Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Little Reggie]

What a great advert for the IBSF you are. And you wonder why they never get back to you?

Thank goodness we have great, gentlemanly WS coaches in these isles, who understand snooker philosophy and etiquette. You are NOT snooker. No wonder we never see a Canadian pro.

[Terry Davidson]

Mind your language and act like a gent and 'master' coach, even if you find this difficult. You've asked for videos, so we have the same right unless you can't take your own medicine? Never seen a video of you running a ton because none exist to my knowledge. So do one and prove you can. We shall see if you have the acumen to truly be a 'master' of anything. You have made strong claims. Without evidence, folk have the right to draw their own conclusions. As to your skill levels; all I can see are two poor cue actions. I certainly wouldn't teach those cue actions to anyone.

You think you have a RIGHT? What same right? You are afraid to post videos of yourself playing. For me my excuse is you've seen me and now it's my turn to see you. What club do you practice at, maybe I can visit it and watch you play when I'm next over. I'll bring my camera too, so I have proof of just how bad you are. That smooth and silky cue action you talk about isn't yours that's for sure.

Get some cojones and put up a video of you running a 100 since you are younger and in your prime.

[Terry Davidson]

Mind your language and act like a gent and 'master' coach, even if you find this difficult. You've asked for videos, so we have the same right unless you can't take your own medicine? Never seen a video of you running a ton because none exist to my knowledge. So do one and prove you can. We shall see if you have the acumen to truly be a 'master' of anything. You have made strong claims. Without evidence, folk have the right to draw their own conclusions. As to your skill levels; all I can see are two poor cue actions. I certainly wouldn't teach those cue actions to anyone.

So you take the out of asking an older man who has just had to take a year off because of a medical problem to video myself running 100s? I haven't run a 100 in a match since the late 80's and my best run in a tournament lately has been an 89. I don't count solo practice although I've had a few good breaks with that in the past 5 years or so. Sorry, but I respond to abusers like yourself in language which may or may not wake you up. It appears you are still your same old abusive and vile self.

This post shows you know nothing about coaching as I don't teach my cue action to my student but rather let them develop their own natural technique. Pity the poor players who you try to coach. But then again no one knows who you are or what your skill level is do they? Just sit in the bushes and throw crap at me because I can take it, unlike you.

[Little Reggie]

Here's my pathetic excuse. Who the F are you to DEMAND PROOF from anybody A**. You are one of the ones who haven't posted a video either so where do you get off asking for videos from anyone? My excuse is you've already seen multiple videos of me and you've also seen vmax and all you could do is criticize our technique and skill levels. Put your own video up of you running 100's...ha, ha. oops...fake news I think!

Mind your language and act like a gent and 'master' coach, even if you find this difficult. You've asked for videos, so we have the same right unless you can't take your own medicine? Never seen a video of you running a ton because none exist to my knowledge. So do one and prove you can. We shall see if you have the acumen to truly be a 'master' of anything. You have made strong claims. Without evidence, folk have the right to draw their own conclusions. As to your skill levels; all I can see are two poor cue actions. I certainly wouldn't teach those cue actions to anyone.

[Terry Davidson]

No probs Terry.
Dr Dave's experiments are not wrong, but he has done them under narrow range of conditions. Ordinary home pool table with cloth and balls that in no way resemble what is used in competitions.
I have played both american pool and snooker a lot. Those 3 letter acronym effects are there in both games, no doubt. Can't argue with physics. But in both games, there is a huge huge difference if you have new cloth and brand new clean polished balls.
If he did his experiments on brand new tables setup for snooker world championships or pool Mosconi cup exhibition, now that would be quite something and I think he'd get a less of those effects. Way less friction under brand new conditions in either game.
And it would be much better if some sort of a machine did the shooting. I wouldn't trust any human player with that task, no matter how good he may be.

I agree with this. I also agree with vmax on the cueball curving into nearer BOB with perhaps(?) a little help from SIT. It's nice to hear Dr. Dave used a home table and it looked like a 4x8 to me. I agree with your comment and I think he would get much more CIT & SIT effect from a worn cloth with dirty balls or at least balls that haven't been cleaned.

What proved CIT to me was Nic Barrow's video on a snooker table with a decent cloth and clean balls and on the long 1/2-ball cut he got 1 or 2 degrees of CIT however he got more separation between ball and plank from the roll on the table.

Not much practical application except when avoiding intervening balls or trying to hold the cueball movement down. Those shot come up very rarely as I can only remember 1 time that I wanted to hold a colour spot but that was when I was in the colours and I purposely played position so I could hold it for the next colour. As for curving the cueball around an intervening ball these are more frequent but not very often either.

I there another use for SIT and curving cueballs other than these?

[Terry Davidson]

Instead of the CLOWNS asking for more videos, let's see VMax and Terry Davidson do a few videos of their own. Travis and tedisbill have provided videos, so it's about time they did. To make it easy, just show us a video of you doing some 50 and tons breaks. After all, you're both really good players so you say. Once done, I will accept that you have the skills to begin questioning folk like Mr Stark, Dr Dave, Travis, HMBS etc. Of course, I expect you to come up with a pathetic excuse and fail the challenge. This will be natural from those FAKES who criticise superior knowledge and skill. :biggrin-new:

Here's my pathetic excuse. Who the F are you to DEMAND PROOF from anybody A**. You are one of the ones who haven't posted a video either so where do you get off asking for videos from anyone? My excuse is you've already seen multiple videos of me and you've also seen vmax and all you could do is criticize our technique and skill levels. Put your own video up of you running 100's...ha, ha. oops...fake news I think!

[Little Reggie]

Instead of the CLOWNS asking for more videos, let's see VMax and Terry Davidson do a few videos of their own. Travis and tedisbill have provided videos, so it's about time they did. To make it easy, just show us a video of you doing some 50 and tons breaks. After all, you're both really good players so you say. Once done, I will accept that you have the skills to begin questioning folk like Mr Stark, Dr Dave, Travis, HMBS etc. Of course, I expect you to come up with a pathetic excuse and fail the challenge. This will be natural from those FAKES who criticise superior knowledge and skill. :biggrin-new:

[travisbickle]

The point is that the cue ball does swerve very slightly so if you can't hit the same contact point plain ball or with left hand side then you're using the swerve to make a contact that pots the OB.
I'm asking you to show that you can make the same contact, you know this, you know that you can't and you're deliberately avoiding the point in order to save face.



And who would that be splasher ?



So you strike with side and then you decide whether it swerves or not, I've heard it all now.




There's a bit of cue ball drift on the nap in those shots as well which we all subconsciously allow for, I'd like to see those same shots against the nap and with a spinning cue ball otherwise they're not relevant to this discussion which is does the cue ball swerve when using side at a slow pace striking at 9 or 3 o'clock with the cue as level as possible.
I say yes, during the change from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis and whether you make the correct contact or not is dependant on pace of the shot to get the right amount of swerve.

As for those DR. Dave videos at 1000 frames per second, all we see is the actual contact with the cue ball spinning horizontally on contact, as it does before it changes to the 30 degree axis, so it either has been hit very hard or is very close to the OB. Even then the side transfer on a cut shot is open to conjecture as to whether it's the spin that's induced it or the natural throw and it's so minimal as to being hardly noticeable and it certainly wouldn't have any effect on the line the OB takes after contact.

itsnoteasy

Seeing as you're in regular contact with Dr. Dave then maybe you can ask him to set up and film the change from the horizontal spin of the cue ball sliding after the initial tip contact to the 30 degree axis when it grips the cloth and actually rolls forward, and maybe give us his take on what difference this axis spin makes to the contact on the OB.

My argument has always been that side always swerves the cue ball slightly and it's this you use to go round an intervening ball to make a contact on the OB that's enough to pot it.
I can't make the same contact needed when striking with the opposite side or plain ball, and I've yet to see proof of anyone else who can, and that's all the evidence I need.
But if travis can do it then he needs to show me.

It's up to you to prove to me the CB swerves. Good luck with that!
At that pace the CB will hold its line. Try it, but don't jack your cue up when you do
Pink is prove enough that I didn't hit correct BOB

[ace man]

Thank you aceman. I'm having a hard time believing these folks who say they get 15* of OB throw using side on the CB and even Mr. B.S. agrees with the maximum 6* on SIT but now it's being said that 6* is only on a straight shot and not a cut, even though Dr. Dave didn't specify and there's no way to tell if the video posted by itsnoteasy is a straight shot or a cut and the balls are very close together with no travel.

Do I think CIT and SIT exist. I would say it's likely but I would also say on a snooker cloth with a new nap and smaller balls (maybe) it's much reduced compared to a pool table with bigger pockets and shorter distances. Running your hand with the grain on a new nap feels as smooth as silk so I believe the resistance is reduced somewhat but perhaps the SIT is present at 1*-4* or something. The videos also prove spin can be transferred however the OB sure doesn't spin much.

Dr. Dave's theory as far as I can determine is the CB clings to the OB when there's spin and he even calls that a kick (as in American terminology) but he also says it's a kick as known by snooker players. (IS that right itsnoteasy?) Without a camera running at 10,000fps it's very hard to prove or disprove but there is definitely something happening but it's of no value to me as I can accomplish all the shots shown on the videos, even those that Little Reggie says I'm not capable of.

No probs Terry.
Dr Dave's experiments are not wrong, but he has done them under narrow range of conditions. Ordinary home pool table with cloth and balls that in no way resemble what is used in competitions.
I have played both american pool and snooker a lot. Those 3 letter acronym effects are there in both games, no doubt. Can't argue with physics. But in both games, there is a huge huge difference if you have new cloth and brand new clean polished balls.
If he did his experiments on brand new tables setup for snooker world championships or pool Mosconi cup exhibition, now that would be quite something and I think he'd get a less of those effects. Way less friction under brand new conditions in either game.
And it would be much better if some sort of a machine did the shooting. I wouldn't trust any human player with that task, no matter how good he may be.

[vmax]

Like I keep telling you the CB doesn't swerve so of course I can play the shot plain ball and hit the same spot.
Again what's the point in doing that as it has no side on it to pot the red.
You do understand its side and not swerve that's potting the red right??
The pink is exactly the same shot. No swerve and look where it ended up!

The point is that the cue ball does swerve very slightly so if you can't hit the same contact point plain ball or with left hand side then you're using the swerve to make a contact that pots the OB.
I'm asking you to show that you can make the same contact, you know this, you know that you can't and you're deliberately avoiding the point in order to save face.

I know another guy who claims a HB of 136 but also, like Jabber, struggles to make 30s. It's a huge cliff these guys have dropped off: NOT!

And who would that be splasher ?

It wasn't me that said you can't swerve a cue ball using side because you clearly can.
But that wasn't the case with the shots I played. CB gets pushed out a bit to the left but holds its line.
Just very soft touch and let the cue do it's work.

So you strike with side and then you decide whether it swerves or not, I've heard it all now.

So a half ball black off the spot you are aiming dead centre of the pocket?again watch this video .i can't keep posting this up Terry, it's pretty simple stuff.
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q

There's a bit of cue ball drift on the nap in those shots as well which we all subconsciously allow for, I'd like to see those same shots against the nap and with a spinning cue ball otherwise they're not relevant to this discussion which is does the cue ball swerve when using side at a slow pace striking at 9 or 3 o'clock with the cue as level as possible.
I say yes, during the change from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis and whether you make the correct contact or not is dependant on pace of the shot to get the right amount of swerve.

As for those DR. Dave videos at 1000 frames per second, all we see is the actual contact with the cue ball spinning horizontally on contact, as it does before it changes to the 30 degree axis, so it either has been hit very hard or is very close to the OB. Even then the side transfer on a cut shot is open to conjecture as to whether it's the spin that's induced it or the natural throw and it's so minimal as to being hardly noticeable and it certainly wouldn't have any effect on the line the OB takes after contact.

itsnoteasy

Seeing as you're in regular contact with Dr. Dave then maybe you can ask him to set up and film the change from the horizontal spin of the cue ball sliding after the initial tip contact to the 30 degree axis when it grips the cloth and actually rolls forward, and maybe give us his take on what difference this axis spin makes to the contact on the OB.

My argument has always been that side always swerves the cue ball slightly and it's this you use to go round an intervening ball to make a contact on the OB that's enough to pot it.
I can't make the same contact needed when striking with the opposite side or plain ball, and I've yet to see proof of anyone else who can, and that's all the evidence I need.
But if travis can do it then he needs to show me.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

On a snooker table can you predict the amount of CIT and SIT and adjust your line of aim accordingly? I think trying to predict it is really tough and therefore it is not considered. Snooker players will try and hit BOB except on close-in shots where they can use throw in a productive and consistent manner but trying to control it on a 10ft shot is never done. Even the break-off shot often goes wrong, even with the pros and us amateurs usually have very different table conditions to contend with.

I think it's fine with pool though but using it on an 8ft shot might be considered dangerous because usually if you miss you lose the rack unless you get lucky. Then again the pockets are fairly forgiving though.

You'll adjust unconsciously, just like you do for deflection. The only time you'd consciously think about it is when you HAVE to, such as the wilson or selby shots. Then it is useful to know what tools are available to you.

[Little Reggie]

on a snooker table can you predict the amount of cit and sit and adjust your line of aim accordingly? I think trying to predict it is really tough and therefore it is not considered. Snooker players will try and hit bob except on close-in shots where they can use throw in a productive and consistent manner but trying to control it on a 10ft shot is never done. Even the break-off shot often goes wrong, even with the pros and us amateurs usually have very different table conditions to contend with.

I think it's fine with pool though but using it on an 8ft shot might be considered dangerous because usually if you miss you lose the rack unless you get lucky. Then again the pockets are fairly forgiving though.

fake news!

[Terry Davidson]

I assume the question comes later, but to draw equivalence between me and them is an absolute liberty. Dude, they AIN'T correct. They are wrong, emphatically, embarrassingly wrong.

They are not 'correct'. They are perfectly entitled to their opinions but they are factually incorrect.

On a snooker table can you predict the amount of CIT and SIT and adjust your line of aim accordingly? I think trying to predict it is really tough and therefore it is not considered. Snooker players will try and hit BOB except on close-in shots where they can use throw in a productive and consistent manner but trying to control it on a 10ft shot is never done. Even the break-off shot often goes wrong, even with the pros and us amateurs usually have very different table conditions to contend with.

I think it's fine with pool though but using it on an 8ft shot might be considered dangerous because usually if you miss you lose the rack unless you get lucky. Then again the pockets are fairly forgiving though.

[Terry Davidson]

What percentage of players have ever done that?

Actually, i can name them...

Well I have changed that 50 break thing to read when the student can deliver the cue straight consistently. That attribute is more likely in consistent 50 breakers though.

[Terry Davidson]

Eg, Terry. The top spin with a bit of power and side ( whichever one you use LH or RH ) potting the black off its spot then to come off the top black cush to disturb the pack of reds is a tough one. Way harder than off the blue in to the pack..

I usually use centre-ball top spin to come off the top cush to break the pack. I watched Jimmy White play one and the top spin actually curled the cueball into the pack but he hit it so hard the CB impact throw actually pushed the cueball back towards him a bit and then CB curled into the pack. Of course he had a choice of reds but on my table I'm lucky to get one. Of course Reggie would say I don't have the skill to play this shot so maybe I'm dreaming it all.