Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[travisbickle]

OK so it pushed off to the left, does it keep going on that line then ?
If so you should be able to make the same contact point with a plain ball strike should you not ?
Even though it ain't worth it, because according to you the spin throws the red into the pocket, just try to make that same contact point plain ball as you do with right hand side, and if you can manage that then do the same with left hand side.

Put up a video, camera phone right behind the pocket, dead straight shot with cue ball and OB in line with the centre of the pocket and intervening ball about 3-5mm in the way, play all three shots from exactly the same positions to show us your proof.
Now I've asked you this several times now and you haven't bothered, what are you, chicken ?

Can't be bothered doing anymore videos on this subject.
I proved to all the doubters that it's possible to throw the OB off line without a kick which you said was not possible and what this thread is all about.
There is nothing more to see.
Call me what you want, I couldn't care less lol

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Terry, I don't know for the life of me why you bite?

Ignore the nameless and the faceless... If you can't face your accuser then in your mind you dismiss any accusations as irrelevant.

People take this Internet stuff way too seriously.

I had heard your name mentioned before I ever visited this forum... I still don't know who a lot of them are on here

I think most of the recognised players and level headed individuals on this realise that you know your stuff and respect you accordingly

Jack x

Lol. He's demonstrated over and over he DOESN'T know his stuff. Bending object balls? Yikes!

But he's far from alone - many pro players are clueless as well.

[vmax]

Not the correct one that's for sure!

OK so it pushed off to the left, does it keep going on that line then ?
If so you should be able to make the same contact point with a plain ball strike should you not ?
Even though it ain't worth it, because according to you the spin throws the red into the pocket, just try to make that same contact point plain ball as you do with right hand side, and if you can manage that then do the same with left hand side.

Put up a video, camera phone right behind the pocket, dead straight shot with cue ball and OB in line with the centre of the pocket and intervening ball about 3-5mm in the way, play all three shots from exactly the same positions to show us your proof.
Now I've asked you this several times now and you haven't bothered, what are you, chicken ?

[Terry Davidson]

Ok so explain to me how the red threw so much after a full ball contact when your calculus says you can only get a tiny amount of spin throw?

Ain't my calculus...it was put up by 'itrsnoteasy' I think. I can't explain the throw on whichever red you're referring to but the real answer is I don't care as long as I can make an object ball around an intervening ball I'm happy, I don't care what physics is involved. It's the same as sunshine, I really like it but I don't care how it's generated as long as it stays there.

[Terry Davidson]

Terry, I don't know for the life of me why you bite?

Ignore the nameless and the faceless... If you can't face your accuser then in your mind you dismiss any accusations as irrelevant.

People take this Internet stuff way too seriously.

I had heard your name mentioned before I ever visited this forum... I still don't know who a lot of them are on here

I think most of the recognised players and level headed individuals on this realise that you know your stuff and respect you accordingly

Jack x

Thank you. It's the insults to my character and experience that gets me going but you're right, I may not have been the best but I'm proud of my achievements in snooker and I'll live with that.

[pottr]

Terry, I don't know for the life of me why you bite?

Ignore the nameless and the faceless... If you can't face your accuser then in your mind you dismiss any accusations as irrelevant.

People take this Internet stuff way too seriously.

I had heard your name mentioned before I ever visited this forum... I still don't know who a lot of them are on here

I think most of the recognised players and level headed individuals on this realise that you know your stuff and respect you accordingly

Jack x

[throtts]

I note you've never put up any of your accomplishments at either snooker or pool but like sniping from the bushes at those who do. Put up your real name and what you've done in any form of billiards.

I would have thought nothing, Tel, hence his frustrations. He should stick to his paper findings and flog his cues ..

[travisbickle]

No...I'd call them 'Mr. Big Shot'. I've never failed to get a student to be able to screw back. Just because I disagree with your conclusions based on Dr. Dave and your experience doesn't mean I'm an idiot, just an experienced person myself who can accomplish the shots but cannot figure out how to control CIT & SIT so the concept has no value to me. I can probably do anything you can do on a snooker table without understanding the physics behind spin throw. I can understand impact throw on an angled shot and know the physics there. When I tried that calculus equation that was put up it showed a very tiny amount of spin throw at full ball and none at a 90* cut. Maybe my estimates were wrong or my calculator isn't working although it's a TI one I used in my engineering courses.

Ok so explain to me how the red threw so much after a full ball contact when your calculus says you can only get a tiny amount of spin throw?

[Terry Davidson]

Wow, a 60 break player has really made it!

I note you've never put up any of your accomplishments at either snooker or pool but like sniping from the bushes at those who do. Put up your real name and what you've done in any form of billiards.

[Terry Davidson]

No one can win pool titles without knowing about it.

Would you call one of your students, who've you've very patiently explained screw back to many, many times, a complete moron if they've failed to grasp the concept after about 50 demonstrations? When they continually tell you it's not possible? When they say it must be voodoo? When they say it's just a theory?

Sooner or later you're going to call them an idiot. Well...

No...I'd call them 'Mr. Big Shot'. I've never failed to get a student to be able to screw back. Just because I disagree with your conclusions based on Dr. Dave and your experience doesn't mean I'm an idiot, just an experienced person myself who can accomplish the shots but cannot figure out how to control CIT & SIT so the concept has no value to me. I can probably do anything you can do on a snooker table without understanding the physics behind spin throw. I can understand impact throw on an angled shot and know the physics there. When I tried that calculus equation that was put up it showed a very tiny amount of spin throw at full ball and none at a 90* cut. Maybe my estimates were wrong or my calculator isn't working although it's a TI one I used in my engineering courses.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I played earlier and hit 60's , 70'S on a regular basis. Positional play was great to which I didn't have to play a swerve once. The only time I used side was when a cush was involved to keep the CB tight to the next OB or to create a angle on that next OB.

This discussion is finished as far as I am concerned..

Wow, a 60 break player has really made it!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I want everyone to look at this post by Mr. Big Shot, especially Byrom who said it was me doing the insulting. The words 'monumentally stupid' seem to me to be an insult. I'll say it once again, spin induced throw is useless except for the rare use to avoid intervening balls if indeed it is throw and not the cueball curving into the OB. I have not yet seen a video which provides conclusive proof SIT exists in a usable form.

In addition, it's not even worth considering as most playeers don't need to know exactly what's going on as long as they can perform the shots that get around intervening balls. Mr. Big Shot your proof does not satisfy everyone and it's not definitive and this whole exercise of 52 pages has been a total waste of time for all of us. But, keep the faith as I'm sure it will help you to win many pool titles over the coming years.

Sky pixies or not it ain't me doing the trolling but people with faith in SIT who are making this difficult.

No one can win pool titles without knowing about it.

Would you call one of your students, who've you've very patiently explained screw back to many, many times, a complete moron if they've failed to grasp the concept after about 50 demonstrations? When they continually tell you it's not possible? When they say it must be voodoo? When they say it's just a theory?

Sooner or later you're going to call them an idiot. Well...

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Still waiting for your answer travis, 'the cue ball pushed off to the left but holds its line', what line is it holding ?

I'm still waiting for an answer on why the CB ends up where it does on your shots - how can a curving CB end up to the right of the OB? By your logic (sic) of a swerve, it should go to the left.

[travisbickle]

Fantastic level to reach in just 8 years Travis, that's not really a long time in club snooker. You must've been locked in your club 24/7 lol. What's your highest break?

126 which was 4 years ago now. Should've beat that many times since but always seem to bulls up the colors lol

[markz]

8 years ago I had just started playing snooker. I now knock in century's every week. So I have improved a lot I would say.
Really!!! They were examples!

Fantastic level to reach in just 8 years Travis, that's not really a long time in club snooker. You must've been locked in your club 24/7 lol. What's your highest break?