Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Come on Biggie, even I can see that swerved right round the back and hit exactly bob coming the other way, which is the only place you can hit to pot a ball, good grief.
That is one hell of a shot.
I would like Terry to know, since I have been emailing Dr Dave I have ended up on his mailing list and have received one plugging a multiple DVD set about playing pool made by Dr Dave and Bob Jewett( who I must admit I had never heard of) so I think it's fair to say they see eye to eye on everything.

Most of the shots played on Dr Dave's videos are played by bob, who iirc was once national snooker champion and still capable of the odd upset in his 60s.

https://youtu.be/L1AQ21-oBmU

[throtts]

Come on Biggie, even I can see that swerved right round the back and hit exactly bob coming the other way, which is the only place you can hit to pot a ball, good grief.
That is one hell of a shot.

He put the camera at ariel view for 2 sec. He should have left it there, much better view point..

[itsnoteasy]

Lolololol!

Jesus wept, don't know where to start here! Firstly, that quote is from Bob jewett, long term side kick of dr dave, and one of the world's leading experts on pocket billiards.

He is also talking about gearing English, which is a small amount that counteracts the effects of throw. If you're using Bob jewett as evidence that throw doesn't exist, or only exists on extreme cut shots, you're well and truly barking up the wrong tree.

You really need to educate yourself properly. You might stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Anyway, bob jewett, using a lot throw. Try it plain ball.

https://youtu.be/GaSKh1PSqok

Come on Biggie, even I can see that swerved right round the back and hit exactly bob coming the other way, which is the only place you can hit to pot a ball, good grief.
That is one hell of a shot.
I would like Terry to know, since I have been emailing Dr Dave I have ended up on his mailing list and have received one plugging a multiple DVD set about playing pool made by Dr Dave and Bob Jewett( who I must admit I had never heard of) so I think it's fair to say they see eye to eye on everything.

[throtts]

hahaha, I thought so...

[travisbickle]

During a match?, travis.

No. That one was against a mate in practice a couple of years ago.
Giving a few pops at it I'm sure I could do it again

[throtts]

During a match?, travis.

[travisbickle]

Lolololol!

Jesus wept, don't know where to start here! Firstly, that quote is from Bob jewett, long term side kick of dr dave, and one of the world's leading experts on pocket billiards.

He is also talking about gearing English, which is a small amount that counteracts the effects of throw. If you're using Bob jewett as evidence that throw doesn't exist, or only exists on extreme cut shots, you're well and truly barking up the wrong tree.

You really need to educate yourself properly. You might stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Anyway, bob jewett, using a lot throw. Try it plain ball.

https://youtu.be/GaSKh1PSqok

I potted quite a few like this. Best being a red 6 inches to the right of the black spot...1 inch off the cushion and the CB on the baulk line bang in between the side cushion/yellow spot.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Not had a dig at you at all .
I am just* surprised . You and Terry both have such great* knowledge about this game and i love the way you both looking at the game ( as i have mentioned many times ?? ) .

And yet ,, you're not able to see somerhing which is SO Simple and obvious. Not to mention you both overcomplicate the issue for yourself in a total unnecessary way.

The way they tie themselves in knots trying to convince themselves they are right is hilarious to watch - and a little troubling...

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

And what's the point in that as I would miss the red as it now has left hand side on it which is the wrong side to pot it!
If you think the red swerved then you need your eyes tested mate. You can clearly see the red hold it's line.
Also you can just see the red fall into the left side of the pocket so don't give me that BS.

I'd give up on vmax if i were mate. Completely clueless.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

If you add this one to the original Rot Chisholm thread, it's over 100 pages. Still no end in sight, I think it was aliens.

The end was discovered 200 years ago mate.

Can't help Some people.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It appears that OB throw only occues on very thin cuts and only this can be altered by SIT, which is quite different to that which some people on here are advocating from their interpretation of Dr. Dave's videos. This one is from Colorado State and includes a reference to Dr. Dave. In addition to just thin cuts they also say you need to be at top professional level in order to use it consistently. Here is a quote from the site:

The problem with using this "smooth rolling across the object ball's surface" technique is that it requires a lot of skill and experience to get right. The amount of outside required depends on the cut angle, the distance to the ball, and the amount of draw/follow. As has been pointed out by Dr. Dave, Ron Shepard and others, if you get it wrong by a little the shot can go wrong by a lot.

I think the main factor is on skids. This is also called "cling" and in snooker-playing regions "kick." I think the best name for it is "bad contact." In any case, it seems to be due to chalk at the contact point of cue ball on object ball and it causes large amounts of throw. Some players don't even realize that skid exists and think that when people complain about getting a skid/kick/cling/bad contact they are just trying to make excuses. Skids can happen on maybe 1 shot in 50 to 500 depending on conditions and the sort of shots taken.

So, where is this all going? If a player just flat out misses 30% of the shots he shoots at, he's got no reason to take special, complicated precautions to avoid a 1% problem. At that level he should be working on bringing his stick straight through the middle of the cue ball with maybe a little follow or draw. Nice and smooth and not too hard. Such a player has only a dim notion of squirt, swerve and throw, and probably no knowledge of skid.

On the other hand, if you're Rempe or Sigel or Hohmann, and on a good day you miss only one time in 200 shots attempted, you can't afford to have the object ball skidding off randomly one time in 100.

So the bottom line is that whether you should try to use outside english on the fraction of shots that allow the freedom to use it may well depend on how well you play.

So all these sarcastic and insulting quotes we've been seeing from all the OB Throw advocates has all been bollocks. What they are really doing is just what vmax and I said, they are curving the cueball into the correct potting point and there is NO effect on the object ball and this is according to BOTH Dr. Dave and Colorado State. Perhaps these people should try and get a better understanding of exactly what's happening, but it sure looks like it only applies to very thin cuts at the top professional level. I doubt there is any CIT or SIT going on in any of these videos or photos because they are not thin cuts.

Lolololol!

Jesus wept, don't know where to start here! Firstly, that quote is from Bob jewett, long term side kick of dr dave, and one of the world's leading experts on pocket billiards.

He is also talking about gearing English, which is a small amount that counteracts the effects of throw. If you're using Bob jewett as evidence that throw doesn't exist, or only exists on extreme cut shots, you're well and truly barking up the wrong tree.

You really need to educate yourself properly. You might stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Anyway, bob jewett, using a lot throw. Try it plain ball.

https://youtu.be/GaSKh1PSqok

[travisbickle]

You have no understanding of what I'm saying here Travis> j6uk said he can alter the course of the OBJECT BALL by 1/4-ball by using side and drag. 1/4 of the OB is a 30* change in direction. I know this is being technical but try to keep up please!

Lol says the man who doesn't/can't use side. Like I said a while back, you have so much to learn!
Just to add, you said 45 degrees the first time, so I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about yourself!
Just looked this up
http://billiards.colostate.edu/image..._fractions.jpg
I think you need to keep up old man

[Ramon]

I now ask you, the same as I asked travis, to set up the same shot but play the cue ball with left hand side to make the OB red throw the other way on contact. If, as you say, the cue ball does not swerve at such a low speed struck with a level cue at 9 or 3 o'clock then you should be able to make the same contact point.




All these shots show the cue ball spinning horizontally and not on the 30 degree axis that I showed happens when the initial skidding stops and the cue ball grips the cloth and rolls forward. Either these shots are played at a very close distance, struck very hard or the 30 degree axis spin doesn't happen on a napless cloth, which I very much doubt.

Maybe you could ask the good doctor if this happens on a napped snooker table cloth only, and if not why he hasn't captured it on any of his videos and what difference it would make to the contact of the two balls with the cue ball spinning on a 30 ish degree axis.
This is a snooker forum after all and we don't play on napless cloths.

Not had a dig at you at all .
I am just* surprised . You and Terry both have such great* knowledge about this game and i love the way you both looking at the game ( as i have mentioned many times ?? ) .

And yet ,, you're not able to see somerhing which is SO Simple and obvious. Not to mention you both overcomplicate the issue for yourself in a total unnecessary way.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I haven't done any scholarly research on this but maybe I'll send an email to a physics professor at MIT and ask what the laws of physics are with two smooth spheres colliding, one stationary and one spinning with a miniscule amount of friction between the balls but more friction with the bed of the table. I'm sure they'll spend thousands of dollars to prove if there is a way to alter the object ball's course. Just to see Mr. B.S. reaction we could task them to try the experiment in the vacuum of space where there's no friction on the bed.

Or maybe I'll email Scotty but of course he's dead, so that won't work. Maybe the new Scotty in the new Star Trek movies?

Coriolis has this figured out in 1830 mate.

Some other people are still struggling two centuries later, sadly.

[travisbickle]

Jesus wept man you can't see the pocket so that red could be going anywhere, now how many more times do I have to point that out to you.

You say it's impossible to make the same contact point with left hand side because the cue ball would push into the pink, that's incorrect as you can compensate your aiming to allow for the deflection/push of the cue ball and just miss the pink and therefore you should be able to make the same contact carrying left hand side if the ball doesn't swerve.

I say the ball will swerve the other way despite compensating your aiming and therefore you will not be able to make the same contact, in fact I say you won't be able to contact the red at all.

I say that you can play the shot with right hand side without compensating your aiming because the cue ball naturally deflects just a tad to the left and comes back onto a line of aim that's enough make a good enough contact to pot the ball into the side of the pocket because it's carrying right hand side, spinning in the same direction as the nap, making the cue ball swerve around the pink from left to right as the spin changes from horizontal to the 30 degree axis.

And what's the point in that as I would miss the red as it now has left hand side on it which is the wrong side to pot it!
If you think the red swerved then you need your eyes tested mate. You can clearly see the red hold it's line.
Also you can just see the red fall into the left side of the pocket so don't give me that BS.