Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

tel big pool balls will not react like snooker balls on ether snooker or pool table, the ob wont take to the side.

I was puzzled by your earlier comment about pool balls- let me assure you they throw all over the place - you cannot play pool to a decent standard without knowing this. I agree it's pretty pointless using them on a snooker table, however.

Incidentally, much to my surprise, you can get large amounts of throw on English pool tables, which i didn't think possible due to the smaller CB.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I don't doubt the timing involved. It's just if you find one of those super slow mo's demonstrating a drag shot - with a full table drag shot - the CB only backspins for a couple of feet before skidding and changing to forward rolling.

Indeed, but there is less friction for a horizontally spinning object than there is for a vertically spinning object, so side spin stays on the ball longer than back spin does. The cloth will see to that.

In addition, there's no need to really juice the ball - maximum throw is achieved with a medium amount of side, so if wilson put a load on when he played the shot, it would have been beneficial to have some wear off by the time contact occured (presumably because there is more friction on contact at slower speeds).

[throtts]

Good thread through, some very funny insults back and forth x

Ive had some little pops back but with a grin on my little face, hahaha..

[pottr]

Hit the white onto the object ball... Put the object ball in the pocket.

Rinse and repeat, always repeat...

Good thread through, some very funny insults back and forth x

[Ramon]

OK so I said I would do this and last sunday lunchtime I borrowed my sisters smartphone and filmed myself playing a load of side shots using my 2 & 1/16 inch size spots and stripes pool balls.
First half of the video is left hand side against the nap into the green pocket, second half is right hand side into the top corner pocket past the pink spot.
There is a length of blue masking tape alongside the line of aim.

It's about 30 minutes in all and all aspects of the shots are covered. Only once did I get the same reaction as the Wilson shot (25:30) and that was a bad contact, all other shots the OB went exactly where the contact dictated.

I played several shots straight into the pocket to show the initial deflection and swerve which differs according to the direction of the shot. You can clearly see the initial deflection and horizontal spin on the 10 ball and the transition to the 30ish degree angle which causes the very slight swerve.
The ball swerves away from the spin after the initial deflection and swerve when spinning against the nap and swerves with the spin when spinning with the nap. You probably need to download the video and watch it on your pc frame by frame, but if you do you will see that every single contact made apart from the bad one shows no throw of the OB at all.

All shots are as played to show what difference pace of shot and compensation of aiming does, a couple of miscues as I was playing extreme side and a few misses in the final line up where I played all shots with helping side.

Discuss and feel free to ask questions and slag me off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JYJ-39ZzGs

Patblock kindly adjusted the aspect ratioi so heres a better view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElgmNBjPOk&t=18s

Thanks for taking your time and making this vid , Vmax.

Did cost me lots of trouble to make this screen shots ,
So would you please take a look at this images ( from you vid and the shots you played ) and
let us know what you think about it . ( if you have time of cours ) .


This is one of your shots , Shot NR 1

[IMG][/IMG]

The time of contact ( as you see , thr is no angle ) both balls in a straight line .

[IMG][/IMG]

And here is the result of effect !

[IMG][/IMG]


Shot NR 2 , ( i mean image 2 )

[IMG][/IMG]

Time of ccontact :


[IMG][/IMG]


Effect throw :




IN This shot , take a look which direction you're cueing please

[IMG][/IMG]

A better version of it ,

[IMG][/IMG]

The result :

[IMG][/IMG]



Also in some of the shots , you're cueing across the ball , hence you do'nt get the same results .
I can try to make new images if you wish .

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

He did put a ton of side on that shot and almost over-cooked it but it looks like he got a bit of a bounce on contact with the red, so maybe a slight kick? At that pace there shouldn't have been any bounce on the cueball at all and I think there was still a bit of side on the cueball when it hit the red but too hard to see with snooker balls.

I saw it throw quite predictably. I saw him play the exact shot he played for.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

This is just unbelievable! It wasn't about vmax's technique is was about the BALLS. I don't know if vmax used 2-1/16" balls but I damn well have and yes, on a snooker table and those pool balls were Aramith. Just ignore the technique and watch the object ball. There is nothing there and even if these balls are 2-1/8" IT DOESN'T MATTER.

big shot and splasher (reggie) don't know what they're talking about although it's obvious BS has done some research. BS...have you ever run 10 straight racks of 9-ball in a tournament or have you ever run one lousy century on a snooker table? Same goes for you slasher. Throtts has, I have, j6uk has and we do know what were talking about. I think there is no video proof of all this xfer side or if there is then is has to be explained another way. I have never seen any xtfr side which was of any use even when I did put chalk on the OB.

For the love of god can people stop talking about side transfer? We are not, nor have we ever been, talking about side blooody transfer. Give me strength...it's like talking to 2 year olds!

But, as you mention it, side transfer does exist but not in a way that will affect the path of the object ball. It's value is primarily in terms of adding check or running side to the object ball when it hits a cushion; so, useful for doubles and safeties.

Video evidence of side transfer provided below - can you actually watch it this time? It's rather frustrating going to the time and trouble of finding videos you clearly don't bother to watch.

https://youtu.be/tRKBjl2PuSw

And lol at your 10 pack in competition. I've seen you play and not a chance.

[itsnoteasy]

Please read the first two lines of the original post, before this goes any further.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

This statement here absolutely proves big shot hasn't a clue what he's talking about. He doesn't understand the cueball is cutting across the object ball and end up on the same side of the path as what the applied side to the cueball was. Now he says use snooker balls but doesn't realize you can't see any side on snooker balls unless you use 2 spotted whites. Aramith makes a set of pool balls at 2-1/16", same composition as 1Gs.

Too bad big shot knows how to type because if he didn't we would all feel relief from the insults like 'some ramdon bozo on the internet "says".'

We saw the throw on Wilson's and selby's shots perfectly well without a spotted CB, but i wonder why vmax didn't use one? They are also 2.25" balls, which are too heavy for a snooker cue to manoeuvre easily. You can see how little reaction he gets on the white during the line up.

But what do you mean about where the white ends up? Explain the process and what is happening at the point of contact.

[j6uk]

This is just unbelievable! It wasn't about vmax's technique is was about the BALLS. I don't know if vmax used 2-1/16" balls but I damn well have and yes, on a snooker table and those pool balls were Aramith. Just ignore the technique and watch the object ball. There is nothing there and even if these balls are 2-1/8" IT DOESN'T MATTER.

big shot and splasher (reggie) don't know what they're talking about although it's obvious BS has done some research. BS...have you ever run 10 straight racks of 9-ball in a tournament or have you ever run one lousy century on a snooker table? Same goes for you slasher. Throtts has, I have, j6uk has and we do know what were talking about. I think there is no video proof of all this xfer side or if there is then is has to be explained another way. I have never seen any xtfr side which was of any use even when I did put chalk on the OB.

tel big pool balls will not react like snooker balls on ether snooker or pool table, the ob wont take to the side.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Well, some of his comments do seem fruity but so do Terry's. They would not be my choice of words suffice to say. But personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of truth and apart from understanding 'timing and follow through', BS is mostly right w.r.t. spin and understanding it. Side xfer has been proven by Dr. Dave who is an expert in this field (even though as a snooker player it pains me to write that!), backed up by Mr Stark and many good players on here. Then we have others doubting the proven who actually wear a pool glove and whack the ball like a pool player; huge irony, given their criticism of a pool player and a pool expert (BS and Dr Dave). I don't mean it to sound rude and mean but those who are probably struggling to hit 50s with grips and cue actions like this should concentrate on the basics, such as developing centre-line cue ball control and efficient and effective cue power. If you can't get position in line-up from one ball to the next (after decades of play) but choose instead to smack it and land on the top rail with no pot, well, I just don't know what to say. Is there any hope for those missing easy 3ft pots to the middle bag? Again, I don't wish to cause hurt or offence but sometimes, truth can be unavoidably brutal. Fair play and hats off to the author for doing a video and devoting much time but it may be better if a player with more acumen explores this topic because side is subtle and intricate and something to be avoided until one can make a 50 consistently (or so the general advice goes). It does require a deft touch. As the author mentions I believe, perhaps BS can do a video?

Lol. No chance, but nice try.

The onus of proof most definitely lies with the non believers. For the millionth time, this is not theory, not new, not an illusion. It is stone cold fact, an inevitable consequence of friction when - bite me, jonny - balls collide.

Put it this way, for someone to disprove spin induced throw would be as revolutionary as someone suddenly demonstrating that screw back was not actually possible, and is merely a figment of our collective imaginations.

Two clot heads not believing something means absolutely squat - as does someone bunting pool balls around on a snooker table.

[PatBlock]

...So you're back again splasher with the same axe to grind, somebody do something about this jerk once and for all.

I thought they already did.

Without a public letter promising to sort out his attitude he will not be back under any alias.

-

[guernseygooner]

Yes I do because as Mr Starks says, the better you time and execute the shot, the less side you have to put on to get the same result as someone with poorer timing. Kyren put a load of side on at low pace to achieve a lot of spin. You play it slowly to allow it to bite. A lot of ams would have miscued or whacked it but Kyren knows better. This will seem counter intuitive to many players and coaches, especially those that hate and can't play side, and don't understand side xfer. Nothing personal meant.

*Above you will see a post mentioning too much side and a slight kick, the coach still not realising that Kyren was after a deliberate kick, to turn the unpottable ball over. That's a lack of understanding of side xfer right there. Shocking.

I don't doubt the timing involved. It's just if you find one of those super slow mo's demonstrating a drag shot - with a full table drag shot - the CB only backspins for a couple of feet before skidding and changing to forward rolling.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The video demonstrates how not to cue. How not to grip and bridge, and how not to 'hit' the CB. Fist-pumping the CB results in lost position, missed pots and 30 breaks. Sorry to say this but the standard of player needs to be higher to explore the subtleties of side on video. As Mr Stark says, it's intricate and certainly not whackaday. Byrom or tedisbill need to remake this video and demonstrate side xfer, or we could just watch Mr Stark again. :biggrin-new:

* The man who criticises Mr BS wears a pool glove and whacks pool balls on a snooker table. You couldn't make it up. :disgust:

I was saving that one mate.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I have no idea how you can back BS up. His one obnoxious, rude individual....

You're pretty rude and obnoxious yourself Mr fifty.