Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[throtts]

pottr, no vid or am I not looking properly..?

[pottr]

a & c) and helping the pot or turning the OB in is a misnomer, you're actually helping position by making the cue ball approach BOB from a very slightly different angle, and it all depends on pace as to when the cue ball contacts BOB or near enough BOB to make the pot.

I agree with this

[vmax]

and your book says a,b,c all pot?

reminder:
a. so high on a 1/2b black using helping side do you still make the pot if you actually contact bob at 1/2b?
b. or do you aim and contact a little thicker?
c. or maybe you aim thick but it curves onto bob at 1/2b?


-

a & c) and helping the pot or turning the OB in is a misnomer, you're actually helping position by making the cue ball approach BOB from a very slightly different angle, and it all depends on pace as to when the cue ball contacts BOB or near enough BOB to make the pot.

[pottr]

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!

Following what I show in my video, I would have to agree with that.

In the shot I show to prove SIT exists, you're talking millimetres... If someone could replicate the shot I used over a greater distance then I would be happy to say otherwise...

But a 3/4 pot full ball... that's manipulating the OB inches over the course of 5/6 feet at slow speeds... My little experiment tells me that's extremely unlikely on a snooker table.

Perhaps on a pool table with no nap and much heavier balls, but still... Inches would be hard to believe in my mind following on from what I did empirically last night.

I think the most likely effect when you're talking of OB movements for more than a few millimetres is that you're swerving the white.

So I'm in a position where I sort of agree with and disagree with everyone at the same time, lol.

As soon as my missus sorts the video splitting thing out, I'll post.

[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.