Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[alabadi]

No Oma...not 1/4 or 1/2 ball but whether BOB is actually covered. Watch my videos, especially #2 and see what you think. Remember tolerances on that shot are in fractions of millimeters.

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

[Terry Davidson]

I believe the 'final solution' on whether an object ball can be thrown in is going to have to be made up by each individual in this debate, mud slinging, flak or whatever this is. When you next go to a club quickly set up the balls as I did (all balls should be touching rather than what Travis did) and try it yourself.

In fact line up the black/cueball to actually hit the slop-in point and try the SIT technique to pot the ball centre-pocket. If you can change the path of the object ball then SIT must be real. Remember, you have moved the cueball a little towards the pink so the black/red combo will also move up a bit towards the green pocket to keep all 3 balls frozen. It is absolutely necessary you have centre-pocket BOB covered by the red and remember we're talking in millimeters here and your own eyesite.

This way it can help you understand whether a ball is actually pottable for yourself and your skill level or not which is a good thing...right?

[Terry Davidson]

i think what tel has done in his vid is quite cute, he fractionally moved the goal posts to prove/disprove a point on his own table.
i believe he recognized from where i had my video setup on the table that he could just about pot the black from that camera angle, and also took comfort from me saying it might be possible high, but i then went on to say i might need a bit of side to grab it a bit.
i only bring this up because of his change of angle from my 1/4 ob cover to his 2/3, then trying to disprove my straight black by going high, then saying he would normally play it with right hand side before he got down to try and trickle it in,. then he challenged me, and concluded with "ask yourself who knows more about side".. clever stuff.

https://youtu.be/4Ld2PSVtuFg?t=2m45s

https://youtu.be/PGx54N-sw3Y?t=4m37s

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.

[j6uk]

i think what tel has done in his vid is quite cute, he fractionally moved the goal posts to prove/disprove a point on his own table.
i believe he recognized from where i had my video setup on the table that he could just about pot the black from that camera angle, and also took comfort from me saying it might be possible high, but i then went on to say i might need a bit of side to grab it a bit.
i only bring this up because of his change of angle from my 1/4 ob cover to his 1/3, then trying to disprove my straight black by going high, then saying he would normally play it with right hand side before he got down to try and trickle it in,. then he challenged me, and concluded with "ask yourself who knows more about side".. clever stuff.

https://youtu.be/4Ld2PSVtuFg?t=2m45s

https://youtu.be/PGx54N-sw3Y?t=4m37s

[Terry Davidson]

There are a load on YouTube Jason. Looks mostly down the middle of the CB from the little bits I've seen. Very basic snooker
https://youtu.be/c3uVfYww3Do
Here you go.

That was the seniors and I know I played crap. In the last 3 years I have improved my stroke a bit. Table had Simonis 4000 cloth which was super slow and added to the tensions. There should be a video of my semi-final in the men's where I lost 6-3 to the eventual winner.

But you're right, we were both afraid to try anything exotic on that cloth. It was rubbish. Paul Flemming beat me after I dogged a blue into the middle off the spot and I still have nightmares. There was one frame where I locked him up in a snooker and the damned referee didn't call a MISS and he took 4 minutes over the shot and missed it by more than 3 feet!

[Terry Davidson]

What am I missing here? How are we still arguing this. Why are we talking about 1/4 and 1/8 angles? The video j6 showed clearly shows an angle that is covered and does not pot naturally. He then proceeds to pot it with the use of side....Wether its 1/4 or 1/8 is irrelevant to the fact that it does not pot plain ball. How can this be explained by deflection/swerve when the potting angle is still covered....at best the cb can only swerve to miss the covering ball which would then hit the ob too thick and cause a miss.

No Oma...not 1/4 or 1/2 ball but whether BOB is actually covered. Watch my videos, especially #2 and see what you think. Remember tolerances on that shot are in fractions of millimeters.

[Terry Davidson]

I saw you started a new thread .
I'm gonna watch the vid right now Terry . Thanks .
I hope I learn sumthing new thr !

Please let me know if you are just as convinced by mine as by Jason's and try and give me the reasons why either is valid or not.

[Terry Davidson]

I just did exactly the same this afternoon Tel, I even had the red touching the black and could pot it using right hand side. I then placed the cue ball up against the black so that BOB was about a 1/4 inch outside the far jaw, placed a red touching both balls so that to contact BOB would make the black 1/4 inch outside the far jaw with a simultaneous hit of black and red, therefore if I make contact just before the simultaneous hit I should be able to throw the black into the pocket off the far jaw.
Couldn't do it, had about twenty tries, and seeing as I could easily play the shot j6 played I think my technique is adequate enough.

Another shot I tried was to place all 15 reds inside the triangle to give it some weight so that it wouldn't move.
I then lined up the cue ball against and touching the side of the triangle, so it couldn't swerve, with the pink adjacent to it and touching it so that it couldn't deflect, with the black just outside the end of the triangle in a straight line to the pocket.

Played the shot with left hand side so that the pink stopped the natural deflection to the right and the cue ball hugged the side of the triangle because it couldn't swerve to the left, and it contacted the black dead full ball and it went straight into the centre of the pocket.

Conclusion, with deflection and swerve taken out of the picture all there should have been left was the side induced throw but it obviously didn't happen as the black went centre pocket just as it would have plain ball.




If SIT is real then there's a gear effect and everything is connected, and if you think that there is 'some' side transfer every time side is used take a look at my video again and watch the balls I make centre pocket on a full ball contact where, according to you there can be no CIT. The stripe remains upright and doesn't rotate to the side despite being struck by a spinning cue ball that IMO has deflected and swerved onto the full ball contact, so not travelling straight and therefore according to you there should be CIT.

So it's either CIT or SIT but can't be proven to be both unless by some kind of magic SIT also only happens on a cut shot, which would be incredibly convenient for Dr. Dave and his acolytes.

Like Terry I can't the results that the bloke in the Dr. Dave videos gets with SIT, but then I don't pivot like he does despite you thinking that I do, and I don't get the same results he does with CIT on stun shots. Top, stun, screw and the line of aim is the same for me, it only changes with side and then I compensate my aiming to allow for that.

On my video I got exactly the same results as vmax did and I explain EXACTLY how the set-up is which is something Jason neglected to do. I also tried Biggy's shot with pink on spot (without the rack-good idea vmax never thought of it) and max side but I found because I have to compensate a little for the side I could put that object ball anywhere on the bottom cushion by adjusting the compensation by very little (CB was exactly one ball's width behind the pink.) I don't believe that exercise tells us very much because we are again into very fine adjustment territory like Jason's black ball.

[Ramon]

See my 2nd video Ramon as that 'evidence' is subject to interpretation and also so is mine I guess but I explain EXACTLY how those balls are set up. I left everyone an out though by suggesting perhaps my cue action is not as fluid as Jason's or Travis', and it probably isn't so maybe one of them can get that sucker to slop into the top pocket because I sure as hell couldn't.

See...no insults anywhere, just a challenge to those believing in SIT on a snooker table.

I saw you started a new thread .
I'm gonna watch the vid right now Terry . Thanks .
I hope I learn sumthing new thr !

[Terry Davidson]

The problem is , It's very hard to explain and convince someone who believes you need to make a BOB in order to pott the ball and there is no other way,,
what actually SIT is !!

Despite of evidence which is provided so far, I don't think it's possible to do that .

See my 2nd video Ramon as that 'evidence' is subject to interpretation and also so is mine I guess but I explain EXACTLY how those balls are set up. I left everyone an out though by suggesting perhaps my cue action is not as fluid as Jason's or Travis', and it probably isn't so maybe one of them can get that sucker to slop into the top pocket because I sure as hell couldn't.

See...no insults anywhere, just a challenge to those believing in SIT on a snooker table.

[Terry Davidson]

You guys are bananas. Incredibly convenient for dr dave? WTF? Tell me, which part of Coriolis' equations do you think he got wrong? He predated dr dave by quite some time, you know.
You'll never discuss the physics, will you?

And tell me, just for my amusement, which of the other 750 experiments and explanations on dr dave's website do you believe he's got wrong? The one on screw back? The one on top spin? Swerve? Deflection? What?

Wouldn't it be an incredible coincidence for the only one to be wrong the ONE thing you personally were unaware of?

So, go find me some other examples. There must be some, right? Or is this all a giant conspiracy against little old you?

Is 'bananas' an insult? I think it is vmax. See my videos, especially #2 just posted.

[Ramon]

What am I missing here? How are we still arguing this. Why are we talking about 1/4 and 1/8 angles? The video j6 showed clearly shows an angle that is covered and does not pot naturally. He then proceeds to pot it with the use of side....Wether its 1/4 or 1/8 is irrelevant to the fact that it does not pot plain ball. How can this be explained by deflection/swerve when the potting angle is still covered....at best the cb can only swerve to miss the covering ball which would then hit the ob too thick and cause a miss.

The problem is , It's very hard to explain and convince someone who believes you need to make a BOB in order to pott the ball and there is no other way,,
what actually SIT is !!

Despite of evidence which is provided so far, I don't think it's possible to do that .

[Ramon]

Maybe it's time to have a vote?
a for j6, Travis and biggie
b for Terry and vmax
c for I don't know
I'm gonna kick it off with a big fat a

And how about me ??
And i thought you were my friend !!

sorry , but from now on I'm gonna have to put you on blacklist !!

[Terry Davidson]

Maybe it's time to have a vote?
a for j6, Travis and biggie
b for Terry and vmax
c for I don't know
I'm gonna kick it off with a big fat a

I will be posting a video which proves either SIT doesn't exist or else there's not enough of it to alter the path of the object ball. My thoughts on Jason's video is he didn't have the BOB to the side jaw covered but in my video it will be and I accurately described the set-up of the black/red and I agree that is doesn't matter what quarter it is, just that BOB is covered.

[travisbickle]

would you mind putting that canadians video up?

There are a load on YouTube Jason. Looks mostly down the middle of the CB from the little bits I've seen. Very basic snooker
https://youtu.be/c3uVfYww3Do
Here you go.