Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The theory is the spin on the CB causes the 2 balls to 'cling' together for a small amount of time which allows the OB to spin a few degrees so the final contact point between the 2 balls is altered by a few degrees. So therefore the OB must spin at least a little and the question becomes is that small variation enough to cause SIT? Biggie says 'forget spin transfer for snooker'. If there's no spin transfer there cannot be any SIT and your spinning CB actually attacked the potting point usually to the side of the pocket.

Explain what happens with SIT in snooker if you don't transfer at least a little bit of spin to the OB. I will agree with Biggie all day that these things happen on a pool table and happen in pool quite a lot. In snooker I'm not so sure as I've tried to impart spin on an object ball and I can't get enough to effect the OB sufficiently to cause it to turn.

From a coach's perspective when a student asks how these shots are accomplished it's much easier to understand the theory the CB curves into the potting point, not necessarily exactly BOB but close to it which is why a lot of these shots go to the side of the pocket. In your case with the pink you cut to the other side of the pocket you either over-cooked it or misjudged the pace and hit too slow for the spin applied. Students would understand my explanation much easier and with that understanding would be able to accomplish the shots. Of course I would attempt to explain your SIT theory as another possible cause because I believe in giving the student everything I know but I wouldn't want to confuse the student as I can give him an understanding of what he's trying to do.

Sigh.

SIT is SIT.
Spin transfer is spin transfer.

We are discussing SIT. Stop talking about spin transfer. Think of SIT as the screw back of side spin - both the inevitable result of hitting the cue ball off centre.

[Catch 22]

turn it in pt2

here in this vid i manage to pot a black off its spot thats not possible, as the potting angle is not there. but with the help of rrh-side i was able to straighten it up.
the next shot is the same from a lower angle.








so your very own pro conditions then. you must of needed plenty of time too on the crap tables so as to prepare for the 80s comp conditions.
interesting stuff tel..

Perfect . No doubt that the BOB is not possible and swerving into is not on . Great video J

[Terry Davidson]

Sigh.

SIT is SIT.
Spin transfer is spin transfer.

We are discussing SIT. Stop talking about spin transfer. Think of SIT as the screw back of side spin - both the inevitable result of hitting the cue ball off centre.

Can you tell me if the OB has to spin slightly to get hit at a different contact point and go off in a different direction to what one would expect. I think it has to but what do you think as any movement of the OB has to come from the spinning CB and the OB has to move in order for SIT to work. I would say spin transfer is a component of SIT if it exists but it's hard to get any transferred spin on a snooker table but Travis says he can get up to 15* or so.

What causes SIT then?

[Terry Davidson]

a few words of concern that could simply be changed tel, from negative to positive. replace the words in bold above to something positive then your paragraph could read more optimistic and encouraging., so at lease not to bring any mind or body tension to the table.
example: theres nothing to worry about. you can/do cue straight, time the white well and stay still on the shot. you dont need to hit the ball too hard, because pace is generated though timing..
oh and you can turn that ball in or straighten it up by going outside the center of the white.




-

I'm not arguing for no side spin, I'm just saying it shouldn't be used in matches until it has been thoroughly learned. Pros don't use a lot of side where no cushion is involved for a reason.

[Terry Davidson]

I have no idea what happens on contact but there is a reaction that causes the OB to throw left or right. After contact as far as I can tell there is no spin on the OB.

That shot on the pool table is easily done in a snooker table.
Balls are balls, it's all the same.

So if you put LH on CB then OB throws right and vice-versa?

[Terry Davidson]

The physics don't matter? You demanding proof of the physics earlier!

Now they don't matter? WTF?

Because even you and Travis don't understand them so what's the use in asking? I won't get an answer from a bunch of equations. I still don't think using side without a cushion is a wise idea for a match unless the player is an expert, maybe like Travis or something. Both j6 (who I know is a good player) and Travis (who I don't know at all) missed dead easy pots by overcooking the side. I notice the pros, including Ronnie, prefer to use the cushion instead of attempting to hold the CB with side. At his level missing one pot could be end of frame.

[j6uk]

I'm not arguing for no side spin, I'm just saying it shouldn't be used in matches until it has been thoroughly learned. Pros don't use a lot of side where no cushion is involved for a reason.

maybe a bit like playing right and left handed on the tv table, might wanna practice it a bit before you show it off. but if its game ball go for it.

[cole46]

I thought the discussion was about whether it exists, players can make their own mind up if they want to use it. We have already established that you don't need to hit the bob by agreeing that you can make a plant that isn't in line with the pocket

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Can you tell me if the OB has to spin slightly to get hit at a different contact point and go off in a different direction to what one would expect. I think it has to but what do you think as any movement of the OB has to come from the spinning CB and the OB has to move in order for SIT to work. I would say spin transfer is a component of SIT if it exists but it's hard to get any transferred spin on a snooker table but Travis says he can get up to 15* or so.

What causes SIT then?

Jesus wept.

[Cue crafty]

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-cont...esus-Cries.jpg

Jesus wept.

Lol, 😝

[Terry Davidson]

Jesus wept.

The only explanation I've seen is from Dr. Dave who says because of the spin the 2 balls cling together for a longer time and that would mean the explanation for SIT would be because they are together longer the CB pushes the OB along the direction it was traveling. But spin is spin and it doesn't happen with top spin or screw and you can't have it both ways. Your explanations leave a lot to be explaned yet. Travis can't explain it and neither can you so jesus ain't weeping.

I still think it has to do with a curving cueball because it only happens with side and no one can tell me if with LH on cuball does the OB throw right? With screw does the OB jump up? With top spin does it dig into the cloth and bounce? If you can't explain it better so people can understand what is happening (if they want to) then go away.

[j6uk]

This is what they don't get Tel, they think they're hitting where they're aiming and believe that the OB is being thrown after a full ball contact is made, right for left and left for right, they don't know that the cue ball has swerved slightly.
Dr. Dave and his use of plants and sets to prove his theories throw a cloud of confusion over this topic because the squeeze effect is a major part of what's actually happening.

Those little stun shots to 'prove' CIT I'm not buying either, at that short distance I'm betting the cue ball is leaving the table a tad and making a thicker contact as a result, and that three ball plant isn't hit correctly either, if it could be done using a Newton's cradle to completely eliminate the squeeze effect the outcome would be a pot 100% of the time.

To top it all off there is no nap on the cloth, so the swerve effect we get so much sooner on a snooker table isn't part of Dr. Dave's equation, I asked him about it and he hasn't experimented on a napped cloth, so my opinion isn't changed.

As far as I'm concerned this is all that's happening and you make allowances for power, pace and spin with, against and across the nap.

The only explanation I've seen is from Dr. Dave who says because of the spin the 2 balls cling together for a longer time and that would mean the explanation for SIT would be because they are together longer the CB pushes the OB along the direction it was traveling. But spin is spin and it doesn't happen with top spin or screw and you can't have it both ways. Your explanations leave a lot to be explaned yet. Travis can't explain it and neither can you so jesus ain't weeping.

I still think it has to do with a curving cueball because it only happens with side and no one can tell me if with LH on cuball does the OB throw right? With screw does the OB jump up? With top spin does it dig into the cloth and bounce? If you can't explain it better so people can understand what is happening (if they want to) then go away.

swerve curve onto what exactly?? can you break this all down for me tel vmax? its obvious for you two but im finding it very difficult to understand. if you could prevent from dragging me through the bushes and keep it succinct id appreciate it.



-

[throtts]

Tel & vmax are saying that the CB, after its initial swerve via side, finds the potting point contact on the OB.

Forgive me Tel & max if thats not 100% correct.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

This time next week... Cuecrafty will have doubled his money

[throtts]

Hahaha,,,.

I think the thread has run it course now too...