Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[j6uk]

Yes, you miss balls with unintentional side... But what's that go to do with SIT? That's deflection
and or sit depending
Those two shots on the time stamps, I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to show? Controlling the white around the black spot at our level is pretty basic stuff, is it not?

im showing sit, hitting it thick and throwing it in to hold for the next. you know? last thing you want is a 1/4 ball black at distance right?

[pottr]

Yes, you miss balls with unintentional side... But what's that go to do with SIT? That's deflection

Those two shots on the time stamps, I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to show? Controlling the white around the black spot at our level is pretty basic stuff, is it not?

[j6uk]

The SIT nonsense is irrelevant... It's minimal.

Jason, I respect your ability and your contribution to the forum but in this instance I think your labelling 'holding' the white through an excellent grip and timing as SIT is as Vmax put it before, a misnomer... You're doing yourself an injustice, really

Travis, I really like you on here as I have done under your previous forms but you are more than aware you don't care one way or the other... Much like me, you realise it's irrelevant and enjoy stirring the pot kudos.

Ramon and HMBS, you're both bitching and moaning from a position of zero credibility... You are cowards, the pair of you with no claim to anything other than the **** you spout.

You have a go at Tom for what? Because it upsets you that if Mark Selby walked into a room he'd greet Tom and myself by name and wouldn't even be able to see your faces behind your keyboards... A jealous pair of cretins who couldn't make 30 on a line out... Ramon can't even write coherently... The thick twat probably eats the chalk.

SIT is irrelevant, you're all conflating something that is millimetres over feet.

Oh and Throtty lass... you'll never get into my thong talking to my boyfriend like that xx

i think up to 1/4 of a balls worth is a lot, may not look like much potting a black off its spot that dosent go though it makes it a frame winner, but who cares about that?, but over distance its massive.. if you can miss crucial balls with unintentional side you can pot them with intentional side.

as far as the 100 blacks, i dont care if you got the timing of rons fantasy game its hard to hold this without a bit of ye ol sit. though wouldnt put it pass you mr mccann:
https://youtu.be/uIBLNk5NWDY?t=4m31s
https://youtu.be/uIBLNk5NWDY?t=10m53s

[pottr]

The SIT nonsense is irrelevant... It's minimal.

Jason, I respect your ability and your contribution to the forum but in this instance I think your labelling 'holding' the white through an excellent grip and timing as SIT is as Vmax put it before, a misnomer... You're doing yourself an injustice, really

Travis, I really like you on here as I have done under your previous forms but you are more than aware you don't care one way or the other... Much like me, you realise it's irrelevant and enjoy stirring the pot kudos.

Ramon and HMBS, you're both bitching and moaning from a position of zero credibility... You are cowards, the pair of you with no claim to anything other than the **** you spout.

You have a go at Tom for what? Because it upsets you that if Mark Selby walked into a room he'd greet Tom and myself by name and wouldn't even be able to see your faces behind your keyboards... A jealous pair of cretins who couldn't make 30 on a line out... Ramon can't even write coherently... The thick twat probably eats the chalk.

SIT is irrelevant, you're all conflating something that is millimetres over feet.

Oh and Throtty lass... you'll never get into my thong talking to my boyfriend like that xx

[vmax]

I'm sorry vmax but you are way off on this.
Maybe that's the way you & Tel play the shot, but it's definitely not the way I play it.
When trying to hold/kill the CB I never aim to hit BOB...never.

How do you think I can hold the CB on half ball pots and TD & probably you can't??
The reason is you're swerving onto the correct line and I'm not.
It's all very simple, how you don't see it I don't know.

This shows your ignorance travis, we're both swerving onto the correct line from the initial deflection, and as the cue ball is approaching the OB from where it deflected to the shot is either slightly thicker, so easier to hold the cue ball close to the line of aim, or slightly thinner, so easier to move the cue ball away from the line of aim. This is helping side for position purposes, it doesn't help the pot it helps to get better position. Just like you I don't aim for BOB but that's where the cue ball goes only you don't see it, you think you hit what you're aiming at but seeing as the cue ball always deflects and swerves when side is applied to it, how the hell are you aiming thicker/thinner and hitting what you're aiming at ?

I play that very shot several times in my video at varying speeds, the power ones where biggie thinks I'm pivoting shows just how much my aiming is offset to allow for the initial deflection. On those dead straight power shots to the green pocket I'm actually aiming to miss the left hand jaw and the cue ball deflects straight to near enough BOB to pot the ball, no swerve at that pace. My bridge is about 12 inches from the cue ball and as I'm aiming to miss the left hand jaw it looks like I'm pivoting but I'm not. All those so called pivots that biggie thinks he sees are because I'm aiming to miss a dead straight shot and my cue is parallel to an offset line of aim, but I guess that's too difficult for the bloke to understand so he sees what he wants to see.

Yes Jason I agree.

This is the way vmax would play the shot also.
They are both aiming for correct BOB and missing and they are not getting/seeing it one single bit.
Very baffling.

Terry wasn't compensating his aiming enough or too much as it's a shot he very rarely uses but he got it in the end. I do not aim for correct BOB when applying sidespin, I aim to allow for the deflection and swerve I know I going to get, it's very small on the shot Terry was demonstrating. Basically you aim for one jaw over the other depending which side you're applying in that particular shot.
Watch the predator video again and realise what you're actually doing when you're aiming thicker/thinner than the actual angle to pot the ball.

The cue ball initially deflects offline opposite to the sidespin applied, when the sidespin changes to the 30 degree axis it stops deflecting and rolls straight and then, depending on the pace of the shot and the direction of the spin to the lay of the nap, it swerves onto a different line. It does this every single time side is applied to it whether trace side or a full on raised butt swerve shot, the only difference is the amount of deflection and swerve you get, a tiny bit or a lot or many differing amounts inbetween because the sidespin is gripping the cloth and pulling the cue ball offline.

This is the fundamental of using sidespin, nothing else is happening unless you get a bad contact and then anything can happen just like it can with a bad contact when not using side. Too much friction between the balls and a bad contact like Wilson got is no basis for what happens when balls collide, oh dear I've just used your mantra, sorry!

Anyone can prove this to themselves by playing a sidespin shot along a straight edge of some kind that the cue ball will hug, in effect cancelling out any swerve, to contact BOB on an OB, who's outside edge to the pocket is free of the straight edge, to pot centre pocket. If SIT happens then the OB will miss or go to the side of the pocket. If it goes centre pocket then the spin on the cue ball has had no effect.
I did this using the edge of the triangle full of reds to stop it moving, bit tricky getting the cue ball to hug the edge as you need to counteract the initial deflection opposite to the side you apply, but once you get that sorted and the cue ball hugs the straight edge without leaving it all the way to the OB then you'll see the true result.
I played a half ball green into it's own pocket using left hand side spinning against the nap as that means less swerve and was easier to control. I used extreme side, trace side and inbetween the two and got the same result for all three shots.

Oh and to satisfy the SIT devotees also set one up where BOB on the OB is actually outside the far jaw of the pocket and see if you can throw it in the pocket. Make sure you hit it at the correct pace and at the correct angle though or they'll cry foul.

[throtts]

Each to their own eh Throtts! Hope you get on well with the cue, please keep me updated! If after 6 hours you feel you're getting to grips it probably is a keeper!

Cheers, tom..

[tomwalker147]

Thirsty, I think SIT is a handy thing to know to put your mind at rest and to understand what may be going on with some miss pots. Reason, many players do not cue centre of the CB.

Secondly, Yes, I have just started playing with a new JPU ( I call it ""the ugly duckling"" ). It very lively and deflection is so much more there than what it was with my JP Majestic ( Maj ). After 6 hrs with the JPU though I am getting use to it..

Each to their own eh Throtts! Hope you get on well with the cue, please keep me updated! If after 6 hours you feel you're getting to grips it probably is a keeper!

[Ramon]

Probably not the thread to be plugging your gimmicky overpriced product then.

The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue !!

I said , get sum rest .

[throtts]

I know Mr BS and Travis are huge advocates of SIT but in my opinion (it's just my opinion before anyone starts) learning about SIT isn't necessary.

Dan- I agree on your point about deflection, this is important. I remember getting my new cue and it played completely different in terms of the amount of deflection I was getting. I'd say that learning just how much deflection is generated over certain distances/speeds etc is vital to playing good snooker, particularly when you think about those length of the table safety shots requiring side.

Thirsty, I think SIT is a handy thing to know to put your mind at rest and to understand what may be going on with some miss pots. Reason, many players do not cue centre of the CB.

Secondly, Yes, I have just started playing with a new JPU ( I call it ""the ugly duckling"" ). It very lively and deflection is so much more there than what it was with my JP Majestic ( Maj ). After 6 hrs with the JPU though I am getting use to it..

[j6uk]

Probably not the thread to be plugging your gimmicky overpriced product then.

funny i didnt here any clinking as you were putting on your armor, i think we'll leave it there ay.

[tomwalker147]

but this thread is about side/sit, and unfortunately the denial of it by those who should/may not know better.

Probably not the thread to be plugging your gimmicky overpriced product then.

[j6uk]

Morning Dan,

Nice to read a post that isn't insulting to be quite honest!

I've always believed that people should learn what the cue ball does up and down the centre firstly, work that out and then experiment with side.
I know Mr BS and Travis are huge advocates of SIT but in my opinion (it's just my opinion before anyone starts) learning about SIT isn't necessary.
There will be many on the forum thinking to themselves, hang on a minute I've made centuries and won tournaments without the knowledge or use of SIT. I guarantee there are pros who give it zero thought too.

J6 may feel he needs to pot blacks with side, Terry doesn't. It's just personal preference. Us snooker players are all different and play the game differently, that's partly what makes it interesting.

Dan- I agree on your point about deflection, this is important. I remember getting my new cue and it played completely different in terms of the amount of deflection I was getting. I'd say that learning just how much deflection is generated over certain distances/speeds etc is vital to playing good snooker, particularly when you think about those length of the table safety shots requiring side.

yes tom, indeed i did need helping side/sit about a hand full of times so as to hold the white from going too high on the black, maintain position and stay on course for the hundred blacks.




my tuca training devise shows you how i fell about the importance of center ball striking, as believe being consistent is straight cueing up and down the core of the white.
but this thread is about side/sit, and unfortunately the denial of it by those who should/may not know better.

[Ramon]

Ramon, you have to be the most immature person on here. You make BS look grown up.
Was there something wrong with me referencing that Selby played in our local league and then backing it up with proof?

Crawl back into the hole you emerged from.

blood pressure ÷ 400.

get some rest kid, looks like you need it.
we talk about this later when you calm down.

[tomwalker147]

You forgot to mention, you're dad played against Mark Selby years ago !!

Just saying !!

Ramon, you have to be the most immature person on here. You make BS look grown up.
Was there something wrong with me referencing that Selby played in our local league and then backing it up with proof?

Crawl back into the hole you emerged from.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Morning Dan,

Nice to read a post that isn't insulting to be quite honest!

I've always believed that people should learn what the cue ball does up and down the centre firstly, work that out and then experiment with side.
I know Mr BS and Travis are huge advocates of SIT but in my opinion (it's just my opinion before anyone starts) learning about SIT isn't necessary.
There will be many on the forum thinking to themselves, hang on a minute I've made centuries and won tournaments without the knowledge or use of SIT. I guarantee there are pros who give it zero thought too.

J6 may feel he needs to pot blacks with side, Terry doesn't. It's just personal preference. Us snooker players are all different and play the game differently, that's partly what makes it interesting.

Dan- I agree on your point about deflection, this is important. I remember getting my new cue and it played completely different in terms of the amount of deflection I was getting. I'd say that learning just how much deflection is generated over certain distances/speeds etc is vital to playing good snooker, particularly when you think about those length of the table safety shots requiring side.

So, learning about deflection is vital, whilst learning about throw isn't? Bonkers.

1. Deflection.
2. Swerve.
3. Throw.

There is no difference in terms of what is "vital". All have an affect on the outcome of the shot when it is played with side.