Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Trying clearing these balls without side, I dare you! How are you going to get back to blue at 3:52 without side? Erm, well........................................no. Plenty of side in this wonderful break.

Brilliant break, obviously, but not as good as selby's imo. Selby played worldy after worldy, with a greater range of shot.

[itsnoteasy]

having trouble with pics.


Right here is my theory, as you can see from the first pic, if you played straight through the line the black will hit the black, this is because all the forces are in a direct line, there is no throw on a straight shot( I'm hoping we can all agree on that )
On the second pic where the force ( from the robot) is traveling one way and striking the black ball , in exactly the same place as the top pic ,we get throw, and the black ball ends up entering the pocket at B instead of hitting the black ball at A, ( anyone remember applied mechanics from school?) call this gearing or whatever but to make it simple I will call it natural throw.
Now introduce spin and the theory goes the black ball should get "thrown "nearer A , now to me this spin isn't creating throw as such,to me it looks like it's lessening the natural throw, so natural throw is B with spin less natural throw so A, it might be it causes less gearing , I don't know but because we are that used to seeing the black go to B we think we have created throw , when in fact we have reduced it.
This also explains the reason why Vmaxs video is pointless because he's trying to create or lessen throw on a shot that has no throw to begin with as he set the shot up straight and I'm hoping we agreed at the start there is no throw on a straight shot because all the forces are going in the same direction, it's also the point I tried to make to Ted, when he set his shot up at an angle then played it as a straight shot. I believe this shot can only be played off a shot that has natural throw built into it.
I forgot one more thing, because we are reducing natural throw, it is also the reason you can hit the black ball slightly thicker to get it to travel to B.
I have no evidence apart from what I have observed as to whether I'm right wrong or even partially right, it's just something off the top of my head and there are far brighter folk than me on here that can dismantle it .

[Little Reggie]

Trying clearing these balls without side, I dare you! How are you going to get back to blue at 3:52 without side? Erm, well........................................no. Plenty of side in this wonderful break.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Side is more usable on those bucket pocket pool tables, on Pro spec Snooker tables its risky. The last Mosconi Cup table pockets were vacuuming loads up - loads of room for error on them.

You can thank Barry Hearn for that - spent a couple of hours with the guy that fits then recently and he said it was Hearn's spec, same for all matchroom events. Those tables are a joke and not at all representative of the tables used in most pro competitions. But you are right, the pockets are big because the game is based on spin.

Anyway, we all know new cloths are preferable to big pockets, don't we?

[throtts]

Each to their own I suppose. Love side but find I can do the same up and down the white with timing

Side is more usable on those bucket pocket pool tables, on Pro spec Snooker tables its risky. The last Mosconi Cup table pockets were vacuuming loads up - loads of room for error on them.

[guernseygooner]

Nonsense! It is extremely common. Remember; it's not only useful if you can't quite make the potting angle, such as on J6's videos on the other thread, it is useful for positional purposes, too. It's a question of the more you use it, the more you see the benefit of it. Now, if you're positional play is absolutely spot on for every shot, you'll never need it - but who is that good?

And don't forget; all that is really being described here is helping side, and that is very helpful when you're trying to kill a ball.

Each to their own I suppose. Love side but find I can do the same up and down the white with timing

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Was that for me teasy? If so, I'm not claiming anything, I just want to see it for myself, in the real world, with my own eyes, which is entirely doable, unlike the Higgs boson, unfortunately.

-

We've already established your physics ain't so hot mate. But what more evidence do you need than the wilson shot? Selby's is equally as convincing, when you know what you're looking at.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Ok... Here's my take on it.

Analysing the bare physics... 100% it makes sense. Objects should be able to impart spin onto the other ball.

I also believe that in the past 100% I have made this happen on a snooker table.

When a ball is close to being able to pot, I feel I have made it able to pot by putting extreme opposite side on the white and playing the ball slow in order to pot it.

But, while I am 100% in my mind that shot exists and can be played in EXTREMELY RARE setups to snooker... I admit I could be mistaken and the ball simply may have potted naturally anyway and my eyes may have deceived me.

So in my mind, I think it exists and as a result I might play shots like it... I might have to have a little play with this over the next day or two and put it to bed with a video...

VMAX's one is great... but you need a running dialogue to explain what you are trying to make happen and your perception of what happens once you do it...
Just lining up balls and playing them is not as helpful as it could be.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter... the opportunity to play that shot comes up once every 1000 frames or so.

Nonsense! It is extremely common. Remember; it's not only useful if you can't quite make the potting angle, such as on J6's videos on the other thread, it is useful for positional purposes, too. It's a question of the more you use it, the more you see the benefit of it. Now, if you're positional play is absolutely spot on for every shot, you'll never need it - but who is that good?

And don't forget; all that is really being described here is helping side, and that is very helpful when you're trying to kill a ball.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Fair enough... I'd say the answer is 'probably'

And I don't feel any need within me to seek out a more solid explanation... It really is knowledge that would just be taking up space.

From what?

[Ramon]

Well, my new cue arrived today from Tony Glover. So I'm off to knock some balls around, see if it's worthy of me. And if I can't do this spin induced throw thing, then I'm throwing it straight back at'im! :smile: Wish me luck.

-

Pictures my friend . Pictures !!!

[rimmer10]

OK in the meanwhile here is my favourite sport - science this...

Didn't spot any spin induced throw tbh, but a great amount of stun shots

[PatBlock]

Well, my new cue arrived today from Tony Glover. So I'm off to knock some balls around, see if it's worthy of me. And if I can't do this spin induced throw thing, then I'm throwing it straight back at'im! :smile: Wish me luck.

-

[Byrom]

Exactly how I feel about it Byrom, I have my own theory that might just be agreeable to everyone, I will post it up after tea, as I'm starving

OK in the meanwhile here is my favourite sport - science this...

[itsnoteasy]

Exactly - it does exist - so it exists on a snooker table. To argue against it is futile

As we breath air to survive and take another step so we use the laws of physics on a snooker table to keep a break going - Do we need to know why? - well maybe it might help explain things if you are a coach and some people clearly are interested in this as a cue lover likes talking about wood and that is fine too - but as a player I have to say its not really necessary as you can show/learn the shots and demonstrate do them without going into the science of it.

So for me yep obviously physics exists...

Is it important to know as a player? ...not really important...Players can learn the shots without knowing the science behind it.

Can it be useful to know? .... Yes all knowledge can be useful and not everyone is the same so there is a clear contradiction to what I wrote above because there is a value in it that may help some people gain a better understanding - people are not all just sole kinesthetic learners - some people do Iike to learn/understand things better from books, video's, discussions and other means. Thats why there is this forum ...they see or read something gain an understanding and then go try it out.

Is it interesting to know?... To some people clearly yes and others no ....each is fine - such is life.

Now - that's cleared up can I ask ... Does anyone want to talk/explain about the science/physics behind my favourite sport please?

Exactly how I feel about it Byrom, I have my own theory that might just be agreeable to everyone, I will post it up after tea, as I'm starving

[Byrom]

Honestly if the physics is correct there is no argument, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe or what you can and can't play. Do you doubt, gravity, laws of motion, the Big Bang, the Higgs boson, if not ,it's the same physics that states this exists. Again I will tell you this is taught in a university, not something like this but this exact thing, are you seriously saying there is some conspiracy between all the mechanics and physics professors who have looked at this ,add to that every student who has ever taken this course, are they all just having a laugh and making this up, are they handing out degrees to pupils who are hiding the truth just to confuse snooker players? Please take a minute and think about what you are claiming.

Exactly - it does exist - so it exists on a snooker table. To argue against it is futile

As we breath air to survive and take another step so we use the laws of physics on a snooker table to keep a break going - Do we need to know why? - well maybe it might help explain things if you are a coach and some people clearly are interested in this as a cue lover likes talking about wood and that is fine too - but as a player I have to say its not really necessary as you can show/learn the shots and demonstrate do them without going into the science of it.

So for me yep obviously physics exists...

Is it important to know as a player? ...not really important...Players can learn the shots without knowing the science behind it.

Can it be useful to know? .... Yes all knowledge can be useful and not everyone is the same so there is a clear contradiction to what I wrote above because there is a value in it that may help some people gain a better understanding - people are not all just sole kinesthetic learners - some people do Iike to learn/understand things better from books, video's, discussions and other means. Thats why there is this forum ...they see or read something gain an understanding and then go try it out.

Is it interesting to know?... To some people clearly yes and others no ....each is fine - such is life.

Now - that's cleared up can I ask ... Does anyone want to talk/explain about the science/physics behind my favourite sport please?