Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

Camara was right behind the CB. Best possible angle to view the shot.
Bare in mind the shot was played with a little top spin which is not the best shot to throw the OB.
Little soft screw with side will throw the OB even more.
So holding the spot on a 3/4 black off its own spot is easy and I'm sure JK knows this already but wanted to see what your opinion was.

If the damned camera was right behind the cueball then where were you? Did you have the camera sitting on your head?

[Terry Davidson]

Well I have had another email discussion with Dr Dave about my theory , that you are actually reducing " natural throw" and not inducing or creating any throw on these shots, he said that is correct and directed me to this video, which surely shows everything you wanted to see.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threa...h.html#outside

It appears that OB throw only occues on very thin cuts and only this can be altered by SIT, which is quite different to that which some people on here are advocating from their interpretation of Dr. Dave's videos. This one is from Colorado State and includes a reference to Dr. Dave. In addition to just thin cuts they also say you need to be at top professional level in order to use it consistently. Here is a quote from the site:

The problem with using this "smooth rolling across the object ball's surface" technique is that it requires a lot of skill and experience to get right. The amount of outside required depends on the cut angle, the distance to the ball, and the amount of draw/follow. As has been pointed out by Dr. Dave, Ron Shepard and others, if you get it wrong by a little the shot can go wrong by a lot.

I think the main factor is on skids. This is also called "cling" and in snooker-playing regions "kick." I think the best name for it is "bad contact." In any case, it seems to be due to chalk at the contact point of cue ball on object ball and it causes large amounts of throw. Some players don't even realize that skid exists and think that when people complain about getting a skid/kick/cling/bad contact they are just trying to make excuses. Skids can happen on maybe 1 shot in 50 to 500 depending on conditions and the sort of shots taken.

So, where is this all going? If a player just flat out misses 30% of the shots he shoots at, he's got no reason to take special, complicated precautions to avoid a 1% problem. At that level he should be working on bringing his stick straight through the middle of the cue ball with maybe a little follow or draw. Nice and smooth and not too hard. Such a player has only a dim notion of squirt, swerve and throw, and probably no knowledge of skid.

On the other hand, if you're Rempe or Sigel or Hohmann, and on a good day you miss only one time in 200 shots attempted, you can't afford to have the object ball skidding off randomly one time in 100.

So the bottom line is that whether you should try to use outside english on the fraction of shots that allow the freedom to use it may well depend on how well you play.

So all these sarcastic and insulting quotes we've been seeing from all the OB Throw advocates has all been bollocks. What they are really doing is just what vmax and I said, they are curving the cueball into the correct potting point and there is NO effect on the object ball and this is according to BOTH Dr. Dave and Colorado State. Perhaps these people should try and get a better understanding of exactly what's happening, but it sure looks like it only applies to very thin cuts at the top professional level. I doubt there is any CIT or SIT going on in any of these videos or photos because they are not thin cuts.

[vmax]

Why is it easy to pot a ball touching the cushion with running side and virtually impossible with check side?

Because with running side the cue ball can contact the cushion just before the correct contact point on the OB and the sidespin will grip the cushion and run along the cushion a very short distance to contact the OB at the exact cushion and ball contact needed to pot it before it leaves the cushion.
It can also contact the cushion at the exact cushion and ball contact point for the same result, but with check side you definitely need the absolute exact contact point but seeing as playing with side is not as accurate as playing centre line on the cue ball striking then you can be a little bit out with running side, you have a margin of error as long as the cushion contact is just before and not OB first, but must be exact with check side and centre cue ball striking.

That's what I believe anyway but I'm sure there are those on the forum who believe that the side is transfered to the OB so that it hugs the cushion.

[Terry Davidson]

I have to plead guilty to using running side on balls frozen on the cushion as I've found it's much easier to pot then with the side. I really don't believe there is any spin transfer helping this out but rather it's just as vmax has explained it. No doubt we'll see a couple of hundred videos and comments from those who disagree.

[blahblah01]

If there is any spin transferred to the OB then it will cause a sliding effect on the cushion, rather than gripping?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9AN8SyWynM

[jonny66]

If you add this one to the original Rot Chisholm thread, it's over 100 pages. Still no end in sight, I think it was aliens.

[jonny66]

If you add this one to the original Rot Chisholm thread, it's over 100 pages. Still no end in sight, I think it was aliens.

There's a typo in there which I am going to leave, no offence to Roy himself.

[blahblah01]

Well, they did take that plane from down Australia way....

[vmax]

I have to plead guilty to using running side on balls frozen on the cushion as I've found it's much easier to pot then with the side. I really don't believe there is any spin transfer helping this out but rather it's just as vmax has explained it. No doubt we'll see a couple of hundred videos and comments from those who disagree.

Too true Tel, there is always a little slide of the cue ball when it contacts a cushion at an angle so plain ball striking would use this natural slide and running side exaggerates this slide to make the pot easier, check side would decrease it making the pot more difficult.

[Byrom]

Well I have had another email discussion with Dr Dave about my theory , that you are actually reducing " natural throw" and not inducing or creating any throw on these shots, he said that is correct and directed me to this video, which surely shows everything you wanted to see.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threa...h.html#outside

Anyone in doubt should watch this....but is it important?
basically helping side is gearing. The Americans do dress it up a bit in their own terminology which can confuse some. ie English is side. Outside Inside left and right

Again the science of it though is not as important as the practicalities of just knowing how to pot the ball - a plain ball cut a little thinner makes the same shot possible with less chance of OB deviation on strike which is what Terry rightly champions, where as I am comfortable using a little helping side on certain cuts. I am sure he can too - in the same way I could play his shot basically - its just what a player favours sometimes and what is important at snooker is knowing how to make the position for the next shot Terry and most snooker players who can make a ton or regular 50's do know when to use side to gain optimal position if need be they work out options and some myself included have favoured shots - I am particularly good using top - as players we work out what is the safest option in terms of percentages. Most shots/positions/options on a snooker table are available stunning up and down centre ball. However the subtlety of the game comes into it closer in and finding the line to make the angle for the next shot is important. Small fractions are everything sometimes in snooker.

In pool they have less distance for the throw effect on a pool table and wider margins for error in the pockets so this stuff comes into its own.

In snooker accuracy is more of a factor and working out the percentages is different. One example - on a club table I think it help more to use side to move the ball around - and I made centuries and things on these all the time on my own and in matches I made a few but I first went on a pro table with new cloth I struggled to make 30 - I was all over the place for a few hours. I learned to cut it out on a fast slippy cloth - you have to.

Still you can bring in the subtlety and the occasional flash shot but not all the time - you will get found out especially at distance which is why I do understand Terry's views - he does not play on conditions like ours in the club most of the time he is on pro conditions and his game has tailored itself to this. I still use little bits of side to help my game on a match table but you have to adapt if you are one of these players that naturally cues all over the white. Watching video's might explain but hours on a table still essential. The science is there I agree with these other guys but its still not necessarily important to know - working on technique, practice, replication, repetition and dedication is the only way to progress properly.

I find it slightly disingenuous for Mr Big shot to insinuate snooker players do not know about these things - depends on the level of that player - many billiard players have forgotten more than pool players will ever know. Just because we don't know the science or terminology does not mean they cannot pot the balls and get a cue ball to land in a rough area of where it needs to be.

On a footnote ...Snooker and pool are just a different games that require different adaption - and snooker will always be the superior game in my opinion.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

Terry, Terry, Terry. You are having a breakdown again.

As has been pointed out, ad nauseam, these are not theories- just plain old, demonstrable scientific fact, proven by coriolis in 1830, and by countless millions of players ever since. That you refuse to accept something your tiny mind cannot comprehend is regrettable and tragic. That you refuse to accept something your tiny mind cannot comprehend and then attempt to make some comparison to religious whackjobs, is simply beyond parody!

So I'll take the mickey out of flat earth lunatics all i want, ok?

[itsnoteasy]

It appears that OB throw only occues on very thin cuts and only this can be altered by SIT, which is quite different to that which some people on here are advocating from their interpretation of Dr. Dave's videos. This one is from Colorado State and includes a reference to Dr. Dave. In addition to just thin cuts they also say you need to be at top professional level in order to use it consistently. Here is a quote from the site:

The problem with using this "smooth rolling across the object ball's surface" technique is that it requires a lot of skill and experience to get right. The amount of outside required depends on the cut angle, the distance to the ball, and the amount of draw/follow. As has been pointed out by Dr. Dave, Ron Shepard and others, if you get it wrong by a little the shot can go wrong by a lot.

I think the main factor is on skids. This is also called "cling" and in snooker-playing regions "kick." I think the best name for it is "bad contact." In any case, it seems to be due to chalk at the contact point of cue ball on object ball and it causes large amounts of throw. Some players don't even realize that skid exists and think that when people complain about getting a skid/kick/cling/bad contact they are just trying to make excuses. Skids can happen on maybe 1 shot in 50 to 500 depending on conditions and the sort of shots taken.

So, where is this all going? If a player just flat out misses 30% of the shots he shoots at, he's got no reason to take special, complicated precautions to avoid a 1% problem. At that level he should be working on bringing his stick straight through the middle of the cue ball with maybe a little follow or draw. Nice and smooth and not too hard. Such a player has only a dim notion of squirt, swerve and throw, and probably no knowledge of skid.

On the other hand, if you're Rempe or Sigel or Hohmann, and on a good day you miss only one time in 200 shots attempted, you can't afford to have the object ball skidding off randomly one time in 100.

So the bottom line is that whether you should try to use outside english on the fraction of shots that allow the freedom to use it may well depend on how well you play.

So all these sarcastic and insulting quotes we've been seeing from all the OB Throw advocates has all been bollocks. What they are really doing is just what vmax and I said, they are curving the cueball into the correct potting point and there is NO effect on the object ball and this is according to BOTH Dr. Dave and Colorado State. Perhaps these people should try and get a better understanding of exactly what's happening, but it sure looks like it only applies to very thin cuts at the top professional level. I doubt there is any CIT or SIT going on in any of these videos or photos because they are not thin cuts.

Eh!........ I can't make head nor tail of any of that,CIT Only happens on very thin cuts? Nope completely wrong, it happens on all cut shots, Every single one, no exceptions. Because of that fact you can use SIT to reduce it, just like the video shows( you did watch it didn't you? I don't get why you can't see what's going on during it)
You think the CIT is the rolling across the ball shot, wrong, that's the only shot where it isnt happening. The quote you put up,is an explanation of how to stop CIT that's why it's hard, you haven't understood what's going on at all.
You state Dr Dave says SIT doesn't effect the ob, wrong watch the video that's exactly what he says. He also states there is a small amount of spin transfer, which you still don't believe even though it's on the video.
You state you have to be a pro to play it, again this is because you haven't understood what the quote is referring to that you posted up, you are away on a different subject again.
Lastly you state Colorado uni and Dr Dave( he is the one teaching this at Colorado uni) state that it's swerve, where does he say that in the video.
Honestly Terry just get in contact with Colorado uni, or your friend at MIT they will put you right in a few minutes, whether you chose to believe them is entirely up to you, but do you honestly think a physics prof at one uni will have different laws to follow than a physics prof at any other?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

If you hit the black dead-on in order to hold the spot then in my opinion the black ball would hit the top cushion about 6" from the pocket assuming the 3/4 pot with cueball above the black towards the pink. According to the laws of physical properties when the 2 spheres collide the black ball has to take off at 180* from the point of contact. If you used side and drag (bottom stuff) to pot the black then I believe if you can pot it your cueball must have curved into the black and at the point of contact made a perfect plant directly at the pocket or at least the far jaw just like Karnham's did, although he wasn't trying to hold the spot.

I agree that in order to hold the spot you have to hit the black straight on to stop the cueball as otherwise from the 3/4 position the cueball would still have some energy left in it and would travel off the spot towards the cushion but in order to pot the black you have to hit it in that plant position and your bottom stuff would hold the cueball.

This is only my opinion based on the laws of physics that dictates the black has to leave at 180* to the contact point. If what you are saying is true you would have to change the direction of the black ball by 45* which is something I don't believe. I do believe you can change the point of contact though by using side on the cueball, especially with drag. But you tell me what are the exact mechanics involved in changing the direction of the object ball at or shortly after contact.

On the other hand, who cares? As long as you can pot the black and hold the spot using this throw effect some seem to believe in, and can use it consistently then it just doesn't matter. I haven't tried this specific shot of holding the spot on an angled pot but maybe I will see if I can do it. I wouldn't like the shot a lot because it means for your next shot if the cueball slipped a little you would have a chinese snooker on your next pot.

A loud guffaw on "the according to the laws of physics" line, but please don't say things like "this throw effect some people seem to believe in".

Very few serious players don't believe in it. If you'd like proof, AZBilliards has 60,000 registered players, and is the largest cue sport website by quite some distance. Go start a thread asking if people "believe in it".

You'll be laughed out of town. That a handful of centre ball playing snooker players don't believe in something proves absolutely nothing.

There is as much a debate to be had on this as there is on whether the cue ball spins backwards when you apply bottom or if bears defecate in the woods ie none at all.

[travisbickle]

Jesus wept man you can't see the pocket so that red could be going anywhere, now how many more times do I have to point that out to you.

You say it's impossible to make the same contact point with left hand side because the cue ball would push into the pink, that's incorrect as you can compensate your aiming to allow for the deflection/push of the cue ball and just miss the pink and therefore you should be able to make the same contact carrying left hand side if the ball doesn't swerve.

I say the ball will swerve the other way despite compensating your aiming and therefore you will not be able to make the same contact, in fact I say you won't be able to contact the red at all.

I say that you can play the shot with right hand side without compensating your aiming because the cue ball naturally deflects just a tad to the left and comes back onto a line of aim that's enough make a good enough contact to pot the ball into the side of the pocket because it's carrying right hand side, spinning in the same direction as the nap, making the cue ball swerve around the pink from left to right as the spin changes from horizontal to the 30 degree axis.

And what's the point in that as I would miss the red as it now has left hand side on it which is the wrong side to pot it!
If you think the red swerved then you need your eyes tested mate. You can clearly see the red hold it's line.
Also you can just see the red fall into the left side of the pocket so don't give me that BS.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I haven't done any scholarly research on this but maybe I'll send an email to a physics professor at MIT and ask what the laws of physics are with two smooth spheres colliding, one stationary and one spinning with a miniscule amount of friction between the balls but more friction with the bed of the table. I'm sure they'll spend thousands of dollars to prove if there is a way to alter the object ball's course. Just to see Mr. B.S. reaction we could task them to try the experiment in the vacuum of space where there's no friction on the bed.

Or maybe I'll email Scotty but of course he's dead, so that won't work. Maybe the new Scotty in the new Star Trek movies?

Coriolis has this figured out in 1830 mate.

Some other people are still struggling two centuries later, sadly.