Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[pottr]

I'm sorry Ramon, but I have to agree with pottr here as it looks like you have no clue about what this discussion is. It's about Spin Induced Object Ball Throw called SIT for short. It is throw induced (supposedly) on the OB by spin on the cueball.

Yeah, Ramon's had a bit of a moment on this one.

And pottr is right on your video as he put a video up of doing exactly that although it looked better on TV because of the finer cloths and it does get about the same reaction as a plant or a double.

I agree, mine was far better... More pressure in my snooker room than in any of those tournaments

We are not discussing spin put on a cueball here because that's pretty straightforward or at least I thought it was.

A genuine banging your head against the wall moment.

[Ramon]

I'm sorry Ramon, but I have to agree with pottr here as it looks like you have no clue about what this discussion is. It's about Spin Induced Object Ball Throw called SIT for short. It is throw induced (supposedly) on the OB by spin on the cueball. And pottr is right on your video as he put a video up of doing exactly that although it looked better on TV because of the finer cloths and it does get about the same reaction as a plant or a double.

We are not discussing spin put on a cueball here because that's pretty straightforward or at least I thought it was.

KW shot, the one travis also played.
tbh , i do'nt think you can folow what my point is .
As long as you can'nt undrstand the concept of the side, you wont be able to understand that one too.
What you and Vmax are suggesting here is that the CB in a distance of 7 inches makes sum kind of magical swimming/ turne and hit the OB frome a diff angle.
That's simply impossible.

[pottr]

YES! 100%, the angle of pot will always be the angle of the pot.

You have not followed the thread.

Hitting there on the white will 'deflect' the white off the line of the shot, so you have to compensate...

That is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about when you strike the white with side, you can infact transfer some of that rotating side onto the object ball and cause it to swerve (throw) not the white... the brown in that case.

Spin (that you put on the white) Induced (transferring to the brown) Throw (the brown in effect deviating from the line due to the imparted spin)

Moreover, you bashed **** out of me on Friday and you weren't even arguing the same point!

TREASON! x

[Ramon]

Ramon, that video doesn't show any examples of SIT... I don't think you are commenting on the same aspect we are, my friend

That shot isn't even that difficult... Gets almost as much applause as a plant

In other words , what you're saying is : this is the natural angle to pot this brown ?


[IMG][/IMG]

[Terry Davidson]

Ramon, that video doesn't show any examples of SIT... I don't think you are commenting on the same aspect we are, my friend

That shot isn't even that difficult... Gets almost as much applause as a plant

I'm sorry Ramon, but I have to agree with pottr here as it looks like you have no clue about what this discussion is. It's about Spin Induced Object Ball Throw called SIT for short. It is throw induced (supposedly) on the OB by spin on the cueball. And pottr is right on your video as he put a video up of doing exactly that although it looked better on TV because of the finer cloths and it does get about the same reaction as a plant or a double.

We are not discussing spin put on a cueball here because that's pretty straightforward or at least I thought it was.

[pottr]

Ramon, that video doesn't show any examples of SIT... I don't think you are commenting on the same aspect we are, my friend

That shot isn't even that difficult... Gets almost as much applause as a plant

[sharkster63]

Actually not that good. If you remember we had our 'discussion' which started when you couldn't understand why I didn't go for a 147 all the time I practiced with the line-up, which kick off our discussion and I stated I had only had 3 x 147 but the first one was in practice by myself, so was the second and the third was against an opponent but not in a match. I don't count breaks done in solo practice no matter how high they are, but like pottr I would love to run more in solo practice anyway, just for some more confidence. The best I've done lately was a 102 the other day and an 87 the day after(not line-up) but those are nothing to brag about. For me it's the endurance now as I have 3 frames by myself and I'm beat but I keep telling myself that I'm taking all the shots so that's like 6 frames practice.

I think this is Good Terry, I play every day and that is the level that I am achieving now, it took a long time to get there and it is not to take lightly. I have the hardest time to keep score when playing or practicing, i know i have make high runs over 100 in practice but dont care that I dont know because they do not count, i mostly try to clear the table and i have achieved that 3 times in the last 6 months, a breakthrough for me. Keep up the good play and C U on the baize. Cheers

[pottr]

It was to Ramon actually who always seems to have an opinion but seems to be lacking some of the required knowledge and experience of an accomplished snooker player. In answer to Travis...NO!!!

Bit of a pop culture reference in there, T

[Ramon]

I think you need to pay attention Ramon and understand what you're talking about or replying to. We are talking here of very slow shots with tons of side and most with drag. For goodness sake man, it's common knowledge that a power shot with side will initially deflect and is moving too fast for the side to take any effect on the cueball so it stays on its initial line. I play plenty of these shots as almost every power shot I play has a little bit of left side on the CB.

But when we play shots like the Barry Stark video on the blue where he's going around a ball or the Travis one where there's an intervening ball then the shots have to be played slow in order for the side to grab. I do not consider this an attack on my knowledge as it's just a few people like yourself and a few others who don't really grasp what's happening with side where there are no cushions involved. They and you are saying they are experts and that I know nothing but I play these shots all the time and always have done and I know what I'm talking about.

Can you explain why when an angled pot, say a 7/8-ball is hit with extreme side and high power we see absolutely no SIT however under those 2 conditions it should be at maximum. If SIT truly exists then it is just a very small part of the complete energy transfer to the OB. (Maximum power transfer takes place at full-ball and minimum at 90* cut). Answer this question and you'll get a Nobel Prize from Travis. (Travis, you are not required to answer this as I'm talking to Ramon who seems a little lost).

Travis , where the hell are you ? safe me !!!


You mean like what happens here ?

Looks like many players around the world are lost , Terry . Does'nt look good .

[Terry Davidson]

Actually I look forward to seeing this string every morning because for some reason I only get one or two emails on the posts, don't know what the problem is. Travis and Biggy and even Reggie have kept me using my brain and experimenting with shots down on my table to answer some of their posts. I read Biggy but am actively trying to ignore him as considering the source his remarks carry little weight. Interesting tidbit regarding 1835 and all that so snooker players and pool players have been arguing this same topic for 182 years and still haven't finally solved it.

When the next Worlds is on and they ask for questions I think I will ask Davis and Parrot what they can do with the hi-speed camera to prove or disprove. When I think about CIT & SIT I suspect what is being seen is actually all CIT because SIT disappears or goes somewhere when you use a hi-power shot. According to physics it can't go anywhere but into the OB but there is no discernible effect when hi-power and max spin is used. If it's not apparant then I think it's someone's wet dream or a matter of trying to impress people with one's superior knowledge in order to make them feel smaller. That's certainly what I've felt like with some of the insults towards me posted. Even Ramon insults me now and again based on his vast knowledge obtained through watching videos I guess.

[Terry Davidson]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't see anyone else around here?

It was to Ramon actually who always seems to have an opinion but seems to be lacking some of the required knowledge and experience of an accomplished snooker player. In answer to Travis...NO!!!

[Terry Davidson]

i know this is only a 146 but this is how i imagine terrys mad max in that muckabout sesh with the chaperon. sprightly tel at 40+ letting his arm go and owning the match table, smashing them in with contempt.

Actually not that good. If you remember we had our 'discussion' which started when you couldn't understand why I didn't go for a 147 all the time I practiced with the line-up, which kick off our discussion and I stated I had only had 3 x 147 but the first one was in practice by myself, so was the second and the third was against an opponent but not in a match. I don't count breaks done in solo practice no matter how high they are, but like pottr I would love to run more in solo practice anyway, just for some more confidence. The best I've done lately was a 102 the other day and an 87 the day after(not line-up) but those are nothing to brag about. For me it's the endurance now as I have 3 frames by myself and I'm beat but I keep telling myself that I'm taking all the shots so that's like 6 frames practice.

[Terry Davidson]

Good morning Terry ,

Sometimes there is no room for CB to curve . Hence using side can be useful.
( see the vid J6 and travis uploaded ).

*What you and Vmax are describing ( in many of your posts ) , is happening when you play a swerve shot.
Playing a shot with side is no diff shot comperd to playing any other shot .
You gonna have to cue stright and effortless .
*the less power / the better timing / the more spin you create. and the effect would be more noticeable.

*Unfortunately, you consider this as sum kind of attack towards your knowledge and experience. believe me, it's not .

Even pros have sometimes struggled with playing this kind of shots. especially during the match under pressure.

let me ask you a question , is every scrwback shot you play , a perfect shot ?
Well , it's the same with using side .

I think you need to pay attention Ramon and understand what you're talking about or replying to. We are talking here of very slow shots with tons of side and most with drag. For goodness sake man, it's common knowledge that a power shot with side will initially deflect and is moving too fast for the side to take any effect on the cueball so it stays on its initial line. I play plenty of these shots as almost every power shot I play has a little bit of left side on the CB.

But when we play shots like the Barry Stark video on the blue where he's going around a ball or the Travis one where there's an intervening ball then the shots have to be played slow in order for the side to grab. I do not consider this an attack on my knowledge as it's just a few people like yourself and a few others who don't really grasp what's happening with side where there are no cushions involved. They and you are saying they are experts and that I know nothing but I play these shots all the time and always have done and I know what I'm talking about.

Can you explain why when an angled pot, say a 7/8-ball is hit with extreme side and high power we see absolutely no SIT however under those 2 conditions it should be at maximum. If SIT truly exists then it is just a very small part of the complete energy transfer to the OB. (Maximum power transfer takes place at full-ball and minimum at 90* cut). Answer this question and you'll get a Nobel Prize from Travis. (Travis, you are not required to answer this as I'm talking to Ramon who seems a little lost).

[pottr]

You talkin to me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't see anyone else around here?

[travisbickle]

No one was talking to you Travis but you have to butt in don't you?

You talkin to me?