Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

So was my pink lined up at the point of contact in your opinion?

Can't really tell from your video as the camera was on the side and there would still be a bit of the pink ball showing in front of the cueball even if the cueball hit BOB. Place the camera over the pocket so it takes in the pocket, pink and cueball but have the camera direcly facing the pink and try the shot again.

[j6uk]

so in your book what is happening when i play a simple 3/4 ball pot, hit it full ball with side and bottom, pot it and hold the spot for position? the cb had no time to push out and come back n on another line, iv watched it contact full ball hence the cb held the spot and i used bottom to hold the line of the shot.

In order to hold the black spot you couldn't possibly have hit the black ball in the pure 3/4-ball position and I can only conclude that the black ball moved in a direction 180* from the cueball so the CB must have been directly behind the black towards the pocket in the full-ball position rather than the 3/4-ball position.

Can you put up a video showing the cueball actually contacting the 3/4-ball position and yet holding the spot?

i dont get what your on about talking about this black ball.. but am ii to take from this reply that the shot i outlined above is not possible n your book then?

[travisbickle]

I never said it was the eyes playing tricks. The one photo that was put up with the lines drawn from pocket through the centre of both balls shows everything lined up but of course B.S. said the line did not go through the centre of the balls.

So was my pink lined up at the point of contact in your opinion?

[Terry Davidson]

so in your book what is happening when i play a simple 3/4 ball pot, hit it full ball with side and bottom, pot it and hold the spot for position? the cb had no time to push out and come back n on another line, iv watched it contact full ball hence the cb held the spot and i used bottom to hold the line of the shot.

In order to hold the black spot you couldn't possibly have hit the black ball in the pure 3/4-ball position and I can only conclude that the black ball moved in a direction 180* from the cueball so the CB must have been directly behind the black towards the pocket in the full-ball position rather than the 3/4-ball position.

Can you put up a video showing the cueball actually contacting the 3/4-ball position and yet holding the spot?

[Terry Davidson]

I'd like to hear TD's thoughts on this too.
The pink I played was heading 3 inches to the right of the pocket when it made contact with the CB.
So how did I manage to pot the pink when he says all that's happening is the CB swerving back onto the correct line (BOB) and it's just your eyes playing tricks, when clearly this isn't the case!

I never said it was the eyes playing tricks. The one photo that was put up with the lines drawn from pocket through the centre of both balls shows everything lined up but of course B.S. said the line did not go through the centre of the balls.

[travisbickle]

so in your book what is happening when i play a simple 3/4 ball pot, hit it full ball with side and bottom, pot it and hold the spot for position? the cb had no time to push out and come back n on another line, iv watched it contact full ball hence the cb held the spot and i used bottom to hold the line of the shot.

I'd like to hear TD's thoughts on this too.
The pink I played was heading 3 inches to the right of the pocket when it made contact with the CB.
So how did I manage to pot the pink when he says all that's happening is the CB swerving back onto the correct line (BOB) and it's just your eyes playing tricks, when clearly this isn't the case!

[j6uk]

Definitely not j6. There are 2 factors to consider here. When you apply side to the cueball, even unintentional side, the cueball is pushed off the line of aim initially and if you play with power it keeps going off-line. In a shot with lower power the cueball has time to recover the line of aim as the side induces it to curve slightly.

If, like me, you put unintentional left side on the cueball when potting a long blue and trying to screw back into baulk I find the blue ball hits the left side of the pocket jaw or may not even hit the jaw at all. This is the result of me pushing the cueball to the right on strike. If I played the shot with less power besides the fact I would have less of a left-to-right delivery it will also give the cueball time to contact the blue at the correct line-of-aim (otherwise BOB).

Unintentional side, especially on high power shots, is the problem all players will try and control. You have to admit that for some reason more long shots are missed when the player uses a lot of power. This usually induces some upper body movement which in turn results in an off-centre strike of the cueball and a missed pot.

so in your book what is happening when i play a simple 3/4 ball pot, hit it full ball with side and bottom, pot it and hold the spot for position? the cb had no time to push out and come back n on another line, iv watched it contact full ball hence the cb held the spot and i used bottom to hold the line of the shot.

[Terry Davidson]

so logically it seems some are arguing that the idea of missing a ball because of unintentional side is a fiction, and that would mean the term is miss leading and all the pros and pundits have it wrong. but if side has no affect on the ob why do the top players work on center ball striking so much, or is it obvious? is ti that their simply avoiding the dreaded swerve shot?

Definitely not j6. There are 2 factors to consider here. When you apply side to the cueball, even unintentional side, the cueball is pushed off the line of aim initially and if you play with power it keeps going off-line. In a shot with lower power the cueball has time to recover the line of aim as the side induces it to curve slightly.

If, like me, you put unintentional left side on the cueball when potting a long blue and trying to screw back into baulk I find the blue ball hits the left side of the pocket jaw or may not even hit the jaw at all. This is the result of me pushing the cueball to the right on strike. If I played the shot with less power besides the fact I would have less of a left-to-right delivery it will also give the cueball time to contact the blue at the correct line-of-aim (otherwise BOB).

Unintentional side, especially on high power shots, is the problem all players will try and control. You have to admit that for some reason more long shots are missed when the player uses a lot of power. This usually induces some upper body movement which in turn results in an off-centre strike of the cueball and a missed pot.

[vmax]

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

Put an intervening ball in the way of the OB, about 3mm and play the cue ball at the OB with the opposite sidespin to what's needed for the alledged throw into the pocket and see if you can make it throw the other way.
I'm betting you can't, I'm betting you won't even be able to contact the OB at all.

Camara angle was bad, but all balls were potted, you can clearly see that.

As clear as mud, now don't get sunburn and watch out for those rip tides that spin you the other way

[j6uk]

so logically it seems some are arguing that the idea of missing a ball because of unintentional side is a fiction, and that would mean the term is miss leading and all the pros and pundits have it wrong. but if side has no affect on the ob why do the top players work on center ball striking so much, or is it obvious? is ti that their simply avoiding the dreaded swerve shot?

[Terry Davidson]

Funny how some people use side to swerve a cueball on a normal shot but then swear when they use side in this situation it doesn't swerve at all, but the induced throw pots the ball not the fact the cueball moves to the correct potting point.. Despite what Mr. B.S. says about physics and Dr. Dave and maybe even Nic Barrow I still believe the OB moves directly away from the point of contact in a straight line. The only way the OB would turn a bit is if it had transferred side on it and I haven't seen that in any of these videos that supposedly prove the CIT or spin induced throw.

Or do you believers think there is some other effect which causes the OB to move in another direction apart from a pure 180* from the point of contact because I haven't seen anything in these videos that prove otherwise. As I said before you can believe what you like as long as it works for you but please allow me my own beliefs which are different from your own without all the insults. You guys are just like born again christians trying to convert everybody to their own beliefs. Well...give it a break please. I don't happen to believe in your induced throw god and I believe in freedom of thought whereas you Travis and B.S. and Reggie just want to shove your own theories down everyone's throat because you believe you are right and are on an induced throw mission.

[travisbickle]

The cue ball approaches the red from a different line because it's swerved slightly so the contact isn't the same as it would be if the pink wasn't in the way and it could be hit direct. The contact made doesn't throw the red at all, and we can't see the pocket so have no idea of the correct line of aim, if the red was potted into the centre of the pocket, the side of the pocket or even if it was potted at all.

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

I'm betting you can't, I'm betting that left hand side will deflect the cue ball into the pink and in order to miss the pink you'll need to offset your aiming and with the left hand side also swerving the cue ball the other way you'll miss the red altogether.

Get your Kinovia on it that you and TD like so much and you'll see the CB pretty much keeps its line and is further to the left then before it was struck, so the red had to throw in as I couldn't see the potting angle in the first place!!!
Camara angle was bad, but all balls were potted, you can clearly see that.

This is a battle you simply can't win

I'm off to the beach, have a nice day

[vmax]

Wow! Totally clueless :biggrin-new:

Put a straight edge to the right hand edge of the CB & OB and you can see the pink is sticking out meaning I can't pot it naturally. Also the CB doesn't swerve at all.
If you look closely you can see the CB is further to left when the red was struck, so no swerve.

Also the pink puts to bed the TD theory that you have to hit the correct line to pot a ball (BOB).
You can see quite clearly the CB hits the pink about 1mm to the left (wrong side to pot it) and it's up throwing 2in to the left.

The cue ball approaches the red from a different line because it's swerved slightly so the contact isn't the same as it would be if the pink wasn't in the way and it could be hit direct. The contact made doesn't throw the red at all, and we can't see the pocket so have no idea of the correct line of aim, if the red was potted into the centre of the pocket, the side of the pocket or even if it was potted at all.

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

I'm betting you can't, I'm betting that left hand side will deflect the cue ball into the pink and in order to miss the pink you'll need to offset your aiming and with the left hand side also swerving the cue ball the other way you'll miss the red altogether.

[travisbickle]

Well I can't see the red ball throw to the left like it did with that Wilson kick, cue ball takes a very slight swerve around the pink and the contact made is what's needed to pot the red naturally, or did it as we don't know do we as we can't see the pocket. Deliberately unclear travis ?

At least I used balls where the spin could be seen, the pocket was in view, the line of aim was clear and you could see all the effects. What they were was there to be debated, you've shown nothing either for or against.



You're picking up where you left off before your ban splasher; your motivation is clear, and it's clear to anyone with any sense that what travis has posted proves nothing contrary to what was in my video. I played the same shots and got the same reaction, and I also played many too hard, too soft and without compensating my aiming to show just what's needed to be done to pot the ball in that situation and a few others as well.

Now where's yours ?

Ramon

You haven't answered my treatise on my video have you, choosing instead to snipe at me once again; your screen shots from my video don't show contact but the ones with travis' do, deliberate to keep face ?

Wow! Totally clueless :biggrin-new:

Put a straight edge to the right hand edge of the CB & OB and you can see the pink is sticking out meaning I can't pot it naturally. Also the CB doesn't swerve at all.
If you look closely you can see the CB is further to left when the red was struck, so no swerve.

Also the pink puts to bed the TD theory that you have to hit the correct line to pot a ball (BOB).
You can see quite clearly the CB hits the pink about 1mm to the left (wrong side to pot it) and it's throwing 2in to the left.

[vmax]

https://youtu.be/yqHkX520bLg
https://youtu.be/7F0XQDnGKV8

Well I can't see the red ball throw to the left like it did with that Wilson kick, cue ball takes a very slight swerve around the pink and the contact made is what's needed to pot the red naturally, or did it as we don't know do we as we can't see the pocket. Deliberately unclear travis ?

At least I used balls where the spin could be seen, the pocket was in view, the line of aim was clear and you could see all the effects. What they were was there to be debated, you've shown nothing either for or against.

Very nice. If you don't JAB(!) it, it works.

You're picking up where you left off before your ban splasher; your motivation is clear, and it's clear to anyone with any sense that what travis has posted proves nothing contrary to what was in my video. I played the same shots and got the same reaction, and I also played many too hard, too soft and without compensating my aiming to show just what's needed to be done to pot the ball in that situation and a few others as well.

Now where's yours ?

Ramon

You haven't answered my treatise on my video have you, choosing instead to snipe at me once again; your screen shots from my video don't show contact but the ones with travis' do, deliberate to keep face ?