Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[pottr]

I'm having a nightmare uploading it... Took it on the really old ipad coz it was charged... Can't transfer it without splitting it up and then my missus needed the thing today.

[travisbickle]

The white clearly arcs... it's obvious it's a swerve.

and a ball is only just over 2 inches in diameter... hitting a ball two inches off line barely glances it...

Please wait for my video, I'm pretty sure I cover it now... coz if that little slow clip was what the debate is based on then it's clear to me it's a swerve.

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, but that's my contention.

Meant aiming the red 2 inches off line btw
I think if I could pot the red hitting CB 2 inch off line then even TD would have to start believing :biggrin-new:

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Following what I show in my video, I would have to agree with that.

In the shot I show to prove SIT exists, you're talking millimetres... If someone could replicate the shot I used over a greater distance then I would be happy to say otherwise...

But a 3/4 pot full ball... that's manipulating the OB inches over the course of 5/6 feet at slow speeds... My little experiment tells me that's extremely unlikely on a snooker table.

Perhaps on a pool table with no nap and much heavier balls, but still... Inches would be hard to believe in my mind following on from what I did empirically last night.

I think the most likely effect when you're talking of OB movements for more than a few millimetres is that you're swerving the white.

So I'm in a position where I sort of agree with and disagree with everyone at the same time, lol.

As soon as my missus sorts the video splitting thing out, I'll post.

The good doctor reckons about an inch of throw per foot of travel, which sounds about right to me.

A very simple demonstration to test this, and one I've posted about a dozen times now, is to put the pink on its spot, with the CB a few inches behind it, and play it up the table over the spots with side, to see where it lands up. Play it at the pace to hit the baulk cushion dead weight - measure how far away it lands from the middle of the baulk cushion and that is how much throw you are getting over 9ft. I reckon 9 inches would be about right.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

I'd bet my arm it's not that much... at least on a snooker table

On a pool table though with denser balls and different cloths, I'd need to see for myself

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yes, the perfect analogy that, broom on ice. You are so full of it BS. The existence of SIT is a moot point because it just doesn't matter one iota because it has such a minimal effect. The telling point is at some point in the power scale SIT disappears as if by magic but not you nor anyone else can say what that point is because you have yet another excuse, different tables different results.

You found the perfect Troll subject and I and everyone else bit hard. I'm not trolling, I really believe SIT does not exist unless there is a very high level of friction between the 2 balls, and it doesn't exist under normal playing conditions and that's despite all that proof you go on about. Transferred side generating an alteration in the path of an object ball taking off from contact is a myth. People have been arguing this for 187 years and still have no solution except in each side's minds. Your proof doesn't move me at all.

Dearest Tezza. Please try and understand this before one of us dies: PROOF came 182 years ago - A COUPLE OF MORONS stumbled across this last week. In short, you have rather a lot of catching up to do.

PS should we really trust the physics background of someone who cannot subtract 1835 from 2017? Hmm.

PSS My broom on ice analogy is perfect, although not created by me, sadly. Go and try it to see why extremely fast strokes are no good. Should be cold enough there soon. If you see any polar bears, don't forget to use slower brushing movements, as we all know what will happen if you don't.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

If your identity and experience are not important then why do they demand both when you testify in court? They are important to establish the veracity of the person.

I think what proof has been offered on here is subject to different interpretations. Even Dr. Dave's videos do not prove that SIT exists. Nic Barrow's video with his board proves that a very small amount of CIT exists which I always knew anyway. I said you had little experience but I also said I have at least some.

Ramon...you are a troll who has elected himself to be the master expert on debate here in the forum but I didn't vote for you so how about you go pick on someone else?

Dude, you need to stop this. It was cringe ages ago - it is now getting surreal.

Tell me, using your court example, who has more credibility in cue sports than dr dave?

You? Vmax?

[throtts]

Dude, you need to stop this.

You have more chance of winning Eurobillions.

I have know idea how the thread is still running.

Kiss and make up!..

[travisbickle]

You have more chance of winning Eurobillions.

I have know idea how the thread is still running.

Kiss and make up!..

I can think of a couple of reasons lol

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

I want that £1 bet won...

I might be a tool and start a new thread with my video

[Cue crafty]

I can think of a couple of reasons lol

There's a hundred gummy bears riding on this baby! I'm loving the videos it's only just getting going really?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'd bet my arm it's not that much... at least on a snooker table

On a pool table though with denser balls and different cloths, I'd need to see for myself

Am i right in thinking you've got a snooker table? You know, in your home?

Well...

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I can think of a couple of reasons lol

There's always one! (Well, two).

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

From what I did last night on my table, it's never an inch every foot

[Terry Davidson]

Terry ,

Your identity gives you no privilege to prove your right in a court . [U]however when they call an expert witness the witness always has to give his qualifications, even the cops[U] , it's more about what you say and what you can prove. Tsf is not a court , btw.
good players can smell each other* from miles away. In the game of snooker .
unfortunately I see you are not that far. or you are so frustrated that you start losing it. What does this line mean, how far am I then?
tbh, i do'nt care which one. Then why do you keep responding?
But it would be nice if you start acting like a coach ?? So you are an expert on how coaches are supposed to act?

*and pay more attention to the vid Travis uploaded please I did and it's still CB curving on or near to BOB in my OPINION. Even a blind chicken can see what's happening there. That's nice of you
You did visit UK about 40 years ago, so you should have no problem with that part. problem with what part? I left the UK in 1989, so only 28 (that's 11+17 for BS years and have been back 5 times since

Btw , get sum rest as soon as you can , looks like you need it. Yet another very nice comment, very troll-like I would say

Oh and , yeah yeah , i'm a troll . you are plus you seem to think you are the person who gets to say what conduct is correct on here.
Do you own TSF or something?Thanks . Very impressive. !!!

I'm not frustrated about SIT but I am definitely frustrated with you. All I did was disagree with BS, Travis and Reggie and it was like I said the earth is flat or something. This is a FORUM and people can disagree and as for me not acting like a coach I'm not a coach on here unless I'm asked, just an ordinary guy who has opinions which other people like to disparage).

Travis' video shows the cueball cutting across the OB (it went left then right) and it actually hit the OB from left to right and that is obvious from the video. It may have been a valid assumption in 1835 and today it MAY be a valid assumption using pool conditions but as for on a snooker table with a smooth nap I believe there is so little SIT it doesn't count and what we are really seeing is Impact Throw which has been re-named by the enthusiasts on here as Cut Induced Throw. Impact throw or CIT does exist and increases with power but doesn't increase with spin. Snooker players have known of this for decades but you can't get more than about 2* with it. Watch Nic Barrow's video with the board and you'll see when he shoots harder there's more OB throw but still a very small amount.

The statement made was 'I can get 15* or more with SIT. I disagree with that statement. The statement was 'SIT disappears when you use more power' and I disagree with that since the effect should be greater with more spin and more power and the analogy of a broom on ice is a red herring and I disagree with that. (Good god Mabel, he's saying the sky is falling!)

Ramon...please go back and post all those interesting videos you do very well and quit criticizing my behaviour on here because it's none of your business and you are not a Moderator as far as I can tell, but it seems you like to play at it. You can freely disagree with me on anything but at least use some valid theories to do so.

[travisbickle]

From what I did last night on my table, it's never an inch every foot

Come on, wheres the video?
Tel's dog must be on its last legs by now:biggrin-new: