understand the point you are trying to make. When someone hides his identity with an anonymous one it says he doesn't have the courage to back up his statements. It's not because of the anonymous id that I think BS is wrong, it's because I don't believe the theory that he parrots on here. He puts himself up as the resident genius but isn't creative enough to talk about his own theories, just the theories of others. At least vmax and myself talk about our own theories.

'Very poor and weak from your side'...now that's just great. Who in hell elected you to be the policeman for this Forum and call me poor and weak? Are you yet another snooker genius who can absolutely determine what's right and wrong? Don't take the decision you are the arbiter of everything that is right as that shows you have one gigantic ego. I'll tell you right now that neither you nor I are right all the time but at least I'm working from a little experience and willing to admit when I think I'm wrong.

I believe I learn something about snooker every day is what Joe Davis said many years ago in his book and I agree with him as I do too. Decent players talk about their snooker all the time unless they're naturally shy.

Please quit with your pithy comments towards as I don't need a lecture from you. Sorry about that but you've shown nothing but confused thinking on the Forum and I can't respect that at all as it plainly shows your knowledge base is sorely lacking. Get some experience and learn from it before you attempt to lecture, or is that what you like to do with everyone? I haven't seen you lecturing anyone else so I guess in your mind I am the worst offender on here, which I strongly disagree with. Look in a mirror.

[Ramon]

No they're not at all and I suppose you consider yourself one of those 'finer minds'. You don't even know me or what my mind is capable of and thats exactly the same as you disguising your identity and spouting off all these theories which you haven't come up with yourself, you just repeat what other have said starting with the bogus note you've used multiple times regarding the Frenchman in 1835. These theories might work if we used stickier balls I guess. Read my other post, energy NEVER disappears.

Terry ,
*Snooker is not popularity contest .* some people may have some limitations which doesnt allow them to talk about their lives ?? is this the way u back-up your arguments?
i do'nt know your name so you can'nt be right?
very poor and weak from your side.

One other note ,

They asked Ronni after he won the grand parix final 2004,
What's your plan and how come you can play so well ??
You know what he said ?
'' Thr is still mutch to learn for me and i'm gonna working on it''.


Decent players are not used to talk about thr standard that often .. Hopfuly some day you undrstand that.

[Terry Davidson]

My guess, and I only have O Level Physics is that there is more grip at slower speed for the side to impact the path of the OB.

For an off straight pot to the left (so played with RHS):
CB moves left from RHS (not bottom) hits OB left of centre
CB goes (pretty much straight on) into the pocket, and OB misses to the right of pocket.

When this works consistently ie from shorter range (I have stopped this from distance, lol) the CB will follow through about half way to the pocket than if potted conventionally.

Why are you using side on these types of shots at all. Be cautious with your use of side. Play with it all you want in solo practice but try not to use it in any matches. (Unless you are like Travis who says side makes his game more interesting to him but remember the target is 'clear the table'.)

[blahblah01]

My guess, and I only have O Level Physics is that there is more grip at slower speed for the side to impact the path of the OB.

For an off straight pot to the left (so played with RHS):
CB moves left from RHS (not bottom) hits OB left of centre
CB goes (pretty much straight on) into the pocket, and OB misses to the right of pocket.

When this works consistently ie from shorter range (I have stopped this from distance, lol) the CB will follow through about half way to the pocket than if potted conventionally.

[Terry Davidson]

I'd say that it is to do with how long the CB and OB are in contact: so fuller contact and slower speed of CB is more than a fast CB.

I can't be assed digging out the ROy vid, but he does something on power\speed of CB.

Seriously, line the CB and OB up on Baulk Line, or missing a pocket and go for full ball contact with helping side and watch it move.

I find it more consistent for potting and I am more confident re CB positioning, especially when I don't want the CB moving sideways (to the pot) on off straight shots ie upto 3\4.

With more than 3/4, well less if you know what I mean, I kept missing thin ie the Nic B contraption thing and "Helping Side" can compensate for that.

The big problem that I have found with this is on longer shots and CB moving to wrong side and managing to pot CB in intended pocket of OB in a way that is quite incredible.

How in hell would the 2 balls remain in contact longer at slower speeds? Can you explain that one please. The friction of the cloth would be a constant for both shots

On the other bolded statement are you absolutely positive it isn't your cue delivery that's sending the CB down the wrong track. It almost certainly is.

Besides you shouldn't be using side on long and direct pots because there is no reason to and it's very tricky.

[Terry Davidson]

As I've told you countless times before, the physics are explained in graphic detail in the links I've provided to you. That you choose not to click on them is up to you.

As hard as it may be for you to accept, finer minds than yours have spent lifetime's studying this.

No they're not at all and I suppose you consider yourself one of those 'finer minds'. You don't even know me or what my mind is capable of and thats exactly the same as you disguising your identity and spouting off all these theories which you haven't come up with yourself, you just repeat what other have said starting with the bogus note you've used multiple times regarding the Frenchman in 1835. These theories might work if we used stickier balls I guess. Read my other post, energy NEVER disappears.

[blahblah01]

I'd say that it is to do with how long the CB and OB are in contact: so fuller contact and slower speed of CB is more than a fast CB.

I can't be assed digging out the ROy vid, but he does something on power\speed of CB.

Seriously, line the CB and OB up on Baulk Line, or missing a pocket and go for full ball contact with helping side and watch it move.

I find it more consistent for potting and I am more confident re CB positioning, especially when I don't want the CB moving sideways (to the pot) on off straight shots ie upto 3\4.

With more than 3/4, well less if you know what I mean, I kept missing thick ie the Nic B contraption thing and "Helping Side" can compensate for that.

The big problem that I have found with this is on longer shots and CB moving to wrong side and managing to pot CB in intended pocket of OB in a way that is quite incredible.

[Terry Davidson]

Serious question: how long have you known about CIT?

I have known about impact throw forever but I saw plain proof of it with Nic's video using his contraption. When he played the shot a little harder he got more throw and it had to be CIT since there was no spin involved. This is why I have to think the SIT everyone says is there is actually a mistaken assumption based on video data that doesn't explain anything clearly. Why does your SIT disappear with higher power? And what's the speed limit so everyone knows when to not try it. I did note on some of those video clips they did use power but in one of them with the 4-ball and the 9-ball together and the 4 blocking a direct pot the claim was SIT potted the ball but the problem for me was based on the angle of the pot the 4 shouldn't have moved but in fact it moved first. That particular video was based on straight bull.

[Terry Davidson]

I'm still left with the question of why SIT disappears when increased power and maximum spin is used. BS said the higher speed prevents the small spin transfer that has to occur to change the direction of the OB on contact and at slower speeds and lower spin the transfer does happen. My problem is if you max the speed and spin the SIT logically has to be more severe but instead it just disappears. On a 3/4 cut of any type around (estimate) 90% of the energy in the CB is transferred to the OB, so where does the SIT go. I would say it has to be transferred to the OB if SIT really exists.

If you think about it, a dead-in pot with stun has all the energy from the CB transferred to the OB and the cueball stops any movement. At a 90* cut 99% of the energy remains with the CB so it has to be a proportional energy transfer from full-ball at 100% down to 90* at 1% or 2%. The 'experts' say there is no SIT on a straight-in pot with tons of spin but what's the reason for that? The OB should change direction from the effects of the spin but it doesn't EVER. On a 3/4 pot with high spin on the CB there should be a large amount of SIT and that would be that 'up to 5*' mentioned by Dr. Dave and increasing the speed should not effect any momentary spin transfer and 'cling' which is the theory supporting SIT.

I think what we're actually seeing here is CIT or 'Impact Throw' as I call it and the spin does not effect impact throw at all plus the more power in the shot dictates there should be more impact throw. I have observed impact throw many times and seen it on those hi-speed camera shots both on TV and with Dr. Dave's video shots. I am not convinced there is any SIT happening at all or if there is then it is insignificant to the shot and can be ignored anyway.

There is absolutely no way if SIT exists that it will disappear when using more power and spin because you are saying the energy is either disappearing or is converted to another form of energy because in physics energy never disappears, it can only be converted. I keep saying the most simple theory is usually the correct one and the most simple theory here is that SIT just doesn't exist and is a figment of peoples imagination based on making incorrect assumptions on what they are seeing. Now if we had stickier balls maybe it would and it would be more observable.

Last question...at what power does the SIT disappear? Is there a speed limit? If it's there for a slow drag shot does it disappear if you up the power just a bit? Is that the theory because it sounds like the 'devil's work' as Ramon has stated and the devil is sucking up all this spare energy so he can use it to take over the world or maybe that's BS's job.

In the end I think this cling theory is the same as those Klingons around Uranus.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Are you absolutely certain it isn't CIT you see?

Serious question: how long have you known about CIT?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'll wait for your video pottr before I say anything. Ignoring BS since I consider the source to be tainted. Ignoring Ramon too. Like I said I've seen nothing to date which convinces me SIT exists and what BS said is pure heresy regarding power and more spin. How the hell does SIT disappear when you have power and lots of side? I guess the balls bounce against each other quicker so there's no chance of SIT which just makes all the sense in the world.

As I've told you countless times before, the physics are explained in graphic detail in the links I've provided to you. That you choose not to click on them is up to you.

As hard as it may be for you to accept, finer minds than yours have spent lifetime's studying this.