Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[oldun]

would the throw still happen if the impact occurred on a glass surface?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

When I played a spinning CB hugging the edge of the triangle to cancel out the deflection and swerve, the OB didn't throw one little bit and when I played the same trace side pivot shot, with the CB and OB only a couple of inches apart, as the bloke in the Dr. Dave video I got the same result as he did, less deflection, nothing more and that is proof enough for me. You need to get on a table sometime and have a go for yourself, Oh I forgot, you don't play do you, and you don't understand the physics either, you just link to something on the internet to look clever, but you actually have no knowledge or experience of your own.



Dr. Dave says otherwise and uses it extensively to prove his SIT theory.



Not clear at all as the camera was at an angle to the shot and not directly behind the line of aim. And the cue ball can move 2mm over that distance when using side and that's all he probably needed. Why do you think these shots can only be played pocket weight over such short distances, why do you believe that a ball with an almost frictionless surface spinning at such a gentle pace transfers it's sidespin to a stationary ball with an almost frictionless surface in a gear effect to throw the stationary ball in a different direction ?

On top of that I have proved that a ball loaded with sidespin rolls forward spinning on a 30 degree axis so any throw would not take place along the horizontal plane, unless of course like Dr. Dave you skew the results by showing all SIT examples with balls only a couple of inches apart and the cue pivoted with very little deflection at that gentle pace, hence his sliding cue ball excuse.

A thick enough contact that makes an OB into the side of the pocket is not proof of SIT and the alledged physics that mean it only happens at low pace with trace side and a sliding CB on certain angles with a pivoted cue is an SIT get out clause and shows that Dr. Dave can come to the wrong conclusion with skewed experiments that incude plants and sets where squeeze is happening.

He needs to do the same experiments with balls a good distance apart, to allow for deflection and swerve, on a napped cloth with a player who cues parallel to the line of aim when applying sidespin. I've done them and the results are different to his and it's **** all to do with my cue action

Vmax, lad - what ARE you on about?

[vmax]

And the physics vmax? The Fizz-Icks! Ever gonna discuss that? That's where the *evidence* comes from mate. Real, provable, peer reviewed evidence.

Your evidence is, in comparison, a little thin.

When I played a spinning CB hugging the edge of the triangle to cancel out the deflection and swerve, the OB didn't throw one little bit and when I played the same trace side pivot shot, with the CB and OB only a couple of inches apart, as the bloke in the Dr. Dave video I got the same result as he did, less deflection, nothing more and that is proof enough for me. You need to get on a table sometime and have a go for yourself, Oh I forgot, you don't play do you, and you don't understand the physics either, you just link to something on the internet to look clever, but you actually have no knowledge or experience of your own.

I agree. Plants are not a SIT effect at all and can't be used to prove SIT.

Dr. Dave says otherwise and uses it extensively to prove his SIT theory.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

Not clear at all as the camera was at an angle to the shot and not directly behind the line of aim. And the cue ball can move 2mm over that distance when using side and that's all he probably needed. Why do you think these shots can only be played pocket weight over such short distances, why do you believe that a ball with an almost frictionless surface spinning at such a gentle pace transfers it's sidespin to a stationary ball with an almost frictionless surface in a gear effect to throw the stationary ball in a different direction ?

On top of that I have proved that a ball loaded with sidespin rolls forward spinning on a 30 degree axis so any throw would not take place along the horizontal plane, unless of course like Dr. Dave you skew the results by showing all SIT examples with balls only a couple of inches apart and the cue pivoted with very little deflection at that gentle pace, hence his sliding cue ball excuse.

A thick enough contact that makes an OB into the side of the pocket is not proof of SIT and the alledged physics that mean it only happens at low pace with trace side and a sliding CB on certain angles with a pivoted cue is an SIT get out clause and shows that Dr. Dave can come to the wrong conclusion with skewed experiments that incude plants and sets where squeeze is happening.

He needs to do the same experiments with balls a good distance apart, to allow for deflection and swerve, on a napped cloth with a player who cues parallel to the line of aim when applying sidespin. I've done them and the results are different to his and it's **** all to do with my cue action

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'm afraid I can't disagree more vmax. The cueball doesn't hit the BOB.

I've played the game enough to know what angle the ball will take after they collide, plus I've videoed myself with a gopro, plus all the many many videos on here.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

I would like to here your explanation for that.

Even if the cueball did swerve off and then come back online (even though I doubt it with the space between the balls and the fact he was holding his cue parallel to the table) it would be irrelevant as it didn't hit back of the ball.

There's ALWAYS one mate!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

To be fair you wouldn't tell a student that you have to adjust your aim by so many millimeters when using side as you need to take into account how much deflection of the cue ball will be.

The amount of deflection would depend on your cue and how good of a cueist you are.

Why should it be any different for SIT?

This hits the nail on the head. People need to stop thinking of SIT as some magical extra ingredient. It isn't, it's just an effect that happens naturally, which our brains adjust to automatically.

People need to stop asking facile questions and work it for themselves.

[dan_ormerod]

So what? I didn't believe it and now I want to learn all the parameters so I can explain those effects to students and how they would go about using them but not one of you experts has been able to fully explain just how much pace and spin is too much. Maybe one of Dr. Dave's videos can explain the limits but none that I've seen.

To be fair you wouldn't tell a student that you have to adjust your aim by so many millimeters when using side as you need to take into account how much deflection of the cue ball will be.

The amount of deflection would depend on your cue and how good of a cueist you are.

Why should it be any different for SIT?

[dan_ormerod]

It has to be the correct weight for the amount of swerve you need to contact BOB, too hard and it's not enough, too slow and it's too much.
They will tell you that maximum SIT happens at low pace with trace side and cue ball sliding on contact with OB, yet the evidence for this comes from Dr. Dave's site where the player playing the shots pivots his cue (addressing centre cue ball first) to apply sidespin with cue ball and object ball only a couple of inches apart. Do this yourself using differing amounts of sidespin and power and see what happens and then play the same shots applying side with cue parallel to the line of aim and then both methods with the balls a couple of feet apart giving time for the swerve effect to take place, and with that pivot shot at low pace with trace side and the cue ball not sliding but rolling on the 30 degree axis you'll find it's different.

I'm afraid I can't disagree more vmax. The cueball doesn't hit the BOB.

I've played the game enough to know what angle the ball will take after they collide, plus I've videoed myself with a gopro, plus all the many many videos on here.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

I would like to here your explanation for that.

Even if the cueball did swerve off and then come back online (even though I doubt it with the space between the balls and the fact he was holding his cue parallel to the table) it would be irrelevant as it didn't hit back of the ball.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I agree. Plants are not a SIT effect at all and can't be used to prove SIT.

Is it pantomime season yet? I'll get the ball rolling even if it isn't: oh yes it is!

[jonny66]

I'm talkin to me lol

Well played sir!

[jonny66]

Adam Edge

Not quite Selby's standard but he needs to win 1 match from the challenge tour to all but guarantee a 2 year pro card.

Well the boy really needs to go to War then, make sure it's like the Sunday Bloody Sunday massacre next time he plays on the challenge tour. I'm sure it'll be The Sweetest Thing for him if he gets his tour card.

[Terry Davidson]

How much pace and spin is required for screw back?

Think that through and you have your answer.

Oh, thank you Biggie. That clears everything up considering screw and top for me are usually centre-ball unless I'm trying to crank something off a cushion. I guess that's all I need to know about the effects of side combined with SIT.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

So what? I didn't believe it and now I want to learn all the parameters so I can explain those effects to students and how they would go about using them but not one of you experts has been able to fully explain just how much pace and spin is too much. Maybe one of Dr. Dave's videos can explain the limits but none that I've seen.

How much pace and spin is required for screw back?

Think that through and you have your answer.

[pottr]

Pardon my ignorance please, who is Edge?

Adam Edge

Not quite Selby's standard but he needs to win 1 match from the challenge tour to all but guarantee a 2 year pro card.

[travisbickle]

Travis, here is what I'm looking for. Nic Barrow trained me and all through his training for cueball control he uses a very good formula (in my opinion) for students to grasp the concept. He explains exactly how to hit the cueball to get the desired effect via a formula which is for side RH 1 to 5, LH 1 to 5, Height 1-10 and Power 1-10. For example for a 1/2-ball black to get on a red up by the blue it could be R3, H-7 and P - 4. Power is simple to gauge by getting the student to shoot the spots at maximum accurate power so if he gets 5 lengths of the table then each 1/2 of length equals one division of power.

For SIT this only comes into play for me when the balls are actually touching or close to it since I believe there is either none or very little SIT involved when the balls are separated as that can be explained simply and understandably using cueball curve with no need to go into SIT. But with the balls touching as most of the later videos on here there will be SIT in play. Power is fairly simple as we're talking about pocket weight and that would be P2 or so but if we use P3 or P4 in an attempt to get position there would be no SIT due to excessive pace.

For the j6uk shot it might be R-3, H-2 (for drag) and P2 or you could use 5 o'clock with P2 for clockface which is more simple. However there is a limit to power and side and no one can define that and even Dr Dave has not done a video on the intervening ball such as your pink shot, or at least I couldn't find one on intervening balls.

Remember, this is not just about a shot like j6's but all over the table. For your objective of stopping the cueball there would be another aspect, i.e. - aim off for initial deviation of the cueball. 3/4 red to the middle pocket to hold on the right side of the blue or in other words killing the cueball. Side, pace and height would be determined by the length of the shot I would imagine and straight drag might not work. There would also be aim-off to consider although there is also cheating the pocket too.

It gets a little complicated for the novice to understand doesn't it? And like I didn't know the cueball deviates opposite to the side applied. Come on Travis, keep it nice because all I want to learn is how to teach the magic of SIT and under what conditions it can be used effectively. In snooker we are taught not to pot a ball where we cannot get any position and with the conditions required for SIT there has to be the next OB in a pottable position on the table if we're grabbing the black for instance.

I was being nice lol.

Regarding the shot, it's a touchy feel shot and there is no set way to play it.

You just have to practise it to see for yourself Tel.

One on one would be easier to make you understand, but writing on a forum about it would be hard to put across what I'm trying to tell you.

Just experiment Tel and see the affects for yourself. I've seen you use SIT but not to your advantage

[Terry Davidson]

There is no side transfer there is a squeeze effect that's how it works ...play the shot plain ball on the wrong side to make the shot it still goes in

I agree. Plants are not a SIT effect at all and can't be used to prove SIT.