Allowing for side

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The guy's completely clueless you say, it's not my evidence as I haven't seen that video before itsnoteasy posted it, yet there is no transfer of side to the object ball. And I've confused nothing, I know you weren't saying that the object ball picked up spin and bent into the pocket (I think Alabadi said that) you're saying that the cue ball contacts the object ball at a different point than the correct one for the plain ball pot and that the spin on the cue ball throws it onto the correct line into the pocket.
What I've always said is that the cue ball swerves and contacts the object ball at the correct point to make the pot as it would with a plain ball shot.

If you want to see this proven then play a few shots along a cushion and see how the object ball reacts on contact with both balls touching the cushion with the cue ball loaded with side. If you're right the object ball should leave the cushion every time as one side will throw it into the cushion and the other will throw it away from the cushion.

Do you think it won't? But loading with side is difficult where both balls are on the cushion because of deflection and swerve. I'll have to try it out.

As for your swerve thing, if that was case, why don't players just play the swerve shot instead? When commentators say someone is making the potting angle with side or using side to turn the red over, or whatever, they're describing throw, as those shots aren't played as conventional swerve shots ie with cue jacked up in air. There might be swerve as well, but it is not just a case of swerving around a ball to hit the spot on the OB to put it in the pocket. A further problem with the swerve hypothesis is distance. Most of these shots are played around the black spot, and are short shots. There is no time for the CB to deflect away and then bend back again within a matter of a few inches.

Basically, if you don't know SIT exists, you've not been paying attention.

[acesinc]

Some of what he says there is no doubt about him being correct, but in the two videos posted there are so many variables that he either ignores or just doesn't take into account, that what he's claiming just can't be counted as proof.
I have a physics a level and an applied mechanics o level, from so many years ago I don't care to think about it, but I can remember enough, I hope, not to get lost if he would like to spend ten minutes having a chat. I have never said he is not a nice person, just some of his claims are questionable( not wrong , just needs clarification, then I can make up my own mind if I think he's right or wrong) let's face it if he's right he's right, he must have down pat so it shouldn't be hard for him to explain why the variables don't matter. Is that too much to ask?
As for proof, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, so it's Dr Dave that has to prove himself right, just as any god claims or alien claims, it's the people making the claims that must prove it to be true.
I think there may be something in the difference between pool and snooker, I said as much earlier on, the difference in cloths may just play a big enough part to alter the findings, but I don't know, does he?

Dr. Dave is a public person, not trying to hide behind a screen name. No one needs to set up a blind date for you....if you wish to contact him, he does give contact information readily and I am sure that he would eagerly accept correspondence from people who wish to explore for answers and present evidence. He is not looking for antagonists (and don't misinterpret me...I am not calling you an antagonist, I am only saying this as a general statement; from what I have read, your responses have been very reasonable). Like everyone, he is a busy guy as a college professor; pool and billiards is a passion for him, not an occupation and he is deserving of tremendous respect for his contributions to the general pool of knowledge within pool and billiards (and if there are some aspects of that pool of knowledge with which you disagree, that is okay with me and it is okay with him I am certain). To contact him, you can go to this webpage:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/dr_dave.html
and scroll through to find his email address. If I may make a suggestion, don't spend too much time compiling a bunch of information to present before contacting him because you may be wasting your time in doing that. Contact him first and ask if he may be interested in seeing your evidence as it regards to snooker equipment. Just my guess, but my suspicion is that Dr. Dave would certainly hear you out but would give you the honest answer that he could not verify what you claim and he could not propose any other tests to try for lack of resources. Problem is that you can probably (I am assuming here) walk out your flat and in 5 or 10 minutes play a frame on a decent snooker table. Dave might have to travel for hours to get to a public table which is probably in horrible condition and probably with an American cloth stretched over it so obviously, it is a pointless exercise. We really have very little decent snooker equipment in the USA. It is unbelievable for a country of this size and stature. So Dave would tell you completely honestly that he cannot confirm or refute any claims you may make. I run my little club and I try to promote the game as I am able over here, it is all I can do, but facilities and market presence are virtually non-existent so how can Dave properly conduct any sort of Snooker specific studies? He has said so in the past...I cannot vouch for whether he has ever even struck a snooker ball on a snooker table in his life so he is not going to claim expertise in an area in which he admits ignorance. Of course, the principles he talks about should be universally applicable. So I have listened to them and having perhaps some of the best snooker equipment available in the country at my disposal (most of you guys wouldn't be impressed...it's an antique, plays slower (no steel back), some minor warpage in some of the woodwork, and she is not pretty like a new Riley or Star but seriously, we don't have much to work with over here, and to me, she is an absolute gem), I have tested Dr. Dave's claims myself and I find validity in what he says and so I have managed to incorporate that to my benefit in my game. Hopefully, you have noticed that I don't have the arrogance of some; I am simply looking to improve my own game and am open to discussion, not argument, with others.

[itsnoteasy]

Dr. Dave is a public person, not trying to hide behind a screen name. No one needs to set up a blind date for you....if you wish to contact him, he does give contact information readily and I am sure that he would eagerly accept correspondence from people who wish to explore for answers and present evidence. He is not looking for antagonists (and don't misinterpret me...I am not calling you an antagonist, I am only saying this as a general statement; from what I have read, your responses have been very reasonable). Like everyone, he is a busy guy as a college professor; pool and billiards is a passion for him, not an occupation and he is deserving of tremendous respect for his contributions to the general pool of knowledge within pool and billiards (and if there are some aspects of that pool of knowledge with which you disagree, that is okay with me and it is okay with him I am certain). To contact him, you can go to this webpage:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/dr_dave.html
and scroll through to find his email address. If I may make a suggestion, don't spend too much time compiling a bunch of information to present before contacting him because you may be wasting your time in doing that. Contact him first and ask if he may be interested in seeing your evidence as it regards to snooker equipment. Just my guess, but my suspicion is that Dr. Dave would certainly hear you out but would give you the honest answer that he could not verify what you claim and he could not propose any other tests to try for lack of resources. Problem is that you can probably (I am assuming here) walk out your flat and in 5 or 10 minutes play a frame on a decent snooker table. Dave might have to travel for hours to get to a public table which is probably in horrible condition and probably with an American cloth stretched over it so obviously, it is a pointless exercise. We really have very little decent snooker equipment in the USA. It is unbelievable for a country of this size and stature. So Dave would tell you completely honestly that he cannot confirm or refute any claims you may make. I run my little club and I try to promote the game as I am able over here, it is all I can do, but facilities and market presence are virtually non-existent so how can Dave properly conduct any sort of Snooker specific studies? He has said so in the past...I cannot vouch for whether he has ever even struck a snooker ball on a snooker table in his life so he is not going to claim expertise in an area in which he admits ignorance. Of course, the principles he talks about should be universally applicable. So I have listened to them and having perhaps some of the best snooker equipment available in the country at my disposal (most of you guys wouldn't be impressed...it's an antique, plays slower (no steel back), some minor warpage in some of the woodwork, and she is not pretty like a new Riley or Star but seriously, we don't have much to work with over here, and to me, she is an absolute gem), I have tested Dr. Dave's claims myself and I find validity in what he says and so I have managed to incorporate that to my benefit in my game. Hopefully, you have noticed that I don't have the arrogance of some; I am simply looking to improve my own game and am open to discussion, not argument, with others.

Thanks for that, well written and thought out post, and for the link, very much appreciated. I will contact him and if any back and forth occurs and with his permission of course I will put up on here what I get to ask him and what his answers are, even if I do get lost with my high school knowledge. I didn't know snooker was that rare in America, we just take it for granted over here and I'm guessing nearly every snooker hall has the odd nine ball table so I thought it might be the same in America but the other way round . I won't ask him about how his findings would work on a snooker table as I don't think that's fair but I may ask him if he thinks different cloths could play any part in his results.
I have emailed him, I won't say anymore on the subject until whatever happens but if I ask and he says no I won't be discussing it on here, that's only fair if he's decent enough to reply.

[acesinc]

Thanks for that, well written and thought out post, and for the link, very much appreciated. I will contact him and if any back and forth occurs and with his permission of course I will put up on here what I get to ask him and what his answers are, even if I do get lost with my high school knowledge. I didn't know snooker was that rare in America, we just take it for granted over here and I'm guessing nearly every snooker hall has the odd nine ball table so I thought it might be the same in America but the other way round . I won't ask him about how his findings would work on a snooker table as I don't think that's fair but I may ask him if he thinks different cloths could play any part in his results.

Absolutely my pleasure. There are approximately 375 known snooker tables in the USA, some of them private but the owners invite people literally into their own homes to experience the game. Of those, 175 of them are collected in just 5 of the 50 states. Of the 375 total number, probably about 1/3 to 1/2 of them (my own personal estimate based on my limited educated guess) are completely unplayable for proper snooker as the pockets are cut completely incorrectly to a tiny ball-and-a-half width at the opening for a game that was popular long ago called "Golf" (think of the dimension ratios you see in Russian Pyramid), tedious and slow scoring. Of the remaining tables with decently sized pocket openings about three-quarters of them unfortunately have American style, non-napped cloth installed. The equipment is often as you had similarly stated a single snooker table in a pool hall facility and the local bangers have a tendency to use the snooker equipment merely for practice potting with the result that the equipment is horribly abused primarily by people with little understanding or respect for the Game. As you can tell, I find the situation quite appalling so I provide my little oasis (and there are several others like mine dotted throughout the country) for those who really do wish understand and learn and love this game this side of the pond.

[golferson123]

the shot is called a cheat shot, terminology used in the 70s so called because you can create an angle that does not exist although the transfer of side is somewhat debatable the spin on the cue ball coupled with the friction pulls the ob one way or the other, there is no swerve effect as the accuracy is mainly for close in shots and the cb would not have time to recover, sorry but mbs is correct but his attitude is not, sorry mbs but i implored mb to calm it is i feared his valuable contributions would be lost and i fear you are on the same track

[itsnoteasy]

Unfortunately abuse of equipment is just as common over here. Our club is members only yet they still rip cushions, for some reason, sit on tables etc, just last week a lad emptied a bag of crisps onto the cloth of the table beside him because he didn't like to eat them out the packet! The club is that desperate for money nothing is done, I can understand it in a way but i would have been hard pushed not to ban him if it was my club. Just last year we got twenty new club cues, just run of the mill stuff, machine spliced cues, there are none left now, they have pinched them all, what they do with them I don't know, they aren't worth anything really and where else are they going to use them?
I have never seen any bad behaviour in the club so it must be rare but it does happen.

[golferson123]

Unfortunately abuse of equipment is just as common over here. Our club is members only yet they still rip cushions, for some reason, sit on tables etc, just last week a lad emptied a bag of crisps onto the cloth of the table beside him because he didn't like to eat them out the packet! The club is that desperate for money nothing is done, I can understand it in a way but i would have been hard pushed not to ban him if it was my club. Just last year we got twenty new club cues, just run of the mill stuff, machine spliced cues, there are none left now, they have pinched them all, what they do with them I don't know, they aren't worth anything really and where else are they going to use them?
I have never seen any bad behaviour in the club so it must be rare but it does happen.

wrong thread?

[itsnoteasy]

wrong thread?

Sorry Golfy it was a reply to Acesincs post, I thought I would be right underneath his one but you got in first lol.

[Catch 22]

The guy's completely clueless you say, it's not my evidence as I haven't seen that video before itsnoteasy posted it, yet there is no transfer of side to the object ball. And I've confused nothing, I know you weren't saying that the object ball picked up spin and bent into the pocket (I think Alabadi said that) you're saying that the cue ball contacts the object ball at a different point than the correct one for the plain ball pot and that the spin on the cue ball throws it onto the correct line into the pocket.
What I've always said is that the cue ball swerves and contacts the object ball at the correct point to make the pot as it would with a plain ball shot.

If you want to see this proven then play a few shots along a cushion and see how the object ball reacts on contact with both balls touching the cushion with the cue ball loaded with side. If you're right the object ball should leave the cushion every time as one side will throw it into the cushion and the other will throw it away from the cushion.

Do you play billiards VMax ? I was being shown some billiards by an older gent at the club .

He was showing me nursery cannons . Was interesting to see how if you play the shots with side the balls start to drift apart or come together depending on which side you play .

He said this is because the side will transfer to the object balls . Do you have a different theory on why this happens ?

[golferson123]

Do you play billiards VMax ? I was being shown some billiards by an older gent at the club .

He was showing me nursery cannons . Was interesting to see how if you play the shots with side the balls start to drift apart or come together depending on which side you play .

He said this is because the side will transfer to the object balls . Do you have a different theory on why this happens ?

to appease those that disagree it might be more appropriate to say the side has an effect on the ob

[itsnoteasy]

to appease those that disagree it might be more appropriate to say the side has an effect on the ob

I don't think there is any doubt side will throw the ball at a different angle. It has been a stock shot in billiards for generations, but does it transfer to the object ball, that's what the debate is about, isn't it? Sometimes I get lost to what we are arguing about lol. I have yet to see any shot being played on an open cloth , not off cushions or introducing other balls, where the object ball starts spinning in the opposite direction of the spin applied to the cue ball, but if there is a video of it, I will change my stance , so let's see them.
Jack Karnehm showed this very thing in his video( I had it but can't for the life of me remember the name of it) but he never once said it was caused by the side being transferred onto the object ball, he did say it exactly how Golfy said it, of course that doesn't make him right, or indeed wrong, it was just his opinion from studying and playing the game for countless years.

[acesinc]

I don't think there is any doubt side will throw the ball at a different angle. ...

I get the feeling that this entire argument may be just a simple difference in semantics. I think anyone who has read my posts has likely inferred my position on the matter, but just to be clear about that...

I believe that when side is played on the cue ball, that side will have an effect on the object ball such that the trajectory of the object will be different than it would have been if exactly the same contact point had been struck and the same stroke had been played but for hitting centerball instead. I have seen no evidence that the object will swerve from this "transferred side" (my term, you may use another if you see fit) in a similar manner to a cue ball swerving in its path when it has been struck with side.

The effect is there...the object ball will travel to a different place than it would have if it had been struck centerball and hit in the same contact point, but there will be no noticeable "swerve" in the path that the object ball takes.

I further believe that some of the "transferred spin" (again, my term) may be retained within the object ball so as to have an effect as to how the object ball will bounce off the jaw of a cushion. The duration of this spin retention is likely only mere fractions of a second so as an example, the black ball struck from off spot must travel to the pocket within the short span of perhaps one-quarter second for this effect to have any significance....i.e., this small effect can make the difference between a stroke "rattling the jaws" and bouncing out of a pocket, or "wiping its feet" and going into the pocket when the Black strikes exactly the same point of the jaw of the pocket in both cases.

I have attempted to be as clear in that definition as possible. You are welcome to agree or not.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

the shot is called a cheat shot, terminology used in the 70s so called because you can create an angle that does not exist although the transfer of side is somewhat debatable the spin on the cue ball coupled with the friction pulls the ob one way or the other, there is no swerve effect as the accuracy is mainly for close in shots and the cb would not have time to recover, sorry but mbs is correct but his attitude is not, sorry mbs but i implored mb to calm it is i feared his valuable contributions would be lost and i fear you are on the same track

Right. Bar in mind this ain't our first rodeo. We've been over it and over it and over it...same results. That's difficult to forgive. What do you say to someone who has been playing for 20 years and tells you ever day that screw back doesn't exist. You laugh at first, but you tell them to GFTS after a while, it gets tedious.

And you're forgetting the absolute dog's abuse i got for mentioning any of this in the first place. I'm not. It's only now one or two others are putting their head's above the parapet that they are even looking into it, i suspect. I was mocked and sneered at for years, so you can save any attitude crap for someone who cares.

As for MB, what sort of a site bans someone for using the phrase '***** up your ears'? Of all the things he coulda been banned for!

[jrc750]

Unfortunately abuse of equipment is just as common over here. Our club is members only yet they still rip cushions, for some reason, sit on tables etc, just last week a lad emptied a bag of crisps onto the cloth of the table beside him because he didn't like to eat them out the packet! The club is that desperate for money nothing is done, I can understand it in a way but i would have been hard pushed not to ban him if it was my club. Just last year we got twenty new club cues, just run of the mill stuff, machine spliced cues, there are none left now, they have pinched them all, what they do with them I don't know, they aren't worth anything really and where else are they going to use them?
I have never seen any bad behaviour in the club so it must be rare but it does happen.

Unbelievable, he should be thrown out immediately, did his mates not say anything to him ??

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I don't think there is any doubt side will throw the ball at a different angle. It has been a stock shot in billiards for generations, but does it transfer to the object ball, that's what the debate is about, isn't it? Sometimes I get lost to what we are arguing about lol. I have yet to see any shot being played on an open cloth , not off cushions or introducing other balls, where the object ball starts spinning in the opposite direction of the spin applied to the cue ball, but if there is a video of it, I will change my stance , so let's see them.
Jack Karnehm showed this very thing in his video( I had it but can't for the life of me remember the name of it) but he never once said it was caused by the side being transferred onto the object ball, he did say it exactly how Golfy said it, of course that doesn't make him right, or indeed wrong, it was just his opinion from studying and playing the game for countless years.

Firstly, no, that is not what is being discussed. Secondly, one of the videos i linked yesterday shows both SIT and spin transference quite clearly.