Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

beautiful words Jason, an absolute poet. The issue is many forget to get back on the board and go back to what they really know.

I didn't realize you were from Nuneaton Tom, like pottr although he said he played with you recently. I've played Mick Price in the Attak(?) snooker club and I remember on the table we were on the brown to centre pocket had a horrific roll so I'm blaming that as Mick beat me if I remember rightly. Too bad Mick's claim to fame was as the opponent for Ronnie's fastest ever 147. We used to travel to the pro ticket tournaments together where he qualified in 1987 I think and I missed by one match against (damn, his name escapes me although I heard he later slit his wrists but didn't succeed).

[Terry Davidson]

Terry... don't get me wrong I've found the videos particularly your own very interesting as is the theory behind it.
However I've made century breaks and I miss shots plain ball. It pains me to see lesser players talking about applying side as if they believe it could help them.
We strike up and down the middle of the cue ball because we want to make the game easier. It's difficult enough without over complicating it.

When I play pool I use alot more side because simply put it's a doddle to pot balls on a pool table so I can apply side without worrying about potentially missing the pot.

If Travis or Mr BS have a retort then fair enough. I'm just saying this thread is the opposite of helpful for snooker players, which is who this forum is aimed at.

The bolded statement is so true. I love snooker and don't find centre-ball striking and making breaks to be boring at all like Travis does. The other point is I have never heard a play say 'damn it, I missed that pot because of unintentional object ball throw'. It is inconsequential and even if it did exist the opportunity to use it would come up very rarely. Changing the attack angle of the cueball is a fact and it can be used but again in very rare situations.

[Terry Davidson]

its that full mop of hair you got, not that im not jealous

Not a lot of gray either, so there!

[tomwalker147]

as for who should use side and when, playing snooker is like a balancing act. if anyone hasn't tried a balance board you must.
trying to stay on balance is like finding the core of the white, but once you can stay on the board you will inevitably try a trick of to that you may of seen,. but you will always know the importance of staying on the board and being on balance.

beautiful words Jason, an absolute poet. The issue is many forget to get back on the board and go back to what they really know.

[j6uk]

as for who should use side and when, playing snooker is like a balancing act. if anyone hasn't tried a balance board you must.
trying to stay on balance is like finding the core of the white, but once you can stay on the board you will inevitably try a trick or two that you may of seen,. but you will always know the importance of staying on the board and being on balance.

[tomwalker147]

Tom...you are inviting the wrath of Travis and Mr. Big Shot and I will help that along by agreeing completely with you. Travis trashed me because he believes plain centre-ball snooker is 'boring'.

Terry... don't get me wrong I've found the videos particularly your own very interesting as is the theory behind it.
However I've made century breaks and I miss shots plain ball. It pains me to see lesser players talking about applying side as if they believe it could help them.
We strike up and down the middle of the cue ball because we want to make the game easier. It's difficult enough without over complicating it.

When I play pool I use alot more side because simply put it's a doddle to pot balls on a pool table so I can apply side without worrying about potentially missing the pot.

If Travis or Mr BS have a retort then fair enough. I'm just saying this thread is the opposite of helpful for snooker players, which is who this forum is aimed at.

[j6uk]

OK, I was just about to call for a naval bombardment on you. But just for calling me cute I'm going to put up another video on this subject especially for you so I will be speaking directly to you but of course other will be able to see it.

its that full mop of hair you got, not that im not jealous

[Terry Davidson]

to be fair i am not bothered about how it goes in or what happens . all i referred to way back at the beginning of this thread, (seems like ages ago now), was Barry Stark showed me a shot which was by aiming thicker and using side we can throw the OB into the pocket while at the same time getting the cueball to deflect off a different line.

in my situation the BOB wasn't covered , i was low on the black (cueball level with black,closer to back cushion ) but by aiming to pot at BOB i would hit a red which was just above it. i was playing with deep screw and on every occasion couldn't avoid a cannon into the red. this is when Barry came over (he was coaching on the next table) he played the shot and avoided the cannon. then he explained what he did. and that is to aim thicker with side opposite to the direction the OB was travelling.

so i tried and Bingo it worked. that's all i needed to know. i wasn't interested in how the cueball would curve or how the spin effected the path of the OB. all what mattered was it worked and now i have that in my locker. if certain situations like this crop up in a match i know what i can do, and that's good enough for me.

Good for you. Now keep a tally on how many times you used this in actual frames in a year where it was necessary for position that couldn't be gained any other way. I would think it will be a very low number.

[Terry Davidson]

Alabadi are you genuinely adding this to your locker? I'm sorry but I find all this talk of SIT etc to be a complete waste of time. There are people who can't pot half a dozen balls in a row talking about such intricacies, it seems ridiculous to me. I don't think the pro's bother with this so why would we bother?

For the guys who struggle to pot balls without side practice that first.

Tom...you are inviting the wrath of Travis and Mr. Big Shot and I will help that along by agreeing completely with you. Travis trashed me because he believes plain centre-ball snooker is 'boring'.

[tomwalker147]

to be fair i am not bothered about how it goes in or what happens . all i referred to way back at the beginning of this thread, (seems like ages ago now), was Barry Stark showed me a shot which was by aiming thicker and using side we can throw the OB into the pocket while at the same time getting the cueball to deflect off a different line.

in my situation the BOB wasn't covered , i was low on the black (cueball level with black,closer to back cushion ) but by aiming to pot at BOB i would hit a red which was just above it. i was playing with deep screw and on every occasion couldn't avoid a cannon into the red. this is when Barry came over (he was coaching on the next table) he played the shot and avoided the cannon. then he explained what he did. and that is to aim thicker with side opposite to the direction the OB was travelling.

so i tried and Bingo it worked. that's all i needed to know. i wasn't interested in how the cueball would curve or how the spin effected the path of the OB. all what mattered was it worked and now i have that in my locker. if certain situations like this crop up in a match i know what i can do, and that's good enough for me.

Alabadi are you genuinely adding this to your locker? I'm sorry but I find all this talk of SIT etc to be a complete waste of time. There are people who can't pot half a dozen balls in a row talking about such intricacies, it seems ridiculous to me. I don't think the pro's bother with this so why would we bother?

For the guys who struggle to pot balls without side practice that first.

[j6uk]

yeah sorry i meant 1/3 was covered in you video not 2/3.. but then you went on to my shot at 1/4 covered and for some reason you took it hi, and as i mentioned it in my vid it maybe possible hi but would likely need side to grab it.
so to sum up you made a challenge to me to turn a ball in only being able to see 2/3 of it, tried to dis prove my 3/4 ball contact playing from the position i thought was possible and when on to state 'who knows more about side'.
as an observation the whole terry2 is an interesting comparable video.

[alabadi]

I tried to set up Jason's balls exactly how they were in his video, the first shot. I was able to pot the ball using no side and I was also able to pot the ball using side and power and the power is supposed to cancel out SIT.

Just do as I recommend above...set the balls up so you can see BOB is hidden by the red and then try it yourself. If you make it then SIT exists for your skill-set. If you can't make it then you have no reason to be even considering trying to use SIT to throw a ball in. Don't cheat even 1 millimeter. The cueball black should be exactly lined up to 1.5" outside of the nearest pottable slop-in spot. The black/red combo to hide BOB is lined up to 6" below the green or yellow pocket. Now see if BOB is actually covered and see if you can pot the ball.

to be fair i am not bothered about how it goes in or what happens . all i referred to way back at the beginning of this thread, (seems like ages ago now), was Barry Stark showed me a shot which was by aiming thicker and using side we can throw the OB into the pocket while at the same time getting the cueball to deflect off a different line.

in my situation the BOB wasn't covered , i was low on the black (cueball level with black,closer to back cushion ) but by aiming to pot at BOB i would hit a red which was just above it. i was playing with deep screw and on every occasion couldn't avoid a cannon into the red. this is when Barry came over (he was coaching on the next table) he played the shot and avoided the cannon. then he explained what he did. and that is to aim thicker with side opposite to the direction the OB was travelling.

so i tried and Bingo it worked. that's all i needed to know. i wasn't interested in how the cueball would curve or how the spin effected the path of the OB. all what mattered was it worked and now i have that in my locker. if certain situations like this crop up in a match i know what i can do, and that's good enough for me.

[Terry Davidson]

no.. i think its instinctive to you as a snooker player and a fighter. subconsciously you probably went into naval battle simulator mode.

i still think your onto something ..

OK, I was just about to call for a naval bombardment on you. But just for calling me cute I'm going to put up another video on this subject especially for you so I will be speaking directly to you but of course other will be able to see it.

[j6uk]

Jason are you saying I cheated? The white and black were lined up to about 1.5" above the slop-in point and the red just covered BOB. This test was to prove whether SIT exists or not. Obviously I couldn't throw the black the 1.5" required and I challenged you to try as you have a great cue action and players on here respect your opinion. If you have tried it and were unsuccessful I think you can say 'I can't turn that black enough to move it 1.5" in 3ft' and therefore SIT is of no practical value.

I also have to say there's no way 2/3 of the black is covered from the potting angle. The red ball is just covering the BOB to the slop-in point. In your video when I tried to copy your set-up and thought I did I was able to pot the black using centre-ball and I took your set-up and changed it until there was no question BOB was covered and if someone could pot the ball then SIT must exist.

Have you tried to pot the black using my set-up? In my own mind it's not possible and here you are saying I was being 'cute'. It ain't 2/3rds and you can see the cueball can get to a spot on the black opposite a spot 1.5" from the slop-in potting point. Try the shot and see what happens.

no.. i think its instinctive to you as a snooker player and a fighter. subconsciously you probably went into naval battle simulator mode.

i still think your onto something ..

[Terry Davidson]

Hi Terry

If in Jason's video he wasn't able to make contact with BOB, whatever cut it was 1/4 or a bit less. he is still turning the ball in with side. which proves that you can turn the ball in even if you can't make contact with BOB. which i thought was the whole argument of this thread.
i know others have gone on and strayed off this and talking about the science of what or doesn't happen, however for me all i was interested in was, in certain situations it is possible to turn a ball into a pocket playing it thicker by using opposite side to the OB travel

I tried to set up Jason's balls exactly how they were in his video, the first shot. I was able to pot the ball using no side and I was also able to pot the ball using side and power and the power is supposed to cancel out SIT.

Just do as I recommend above...set the balls up so you can see BOB is hidden by the red and then try it yourself. If you make it then SIT exists for your skill-set. If you can't make it then you have no reason to be even considering trying to use SIT to throw a ball in. Don't cheat even 1 millimeter. The cueball black should be exactly lined up to 1.5" outside of the nearest pottable slop-in spot. The black/red combo to hide BOB is lined up to 6" below the green or yellow pocket. Now see if BOB is actually covered and see if you can pot the ball.