Helping side

[golferson123]

dont let that stop you they make the best threads, there are many different takes on it and all convinced they are right i know what i believe and thats good enough for me but i respect what others think

[cyberheater]

So you believe that cue ball , in the video was pushed or deflected out one way came round in an arc and hit the ob from a diferent angle, in the space of six inches? Doesn't happen, go and play a shot with side from around ten inches or less and just line the balls up correctly, not aiming thicker or thinner,you will pot the ball as the distance doesn't allow much to take place, Jim Donnelly showed me this. I don't know what throw is to be honest and yes over a distance depending where on the White you play the side and at what pace you will create an arc, but it doesn't matter what angle you get the White coming in from it still has to hit the contact point correctly to send the ob down the correct path, so you may affect the cue balls path after contact as that has come in from a different angle but you won't affect the OB path because that only has one correct path to take otherwise you would miss wouldn't you?

Watch this video mate at around the 30 second mark.

The shot is in super slow motion. Look how much side spin is on the cueball and the fact that the object ball travels in a straight line with no spin on it whatsoever. It's all the proof I need.

[itsnoteasy]

I watched a billiards video with Jack Karnehm and he talked about using side to help throw the ball in, but he wasn't on about transfer of side from cue ball to ob, it was more like just getting the ob to come off the contact at a different angle he didn't explain the ins and out of it just that it worked, so as I say I honestly don't know if it works, and maybe it did thirty or forty years ago with different balls and cloths but not now. Do me a favour Cyber next time your in the club , try potting a few blacks off the spot from around eight inches lined up correctly ,not thick or thin ,and pot them with side on the cue ball, see for yourself what happens.

[jonny66]

On the sidespin shot in that video cyber, there is a transition of side from cue ball to object ball, you can see the 9 move round. It's not much but it's there.

I think this may be a case of the snooker community simply deciding that because American 9 ball tables have big pockets that anyone that plays on them is an idiot, Snooker snobbery if you like. A napless cloth will obviously make the balls behave differently with side spin.

This argument really needs to be put to bed, can someone with a high speed camera and two spotted white balls not do that?

[DandyA]

Thanks cyber, appreciate that someone else is noticing these shysters selling stuff to the gullible.

now you are being totally ridiculous vmax ... most people would say that Dr Dave Alciatore of Colorade State University has produced a wonderful resource for cue sports ... http://billiards.colostate.edu/ ...

[itsnoteasy]

Someone on here who knows a wee bit of maths or physics might be able to answer this question for me. Does it make any difference what speed the cue ball travels at as to how long the contact is between CB and OB, also if on a cut shot would there be a possibility of a larger contact area as the balls slide could one slide across the other rather than a sharp contact, could this cause a thicker contact as the OB is kind of pushed before it sets off on its path Is this why they get most throw reaction at certain speeds?if any of that makes sense, just wondering.

[DandyA]

They just mean when people play with a bit of running side. Lots of players like to play like this for whatever reason.

So an example would be, you're high on the blue, with the White on the green side of the table. You want to split the Reds. Some players might play this shot with left hand side. This is what they mean by helping side. Some players just like to pot the ball with a touch of side.

Another example here of a long red:
[ATTACH]17303[/ATTACH]

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know

I will think twice before starting a thread with side in the title next time.

yep, spot on tedisbill ... I believe the physics reason why helping side can be good is that a slowly rotating cueball when it hits a static object ball, there is no angular momentum (shear force) so the OB follows the path you think it should ... if the cueball isn't rotating with helping side, the OB will be pushed (or thrown) by the CB so the OB goes thicker than it should ...

you do see a lot of pro players seemingly play with helping side although it's often difficult to be certain due to camera angles but I certainly wouldn't dare (not that I'm a pro LOL) simply because vmax's "swerve" would most probably ruin my extremely well thought out "OB throw" ...

btw jonny66 ... this is a good thread, we haven't had a good argument since j6uk got banned ... so please feel free to ask any questions you wish just be aware you might be lighting the blue touch paper and then need to stand back for a while ;D

[DandyA]

Someone on here who knows a wee bit of maths or physics might be able to answer this question for me. Does it make any difference what speed the cue ball travels at as to how long the contact is between CB and OB

nope to the speed question although I could easily believe the cut angle could make a difference - thicker cuts are probably longer than thin cuts ...

also if on a cut shot would there be a possibility of a larger contact area as the balls slide could one slide across the other rather than a sharp contact, could this cause a thicker contact as the OB is kind of pushed before it sets off on its path Is this why they get most throw reaction at certain speeds?if any of that makes sense, just wondering.

right now this is the crux ... it's not a larger contact area but you need to consider the forces involved ... when the CB hits the OB at anything other than full ball, there is clearly a compression force and also a shear (angular) force, a rotating cue ball can alter that angular force - think about it, it's obvious ... that variation in angular force is what causes these throw effects that vmax is in denial about ...

it's also a bit more complicated because as well as the physics of the ball to ball contact, each ball also has a friction force against the cloth but we'll leave that for another day ...

at the end of the day it's not rocket science - just take 2 spherical objects (say oranges) and consider what may happen when they collide ...

Dr DandyA

[edit] ... I think I should add that I only know a smidgeon about the maths and physics of pool so please check out Dr Dave's website for the real science ... alternatively, I believe vmax is currently offering a buy one, get one free on snakeoil

[ace man]

...most people would say that Dr Dave Alciatore of Colorade State University has produced a wonderful resource for cue sports ... http://billiards.colostate.edu/ ...

I would that as well. Granted, this Dave fellow is not a great player, far from it, his cue action is awful. However, he has a physics degree and he has obviously put time into physics side of pool. So I would say that he has better understanding of physical effect of phenolic balls colliding than somebody who doesn't have a physics degree, no matter how well he plays the game.
What one must understand that the better one is at snooker (or any variant of pool for that matter), there is more chance of him being rather poorly educated. Best pool players in my country have never worked full time, some not for even a single day...they have never heard about friction coefficient, nor do they know about any of the 3 Newton forces. But they do know their side spin and how to apply it effectively.
From a playing point of view, does it really matter whether it is the slight swerve effect or if there is spin transfer on the object ball? Important is the fact that you definitely sometimes can pot balls with side in a way that cannot be achieved using plain centre ball, and also you can affect the angle to a very small degree. That is something that needs to be learned from experience, not from books, nor forums.

[itsnoteasy]

Cheers Dandy, you have a smidgen more than me . I thought there might be a possibility of this slight push effect but I couldn't back it up with any knowledge.

[vmax4steve]

So you believe that cue ball , in the video was pushed or deflected out one way came round in an arc and hit the ob from a diferent angle, in the space of six inches? Doesn't happen

It does happen itsnoteasy. You have to strike the cue ball slowly but with a sharp enough tip contact that you get the most reaction from the tip as you can. It can be as little as 2 or 3 mm but that will suffice if that's all the swerve that's needed to hit the ball on. Obviously over such a short distance you won't get enough pace into the shot to pot anything but you can use it to hit a ball on.

I play this shot with bottom side and gently flick the cue through about two inches using just my fingers to get the sharp contact needed at such a slow pace.
It's a tricky little shot but can be utilised to good effect.

As for cybers Nic Barrow video, Mr. Barrow is playing those shots at a pretty good pace, now if he played them more slowly he could alter the trajectory of the cue ball so that it doesn't go through straight, but comes off the object ball at a slight angle. I'm talking about six inches of follow through here that can give about half an inch of angle that isn't there when playing centre ball, which in a lot of cases doesn't make a great deal of difference position wise, but when around the black and pink spots making a break, finding half an inch of angle can be useful.

I'm afraid that Dr Dave and his followers believe that the object ball comes off the cue ball at a different angle due to transmitted side but he and they are quite wrong. If the shot is played without making compensation for the deflection and arcing of the cue ball then the object ball will be contacted by the cue ball at a different contact point than what is aimed for and that can look like the object ball has spun off the cue ball at a strange angle because in most cases the shot will be missed on the thin side.

Now I know that pool is played on a napless cloth and the effects of deflection and arcing are not as great as on a napped cloth, but it's still there only not as great. I don't care about Dr. Dave's alledged physics degree, any bugger can set up a website and give themselves a doctorate and sell stuff to the gullible. I haven't watched aaaaaaalllllllllllllll his videos but I'm willing to bet he gets on to the subject of low deflection cues at some point in time, and that's what he is all about, selling and marketing.

When are you all going to wise up and get on the practise table rather than search for the elusive silver bullet that doesn't exist.
The cue ball deflects and arcs along the cloth to different degrees when using side, depending on pace of shot, condition of the cloth, direction of the nap etc. and that effect has to be compensated for when aiming.

Now I got all this from Ray Reardons book Classic Snooker, put it into practise and saw that it worked. Who are you going to believe, a six time world champion snooker legend or someone selling low deflection cues on the internet.

[golferson123]

Helping side

got to disagree transmitted side does occur. and you can squeeze a ob with side on the white

[itsnoteasy]

Well written post as usual Vmax, I see what you mean about the pace, yes I was on about potting balls at that distance so with a bit of pace, but I agree you can get reaction from the cue ball in that short distance. I don't really know about transmitted side but I have observed the push(or friction or what ever you call it) effect as there have been times I know I have hit a cut shot in the right place, played plain ball, and have missed it thick, this for my tiny brain could have happened because as the two balls connect there isn't an immediated parting of the ways, so the ob doesn't sharply leave the cueball ,both, just for a fraction of a second move forward then the ob goes toward its target, I think this is why you can miss thick, and this is what I see as throw, and helping side, as they call it ,is a way of negating this.

[jonny66]

I think you're giving Dr. Dave a bit of a bad rap vmax, the only thing he sells are Pool DVD's. I did see a vid with a low deflection shaft, but all he say's about them is that you'll need to change your compensation when using them, I wouldn't call that an advert.

[vmax4steve]

Well written post as usual Vmax, I see what you mean about the pace, yes I was on about potting balls at that distance so with a bit of pace, but I agree you can get reaction from the cue ball in that short distance. I don't really know about transmitted side but I have observed the push(or friction or what ever you call it) effect as there have been times I know I have hit a cut shot in the right place, played plain ball, and have missed it thick, this for my tiny brain could have happened because as the two balls connect there isn't an immediated parting of the ways, so the ob doesn't sharply leave the cueball ,both, just for a fraction of a second move forward then the ob goes toward its target, I think this is why you can miss thick, and this is what I see as throw, and helping side, as they call it ,is a way of negating this.

It's simply a bad contact, the new phenolic resin balls are famous for them, doesn't happen with super crystalates. I remember the WSC in 2013 (?) and Ricky Walden got a whole load of them against Barry Hawkins in their semi final.

Golfperson: you are going to have to prove it to me, show me any evidence you have, or can muster, that shows an object ball contacted (not aimed) too thickly or thinly by a cue ball loaded with side and jumping into the pocket.
I don't care about very tiny trace amounts of transmitted side that can be picked up by a very high speed camera, I'm talking about enough friction between the two balls that allows such a thing to happen.