Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[j6uk]

Cheers, J... It's touch and go whether I'll be able to stand properly right now.

dont bother getting up, a pottr like you theres no need to stand.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

see what I mean Travis.

6 inches is more than enough to deflect the white

[Ramon]

I think what Ramon is saying here that it's impossible for the CB in mine & Wilson's vid to turn in the last 7 inches to make correct BOB contact.
And if that's what he is trying to say then he is 100% right.

that,

plus i tried to tell our dear friend pottr, you gonna have to learn how to walk before you start running.
Someone who does'nt understand that the CB can'nt make a twist or some kind of magical turne in a distance of 6 inches, is simply not ready to undrstand what SIT is.

[travisbickle]

I wanted to defend Ramon too... but he really wasn't, Travis... he was on about deflection, browns to middle and what not... You should have been there, keyboards were scorching hot over the forum, trolling heaven... you'd have loved it

I don't think he knows right now what SIT means in the context of the thread.

BUT... I'll happily have him pretend he did, say he was trolling and never the Twain shall meet.


Cheers, J... It's touch and go whether I'll be able to stand properly right now.

Have to go out. I'll have a read later.

look forward to see how much you can throw the OB later.
If you beat mine, I might be up for the challenge lol

[pottr]

I wanted to defend Ramon too... but he really wasn't, Travis... he was on about deflection, browns to middle and what not... You should have been there, keyboards were scorching hot over the forum, trolling heaven... you'd have loved it

I don't think he knows right now what SIT means in the context of the thread.

BUT... I'll happily have him pretend he did, say he was trolling and never the Twain shall meet.

cant wait. go easy on the pk

Cheers, J... It's touch and go whether I'll be able to stand properly right now.

[travisbickle]

RAMON, OMG

Terry and Vmax are the ones on the thread saying that does NOT happen... You're bashing the ones you are in agreement with!

I think what Ramon is saying here that it's impossible for the CB in mine & Wilson's vid to turn in the last 7 inches to make correct BOB contact.
And if that's what he is trying to say then he is 100% right.

[j6uk]

Those shots clearly exist as you played them, on camera. You're misreading my tenor... I don't think you staged anything, I think you're mistaken with your analysis is all.

My position on the video is that there is no SIT on the OB during any of the shots you performed... The effect of holding the white, is down to your mastery of holding the white... nothing to do with SIT.

So, yes... the shots exists, but IMO the explanation you use 'turning it in' isn't what you're doing... I'd say you're keeping the white on it's leash... which is what the goal of the game is at the more advanced level.

I'm not sure I explained the shot I think could prove it well enough...
I'm annoyed I only just watched your video because you explain what you're thinking and it makes it educational.
I am out of the office in the next 30 minutes so I won't be able to contribute constructively...

I'm gonna load up on pain killers and try and recreate your shots with my own explanation (with the aid of minipottr) and then set up the only shot that I think proves SIT

cant wait. go easy on the pk

[pottr]

Good luck with that Pottr.

You'll need to turn the OB at right angles to get TD/vmax to believe

Even then they will say your iPad wasn't quite in the right spot so it was probably hitting BOB after all

If I can set up the shot that I have in my head there will be no room for interpretation and I'll have a pair of 12 year old's eyes with me to confirm or deny whether the OB will pot.

[pottr]

Now I am in the corner where I believe the shot exists... The only way you can prove it is to set up a shot where THE OB doesn't pot... even if it's only slightly... Saying the cueball can't get to the potting angle doesn't mean a thing because there is always the possibility of the last microsecond swerve.

If the OB is set up so that it only just doesn't pot... then you can use side IMO to turn it over... Those shots played in that video don't show what you're explaining for me... It's advanced positional play, but analytically it's the white ball that's being manipulated in those 4 shots, not the object ball.

Probably why I see this SIT shot as extremely rare and you find it common... The shots you play in that video are what I would consider common... but by no means are they examples of SIT

Those shots clearly exist as you played them, on camera. You're misreading my tenor... I don't think you staged anything, I think you're mistaken with your analysis is all.

My position on the video is that there is no SIT on the OB during any of the shots you performed... The effect of holding the white, is down to your mastery of holding the white... nothing to do with SIT.

So, yes... the shots exists, but IMO the explanation you use 'turning it in' isn't what you're doing... I'd say you're keeping the white on it's leash... which is what the goal of the game is at the more advanced level.

I'm not sure I explained the shot I think could prove it well enough...
I'm annoyed I only just watched your video because you explain what you're thinking and it makes it educational.
I am out of the office in the next 30 minutes so I won't be able to contribute constructively...

I'm gonna load up on pain killers and try and recreate your shots with my own explanation (with the aid of minipottr) and then set up the only shot that I think proves SIT

[travisbickle]

I just watched j6's 'Turn it in video' and this is a historic moment in my TSF history coz I think it's the first time I have disagreed with something he's saying.

Jason, you pot four balls.

1) the thin cut... you don't affect the OB at all... you just pot it with side.
I play that shot like that too... not to turn the pot in, just because I find it easier to pot shots like that with running side.

2) The holding for low on the black... Again, you're not affecting the OB, you're spinning the white in the opposite direction to the natural angle... The white grips the cloth and holds accordingly.

3) The low one below the black... The ball pots and you drag it in for position... There's no change to the path of the OB... no turning it in at all... Just dragging the white to kill the pace.

4) the one to stay high on the black... exactly the same as shot 2.

Now I am in the corner where I believe the shot exists... The only way you can prove it is to set up a shot where THE OB doesn't pot... even if it's only slightly... Saying the cueball can't get to the potting angle doesn't mean a thing because there is always the possibility of the last microsecond swerve.

If the OB is set up so that it only just doesn't pot... then you can use side IMO to turn it over... Those shots played in that video don't show what you're explaining for me... It's advanced positional play, but analytically it's the white ball that's being manipulated in those 4 shots, not the object ball.

Probably why I see this SIT shot as extremely rare and you find it common... The shots you play in that video are what I would consider common... but by no means are they examples of SIT

Could you do that please? Set it up like that with the tripod and put the camera in the pocket?

I'll try to put my limp to oneside and whip the ipad out myself if you like? x

Good luck with that Pottr.

You'll need to turn the OB at right angles to get TD/vmax to believe :biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

Even then they will say your iPad wasn't quite in the right spot so it was probably hitting BOB after all :biggrin-new:

[j6uk]

I just watched j6's 'Turn it in video' and this is a historic moment in my TSF history coz I think it's the first time I have disagreed with something he's saying.

Jason, you pot four balls.

1) the thin cut... you don't affect the OB at all... you just pot it with side.
I play that shot like that too... not to turn the pot in, just because I find it easier to pot shots like that with running side.

2) The holding for low on the black... Again, you're not affecting the OB, you're spinning the white in the opposite direction to the natural angle... The white grips the cloth and holds accordingly.

3) The low one below the black... The ball pots and you drag it in for position... There's no change to the path of the OB... no turning it in at all... Just dragging the white to kill the pace.

4) the one to stay high on the black... exactly the same as shot 2.

Now I am in the corner where I believe the shot exists... The only way you can prove it is to set up a shot where THE OB doesn't pot... even if it's only slightly... Saying the cueball can't get to the potting angle doesn't mean a thing because there is always the possibility of the last microsecond swerve.

If the OB is set up so that it only just doesn't pot... then you can use side IMO to turn it over... Those shots played in that video don't show what you're explaining for me... It's advanced positional play, but analytically it's the white ball that's being manipulated in those 4 shots, not the object ball.

Probably why I see this SIT shot as extremely rare and you find it common... The shots you play in that video are what I would consider common... but by no means are they examples of SIT

Could you do that please? Set it up like that with the tripod and put the camera in the pocket?

I'll try to put my limp to oneside and whip the ipad out myself if you like? x

okay lets say your right and i staged the whole thing, these shots dont exist in your book?

[tomwalker147]

I'll try to put my limp to oneside and whip the ipad out myself if you like? x[/QUOTE]

If you fancy a knock any night this week let me know, i'm interested in all this. I feel if I understand side as well as Ramon, Big shot et al that i'll be knocking in maxi's for fun.

[pottr]

I just watched j6's 'Turn it in video' and this is a historic moment in my TSF history coz I think it's the first time I have disagreed with something he's saying.

Jason, you pot four balls.

1) the thin cut... you don't affect the OB at all... you just pot it with side.
I play that shot like that too... not to turn the pot in, just because I find it easier to pot shots like that with running side.

2) The holding for low on the black... Again, you're not affecting the OB, you're spinning the white in the opposite direction to the natural angle... The white grips the cloth and holds accordingly.

3) The low one below the black... The ball pots and you drag it in for position... There's no change to the path of the OB... no turning it in at all... Just dragging the white to kill the pace.

4) the one to stay high on the black... exactly the same as shot 2.

Now I am in the corner where I believe the shot exists... The only way you can prove it is to set up a shot where THE OB doesn't pot... even if it's only slightly... Saying the cueball can't get to the potting angle doesn't mean a thing because there is always the possibility of the last microsecond swerve.

If the OB is set up so that it only just doesn't pot... then you can use side IMO to turn it over... Those shots played in that video don't show what you're explaining for me... It's advanced positional play, but analytically it's the white ball that's being manipulated in those 4 shots, not the object ball.

Probably why I see this SIT shot as extremely rare and you find it common... The shots you play in that video are what I would consider common... but by no means are they examples of SIT

Could you do that please? Set it up like that with the tripod and put the camera in the pocket?

I'll try to put my limp to oneside and whip the ipad out myself if you like? x

[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

[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.