Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'd say, using the example you posted, that he is simply adding forward momentum to the 2nd ball by pushing it in that direction with the first, I don't see the need for or any evidence of imparted spin. If I remove the white from the situation, and just hit the first red in the same place, plain ball, it'll go in just the same, so where's the spin? All I've done is push one ball onto another, it hasn't had any time or space to spin, has it.

-

Good grief.

The physics world gives a huge sigh of relief. Actual evidence comes down to what some ramdon bozo on the internet "says".

Go home, stephen hawking, Pat Block had given something two second's thought and thinks he's got the answer. You ain't needed anymore.

Once again, *every single shot* you could ever think about is explained in phenomenal detail on dr dave's site.

Educate yourselves.

[vmax]

Lol. Even after 75 tortuous pages, you are still COMPLETELY clueless.

This ain't for you.

I've backed myself biggie, now it's your turn to come up with something other than your slavish arselicking of Dr. Dave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYPWoNfyW04

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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

Why didn't you use snooker balls?

How do you explain where the CB ends up, pretty much every time? It ends up on the right of the OB as we are looking at it - how can that be if you are merely bending the ball to hit the contact point, (which I'm presuming is dead straight). Logically, for a swerve shot, the CB must either follow straight, or, more likely, continue on iis path towards the left. Wilson's shot does the same thing btw. A stationary OB also has an effect on a spinning CB.

The last few shots show ample evidence of SIT.

I would have preferred to see you use snooker balls with a snooker cue (or a pool cue with pool balls).

What make of balls are they?

[itsnoteasy]

Well I have watched the first couple of minutes, I'm not sure what it's all about, what am I meant to be seeing?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Well I have watched the first couple of minutes, I'm not sure what it's all about, what am I meant to be seeing?

You're seeing something vmax doesn't understand, yet is crowing about.

Pride before a fall and that. Just scroll to 20 plus minutes.

You're also seeing someone who pivots lol.

[Byrom]

I'd say, using the example you posted, that he is simply adding forward momentum to the 2nd ball by pushing it in that direction with the first, I don't see the need for or any evidence of imparted spin. If I remove the white from the situation, and just hit the first red in the same place, plain ball, it'll go in just the same, so where's the spin? All I've done is push one ball onto another, it hasn't had any time or space to spin, has it.

-

Ok well put the cue ball on the opposite side and make the pot - that way the white is not pushing into the red - you still have to hit on that plant in the same spot away from the back of the ball to make it - I don't know about the physics like others do but do think something must be imparted here pat - I have also played the shot where you need to thicken up the angle to make the pot - it cant be done without using side which is transferred - only a tad - but that can be the difference between keeping a break going or not.

some players clearly not comfy aiming anywhere but centre ball that's fine I think you can use it to your advantage in many situations at the table - from the soft swerve to holding the cue ball on a narrower line for position - and of course the best effects are when using the cushion - but I also use a trace of helping side on certain shots...and cue all over the white on others...what is there to be afraid of - nothing - try a few shots out - experiment. its fun....the centre of the white is home - when you had a bit of fun you can always return there.

Ps if you cue on a white centre ball and hit an angled shot - you are the one imparting throw when it hits and you will hit the cut shot thick - helping side just sets the OB ball out on the right path more easily as the ball is spinning in the direction of the pocket - hitting it straight you are more likely to make it hit thick as that spinny ball thing is going rolling in a different line and to make the pot you have to hit thinner than you would normally = Guess. which is fine as long as you understand - and you only gain the understanding by spending countless hours at the table as you and everyone else knows.

I used to play pool and billiards too - I think some of the shots do come into play and use of side should be worked on. Less maybe more at snooker simply for the need to be more precise to become consistent at potting but its still important. Especially for position.

[throtts]

>50 breakers do understand, for many good reasons. This goes double for side xfer in the other post. It's that simple.

Are you 100% sure about that, I think not, buddy...

I consistently hit 50 PLUS breaks, not just one 50 in a blue moon..And still I come to my on conclusions from what I believe and have played.

And if players have to rely on the shots we are discussing frequently the there is no way they are even a 30 breaker. No sub for good positioning, boys....

[itsnoteasy]

Think I will leave this now but would like to thank Vmax for taking the time to make this video, we might not agree but I fully appreciate him for making the effort, thanks Jim.

[PatBlock]

Ok well put the cue ball on the opposite side and make the pot - that way the white is not pushing into the red - you still have to hit on that plant in the same spot away from the back of the ball to make it...

It's not the white that's doing the pushing though, it's the first ball of the plant which pushes the 2nd, so no matter what angle you hit that first ball from, as long as you hit the right spot it'll push into the second ball.

-

[PatBlock]

Think I will leave this now....

Spoilsport!

-

[Little Reggie]

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:

[throtts]

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

[vmax]

You're seeing something vmax doesn't understand, yet is crowing about.

Pride before a fall and that. Just scroll to 20 plus minutes.

You're also seeing someone who pivots lol.

Again you see only what you wish to see. I don't pivot, I compensate my aiming, the cue is parallel to the line I'm aiming down to allow for the initial deflection and subsequent swerve.
For a lot of the time in that video I'm showing how not to do it, not compensating, hitting too hard or too soft and also trying to get that same contact that Wilson got and time and again. It didn't happen until I hit one too soft that swerved too much and got a bad contact at 25:30 but that shot was hit too slow to reach the pocket as was the one that followed it that was hit at the same pace but with a tad more compensation.

Those played at the pace to reach the pocket either missed or went into the side of the pocket with no throw on the OB at all, and the cue (10) balls trajectory after contact was due to approaching the OB from off the original line of aim.
The ball doesn't deflect off the line of aim, come back on and then go straight to the correct contact point to make the pot, it makes the right contact point coming from another direction, hence the cue pointing down a line of aim that compensates for the initial deflection and subsequent swerve.
This is what you constantly fail to understand and think that it's all about throw and spin on the OB.

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:

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

[vmax]

It's not the white that's doing the pushing though, it's the first ball of the plant which pushes the 2nd, so no matter what angle you hit that first ball from, as long as you hit the right spot it'll push into the second ball.

-

It's the cue ball that stops the first OB from bouncing off the second OB at the moment of contact enabling the push/sqeeze effect to happen. No side required for that to happen Byrom, make a thicker or thinner contact to get a different push and the second OB will take a different line again.

When there's a dead set plant of two or more touching balls, if you don't hit the first OB at the right spot the push/squeeze will make the pottable OB miss the pocket for the same reason.

[j6uk]

would like to see a set of tc snooker balls used on a snooker table to prove a point. but interesting to see how those amercan pool balls react looked exhausting.. good show vmax