Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

FFS guy, the man is over SEVENTY YEARS OLD!

How many of us will be able to live that long let alone be around and playing snooker to the highest standard.

I have never ever met Terry, I have no knowledge on what he can do now and I can't profess to ever have seen him play...

But, I play in a local league what he played in during the 80's. His name is on trophies, old boys mention him as being one of the best players from that time...

Our club (The ATACK in Nuneaton has a lot of pros play there) The world number one plays there at least once a month for heavens sake... And a lot of the older guard there, Mick Price, Eric Lawlor (since passed) both mentioned Terry's name to me when I was growing up...

This attack on Terry's ability at his age is embarrassing... Be like having a go at Bobby Charlton coz he could only barely kick the ball.

ALSO... he actually made a 70 odd in one of the competitions (on record) not too long back did he not?

I doubt a lot of the people slating him can make that kind of break on a line out let alone in a competition...

This forum really harbours some salty characters.

It's my own fault I guess but I love snooker that much and I'm willing to put myself out there for some to take pot shots at while keeping their own abilities under the cover of an anonymous handle. If you're so sure of your coaching abilities them put them out there and post your own coaching video to youtube or even a playing video.

But thanks for the support pottr. It's sad to see people who can only criticize and insult and think that's the right way to interact with people. The best example these days is Trump and they seem to be clones of him (maybe they trained him, or perhaps the other way around).

[acesinc]

Well...

We really are scraping the snooker barrel if this **** is a hot topic.

It's pretty insignificant knowledge in terms of helping you improve

That ball clearly kicked, he did not play it that way !
Funny how I've never ever seen another ball potted that way ever on tv ??

I quote the first above because it about sums up my position on the topic. Everyone has their opinion; no one is likely to change their opinion; in the end, it doesn't really matter all that much.

I quote the second above because I disagree. I have seen this type of shot plenty of times and I even believe that Vmax's video has several good representations of the same thing.


I have tried to read this entire thread though I admit I skipped past any posts that only seemed to be insults, not adding anything useful (and there are also a few posters I don't bother to read at all). I will add my tuppence because in my opinion, no one has referenced what I believe to be the definitive shot of the entire video (I admit I did not watch the entire thing....went through it spottily, clicking ahead, clicking ahead, clicking ahead; you know, trying to get a summary of what was being conceptualized).

I will state up front that I most closely agree with all that Byrom has posted. I did not find a single syllable that he wrote in this thread with which I would disagree. To my eye, the evidence that a very slight amount of side can be transferred to the OB and affect its path can be seen at the 21:12 mark of the video (https://youtu.be/nElgmNBjPOk?t=1272; by the way, Vmax, thanks for posting this video; it is thorough and well done). This shot is meant to be emulating the Kyren Wilson shot. After he pots this shot, Vmax even stands up and pauses for several seconds as if he is trying to figure out what just happened. It is my opinion that this particular shot went against Vmax's instinct and that is the reason for the pause, whether consciously or subconsciously.

The blue stripe ten ball (acting as white ball) had to swerve slightly around the interfering ball (nine ball I believe). It struck the red stripe eleven ball (object ball) at a slight angle, not full in the face, as evidenced by the fact that after contact, the ten ball deflects off to Vmax's left side. You can argue this point, but I personally believe that the object ball shows some evidence of swerve as it makes its path to the pocket, it just seems to curve slightly as I watch though I don't have any actual evidence of that. Of course, there is some wobble of the red stripe and I personally believe that to be evidence that at least a small amount of spin has transferred.

So the ten did NOT strike the eleven full in the face, the eleven SHOULD have missed the pot on the left side jaw (as we look from the camera), the ten bounced off the eleven to the right side (again as the camera views), and yet the eleven pots handily barely whisking by the jaw not even rattling it. Put all these things together and I believe that is why Vmax had to take a pause after that shot to assimilate all of that information which seems to go against intuition.

It looks like there is another very similar shot at 25:30 that does not pot but actually strikes the jaw on the same side that the "cue" ball deflected toward. Other than blaming an out of level table, I do not have a logical explanation for this except that somehow, the object ball path must not be following a straight line from the point of contact with the cue ball. In the OP, Vmax says the shot at this time stamp was a bad contact. Personally, I believe that a slight swerve of the object ball occurs due to a trace amount of spin transfer and that a bad contact or a kick is really an amplification of this natural effect due to something creating a greater than normal friction at the point and time of contact.

[OmaMiesta]

Why didn't you use snooker balls?

How do you explain where the CB ends up, pretty much every time? It ends up on the right of the OB as we are looking at it - how can that be if you are merely bending the ball to hit the contact point, (which I'm presuming is dead straight). Logically, for a swerve shot, the CB must either follow straight, or, more likely, continue on iis path towards the left. Wilson's shot does the same thing btw. A stationary OB also has an effect on a spinning CB.

The last few shots show ample evidence of SIT.

I would have preferred to see you use snooker balls with a snooker cue (or a pool cue with pool balls).

What make of balls are they?

As an avid pool and snooker player that follows both sports religiously id have to agree. Spin transfer is definitely a thing, you can literally make balls go in with side that normally would not go, didnt know this was arguable?

[itsnoteasy]

Its a absolute joke and yes, embarrassing.

Terry tirelessly has given this forum over the years great advise and has shown incredible patience when repeating instructions to me and the like and thats why i have utmost respect for him.

Some of the post are so immature and cringe worthy and reminds of why I left this place for a while.

Ignore the insults, Terry and just do what you do best.

Nice post Throtts, I don't mind a bit of pish taking but the nasty stuff just isn't right. Terry couldn't have been nicer or helped me more when I first came on here and I think some would do well to remember how respected he is on here. I'm not saying don't call him out if you think he( or anyone) is wrong, but just state your opinion fairly , let others state theirs and if we can't agree, so what, as long as we are all potting balls we can think what we like. Personally I just don't know how anyone can tell a man with a PhD in mechanical engineering, who actually teaches classes in how pool balls react at Colorado state university, has published papers on his findings and had them scrutinised by other scientists ( peer reviewed as it's called) , who would be ridiculed (and probably sacked )in his own field if he was proved to be wrong when his papers are reviewed and didn't change his mind, but we will say he's wrong as we can't do it. Well I can't make a 147 therefore that means they don't exist, no point showing me video evidence of people who know far more than me and have studied and practiced all their life. If I can't do it, it can't be done end of story. Now that sounds stupid but that's how I feel this subject has gone. I said earlier, if this was false, any student could prove it wrong in ten minutes on the back of a fag packet with a worn out pencil, and that's just the truth of the whole thing, it's not an opinion based subject, it's scientifically proven or it would have been debunked by now and you would never hear of it again, that's how science works. You can debate what causes more or less reaction, how useful it is, there are probably many things to debate on the subject, you just can't say it doesn't exist.

[vmax]

would like to see a set of tc snooker balls used on a snooker table to prove a point. but interesting to see how those amercan pool balls react looked exhausting.. good show vmax

Those pool balls are 2 & 1/16 inches, the same size as snooker balls.

Funny how you quit when you started to hit the shot well enough to get a little throw, huh? Maybe the highly polished balls started to lose their sheen, and pick up a little dirt?

Wasn't getting any throw, most of the time I was simply showing how not to do it and trying to get the same alledged throw that Wilson got, didn't happen so I simply got down and played the shot correctly, pretty easy really, and I wasn't even wearing my glasses.

We saw the throw on Wilson's and selby's shots perfectly well without a spotted CB, but i wonder why vmax didn't use one? They are also 2.25" balls, which are too heavy for a snooker cue to manoeuvre easily. You can see how little reaction he gets on the white during the line up.

You're getting a bit desperate now biggie, quote the part of the post where I say I'm using 2.25 inch pool balls.

I quote the first above because it about sums up my position on the topic. Everyone has their opinion; no one is likely to change their opinion; in the end, it doesn't really matter all that much.

I quote the second above because I disagree. I have seen this type of shot plenty of times and I even believe that Vmax's video has several good representations of the same thing.


I have tried to read this entire thread though I admit I skipped past any posts that only seemed to be insults, not adding anything useful (and there are also a few posters I don't bother to read at all). I will add my tuppence because in my opinion, no one has referenced what I believe to be the definitive shot of the entire video (I admit I did not watch the entire thing....went through it spottily, clicking ahead, clicking ahead, clicking ahead; you know, trying to get a summary of what was being conceptualized).

I will state up front that I most closely agree with all that Byrom has posted. I did not find a single syllable that he wrote in this thread with which I would disagree. To my eye, the evidence that a very slight amount of side can be transferred to the OB and affect its path can be seen at the 21:12 mark of the video (https://youtu.be/nElgmNBjPOk?t=1272; by the way, Vmax, thanks for posting this video; it is thorough and well done). This shot is meant to be emulating the Kyren Wilson shot. After he pots this shot, Vmax even stands up and pauses for several seconds as if he is trying to figure out what just happened. It is my opinion that this particular shot went against Vmax's instinct and that is the reason for the pause, whether consciously or subconsciously.

The blue stripe ten ball (acting as white ball) had to swerve slightly around the interfering ball (nine ball I believe). It struck the red stripe eleven ball (object ball) at a slight angle, not full in the face, as evidenced by the fact that after contact, the ten ball deflects off to Vmax's left side. You can argue this point, but I personally believe that the object ball shows some evidence of swerve as it makes its path to the pocket, it just seems to curve slightly as I watch though I don't have any actual evidence of that. Of course, there is some wobble of the red stripe and I personally believe that to be evidence that at least a small amount of spin has transferred.

So the ten did NOT strike the eleven full in the face, the eleven SHOULD have missed the pot on the left side jaw (as we look from the camera), the ten bounced off the eleven to the right side (again as the camera views), and yet the eleven pots handily barely whisking by the jaw not even rattling it. Put all these things together and I believe that is why Vmax had to take a pause after that shot to assimilate all of that information which seems to go against intuition.

It looks like there is another very similar shot at 25:30 that does not pot but actually strikes the jaw on the same side that the "cue" ball deflected toward. Other than blaming an out of level table, I do not have a logical explanation for this except that somehow, the object ball path must not be following a straight line from the point of contact with the cue ball. In the OP, Vmax says the shot at this time stamp was a bad contact. Personally, I believe that a slight swerve of the object ball occurs due to a trace amount of spin transfer and that a bad contact or a kick is really an amplification of this natural effect due to something creating a greater than normal friction at the point and time of contact.

The shot in question at 25:30 was a bad contact from a shot that I swerved a tad too much as it was hit at a pace too slow to reach the pocket, did it again the very next try and didn't get a bad contact.
A bad contact or a kick can make either one or the other or both balls react differently, on that occasion it was the OB. All the shots I hit at the right pace to reach the pocket either missed or went into the side of the pocket. The only one of mine that did the same as the Wilson shot was the bad contact, the Wilson shot was a kick as spotted by a certain seven time world champion who was commentating on the match with his regular stooge.

The shot you mention at 21:15 went in the side of the pocket only a little bit cleaner than the others that were potted. I was surprised because I thought I'd hit it at the same pace as the others and didn't expect to pot it, and you're right the 10 ball does go a little further to my left than previous shots as I got a bit more bite into the 10 ball and spun it a tad faster.
I'm not a machine and can't hit every single shot exactly the same.

You need to download a video editing tool and watch it frame by frame. I have and there's nothing untoward happening, all contacts made with the exception of the bad contact are bang on where the OB should end up.

[throtts]

@ itsnoteasy ,+1, some good points there, bud..There really are so many variables in snooker and in one snooker shot that can differ it so much.

Would be really nice to see a couple on here ""man up"" and apologies for being a bit below the belt at times. I am not holding my breath though....

[Ramon]

As an avid pool and snooker player that follows both sports religiously id have to agree. Spin transfer is definitely a thing, you can literally make balls go in with side that normally would not go, didnt know this was arguable?

You gets my vote bud ,
But it looks like we are wrong !!

Welcome back btw ,
Still alive ??

[vmax]

Thanks for taking your time and making this vid , Vmax.

Did cost me lots of trouble to make this screen shots ,
So would you please take a look at this images ( from you vid and the shots you played ) and
let us know what you think about it . ( if you have time of cours ) .


This is one of your shots , Shot NR 1

[IMG][/IMG]

The time of contact ( as you see , thr is no angle ) both balls in a straight line .

[IMG][/IMG]

And here is the result of effect !

[IMG][/IMG]


Shot NR 2 , ( i mean image 2 )

[IMG][/IMG]

Time of ccontact :


[IMG][/IMG]


Effect throw :




IN This shot , take a look which direction you're cueing please

[IMG][/IMG]

A better version of it ,

[IMG][/IMG]

The result :

[IMG][/IMG]



Also in some of the shots , you're cueing across the ball , hence you do'nt get the same results .
I can try to make new images if you wish .

Ramon

Shot one
image one shows cueing parallel to the line of aim but not compensating my aiming so the shot is missed to my left.
image two shows balls about six inches apart, not at the point of contact and the 10 ball is not dead straight to the 11 as it has deflected to the right, look again.
image three shows I've missed to my left because I didn't compensate my aiming

the three images for shot two show the result of not bending around the intervening ball enough, no throw and your contact image is way off to come to any conclusion about throw.

the images for shot three show I'm compensating my aiming to make the red hit the right hand jaw, but hit it too hard and get too much deflection of the cue(10) ball so miss to the left.

This is what you have to do when playing with side, compensate your aiming in accordance with the pace of the shot to allow for deflection and swerve of the cue ball and I think I showed every aspect of this in the video.

Again I ask you to download a video editing tool like Kinovea and watch it frame by frame.

[itsnoteasy]

@ itsnoteasy ,+1, some good points there, bud..There really are so many variables in snooker and in one snooker shot that can differ it so much.

Would be really nice to see a couple on here ""man up"" and apologies for being a bit below the belt at times. I am not holding my breath though....

I can understand Biggies frustration but you don't need the insults, it detracts from the debate, just gets folks hackles up then they stop listening get all defensive and just start arguing and the discussion gets lost.
Why don't all the folk who think Dr Davis life's work is wrong get in touch with him, that's what I did when I didn't believe in transfer of spin, I emailed him and we had a good back and forward and he seems really nice , if you can think of any points to disprove him( I honestly wouldn't go with " I can't do it ,therefore it doesn't exist, " otherwise it will be a very short conversation)I found he will be only to happy to go through them with you, I found he agreed with a lot of my questions, so he's not a stick in the mud I'm right kind of person( as he shouldn't be on his job).
Here is his email account, it will be far better than is bickering all the time as no offence to any of us but we are pretty clueless, anyway best of luck I hope you get in touch with him.
David.Alciatore@colostate.edu

[jonny66]

Remember Villaguy? He was really good looking.

[Byrom]

@ itsnoteasy ,+1, some good points there, bud..There really are so many variables in snooker and in one snooker shot that can differ it so much.

Would be really nice to see a couple on here ""man up"" and apologies for being a bit below the belt at times. I am not holding my breath though....

Well I will apologise because I doubted his 147's - I have only ever made about 10 - 15 centuries in real games - so not quite as accomplished as others and although I lay off playing much at the minute I can still probably make at least 2 or 3 breaks over 50 in say ten games and more usually 20 and 30 plus's every game. My standard is ok and I am happy but when I get to seventy odd years old I doubt I could pick up a cue let alone go to a tournament and knock in 70....

I do think at times Terry comes across a little - I am right and that's it too - its not all Mr BS fault even though he can be abrupt too - Terry is strong in his arguments and that is probably a navy officer thing and I think it has got a bit personal on here -at times. Maybe its time to stop the personal stuff please.

In this debate I do agree with the other side / Barry Stark n Doc Dave, the effects may be minimal but they do come into the game on certain shots but. However it does not matter on which side debate you are on - why insult? ...I might be wrong too its only my opinion - but the videos do show this to be a factor and as Onemester said I cant believe people don't know this...

PS V-MAX that glove ....hahahahhaha - ooops sorry am I being personal (smack)

[itsnoteasy]

https://youtu.be/vCeR2QpmPqY

Not really.
just off 12 hours in the office... my muppet son has left the window open all day... room is freezing and cue is sticky.

tomorrow I'll do better

sorry about the angle

On a lighter note , I tried this today, could only get out of baulk, between brown and blue but closer to brown, never mind down by blue or pink lol although I did pot six out of seven attempts. I could have hit it much harder I reckon but I would have lost a lot of control and it would have ended up just being luck if I had got it, that was the best I could do while maintaining some accuracy.

[Byrom]

On a lighter note , I tried this today, could only get out of baulk, between brown and blue but closer to brown, never mind down by blue or pink lol although I did pot six out of seven attempts. I could have hit it much harder I reckon but I would have lost a lot of control and it would have ended up just being luck if I had got it, that was the best I could do while maintaining some accuracy.

on the cloth on your table you are lucky it reached the pocket

[Terry Davidson]

On a lighter note , I tried this today, could only get out of baulk, between brown and blue but closer to brown, never mind down by blue or pink lol although I did pot six out of seven attempts. I could have hit it much harder I reckon but I would have lost a lot of control and it would have ended up just being luck if I had got it, that was the best I could do while maintaining some accuracy.

I tried it myself this morning and I only made it to past the blue pocket but I missed the brown more than I made it as my table has not been blocked or ironed in quite awhile now and it's slow. I'll wait until I get the Hainsworth Precision cloth installed in a little while and try it again.

[Terry Davidson]

Well I will apologise because I doubted his 147's - I have only ever made about 10 - 15 centuries in real games - so not quite as accomplished as others and although I lay off playing much at the minute I can still probably make at least 2 or 3 breaks over 50 in say ten games and more usually 20 and 30 plus's every game. My standard is ok and I am happy but when I get to seventy odd years old I doubt I could pick up a cue let alone go to a tournament and knock in 70....

I do think at times Terry comes across a little - I am right and that's it too - its not all Mr BS fault even though he can be abrupt too - Terry is strong in his arguments and that is probably a navy officer thing and I think it has got a bit personal on here -at times. Maybe its time to stop the personal stuff please.

In this debate I do agree with the other side / Barry Stark n Doc Dave, the effects may be minimal but they do come into the game on certain shots but. However it does not matter on which side debate you are on - why insult? ...I might be wrong too its only my opinion - but the videos do show this to be a factor and as Onemester said I cant believe people don't know this...

PS V-MAX that glove ....hahahahhaha - ooops sorry am I being personal (smack)

He started it!