Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Ramon]

Morning Dan,

Nice to read a post that isn't insulting to be quite honest!

I've always believed that people should learn what the cue ball does up and down the centre firstly, work that out and then experiment with side.
I know Mr BS and Travis are huge advocates of SIT but in my opinion (it's just my opinion before anyone starts) learning about SIT isn't necessary.
There will be many on the forum thinking to themselves, hang on a minute I've made centuries and won tournaments without the knowledge or use of SIT. I guarantee there are pros who give it zero thought too.

J6 may feel he needs to pot blacks with side, Terry doesn't. It's just personal preference. Us snooker players are all different and play the game differently, that's partly what makes it interesting.

Dan- I agree on your point about deflection, this is important. I remember getting my new cue and it played completely different in terms of the amount of deflection I was getting. I'd say that learning just how much deflection is generated over certain distances/speeds etc is vital to playing good snooker, particularly when you think about those length of the table safety shots requiring side.

You forgot to mention, you're dad played against Mark Selby years ago !!

Just saying !!

[tomwalker147]

Hi Tom,

As you and pottr are established players and probably do this stuff without thinking then there probably isn't any reason to consider it.

However, if you was to teach a player who is up to a certain standard and is ready to play with side, do you not think it would be good to make the player aware of this?

The first thing a coach would teach someone who plays with side is that the cueball deflects off the line so you need to make allowances for this and as we have seen in the many videos the amount of cueball deflection makes as much difference in either making or missing the pot than SIT does.

Thoughts?

Dan

Morning Dan,

Nice to read a post that isn't insulting to be quite honest!

I've always believed that people should learn what the cue ball does up and down the centre firstly, work that out and then experiment with side.
I know Mr BS and Travis are huge advocates of SIT but in my opinion (it's just my opinion before anyone starts) learning about SIT isn't necessary.
There will be many on the forum thinking to themselves, hang on a minute I've made centuries and won tournaments without the knowledge or use of SIT. I guarantee there are pros who give it zero thought too.

J6 may feel he needs to pot blacks with side, Terry doesn't. It's just personal preference. Us snooker players are all different and play the game differently, that's partly what makes it interesting.

Dan- I agree on your point about deflection, this is important. I remember getting my new cue and it played completely different in terms of the amount of deflection I was getting. I'd say that learning just how much deflection is generated over certain distances/speeds etc is vital to playing good snooker, particularly when you think about those length of the table safety shots requiring side.

[dan_ormerod]

Played at Pottr's house last night, we were discussing the SIT thread.
We had a discussion around it and agreed that at certain times we have both tried to use SIT in the past but that the effects on the object ball are minimal (i'm sure most will agree with that). Sometimes it has worked for us and other times it hasn't but yes it isn't a myth it can work. I'd say that this shot only comes up in snooker once in a blue moon though. I had my positional play doubted by somebody and the truth is I probably wouldn't play for a ball that didn't pot plain ball because I do not trust the use of SIT.

We also both happened to play shots where we couldn't see the potting angle on the object ball but were able to swerve the cueball in such a way that the cue ball would impact on the correct point of the object ball, therefore being able to pot it. On this thread this theory has been doubted but anybody with an ounce of ability will know this works too.

There have been a lot of put downs by people (i'm no saint) when talking about SIT. Personally my reason for not giving it much time is that my focus is snooker and in my opinion even the best players in the world don't see the value in using it.

Hi Tom,

As you and pottr are established players and probably do this stuff without thinking then there probably isn't any reason to consider it.

However, if you was to teach a player who is up to a certain standard and is ready to play with side, do you not think it would be good to make the player aware of this?

The first thing a coach would teach someone who plays with side is that the cueball deflects off the line so you need to make allowances for this and as we have seen in the many videos the amount of cueball deflection makes as much difference in either making or missing the pot than SIT does.

Thoughts?

Dan

[travisbickle]

Quit lying Travis and read the old post you put up where vmax commented. You must have a terribly short memory or a really creative one.

Just for you Tel

I played this shot sunday afternoon, dead straight brown off its spot into the green pocket, cue ball two feet away, with both left and right hand side and never once did the brown throw on contact; only counted the ones that went dead centre into the pocket, so that ruled out CIT, made over twenty, and after contact the cue ball drifted towards the near jaw every time with both left and right hand side before stopping two feet beyond the brown spot.

Original Source: What do people think of Roy Chisholm's Snooker Secrets? http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...#ixzz4tv2KpM6t
- TSF - TheSnookerForum.co.uk
Follow us: @TheSnookerForum on Twitter | TheSnookerForum on Facebook

[Terry Davidson]

When vmax plays with side he gets no throw at all...I can't compete with that

Quit lying Travis and read the old post you put up where vmax commented. You must have a terribly short memory or a really creative one.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

When vmax plays with side he gets no throw at all...I can't compete with that

Lol. Physics is his biatch.

[travisbickle]

Just you wait til vmax has had a bash. He'll be much more betterist than you.

When vmax plays with side he gets no throw at all...I can't compete with that

[travisbickle]

Nah, but i called his pint a poof.

Just curved? Are you nuts? I thought you believed in SIT just now - don't tell me you've flip flopped again? There we were, thinking you were going to break all sorts of records by throwing balls 40 or 50 degrees, and now you've gone and joined vmax's Great British Camp-Out again.

Come on tel, make yer mind up!

Lol! Tel is making me dizzy.
I don't know who's side he's on tbh :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Those weren't SIT anyway, just curve. Are you calling Tom gay?

Nah, but i called his pint a poof.

Just curved? Are you nuts? I thought you believed in SIT just now - don't tell me you've flip flopped again? There we were, thinking you were going to break all sorts of records by throwing balls 40 or 50 degrees, and now you've gone and joined vmax's Great British Camp-Out again.

Come on tel, make yer mind up!

[throtts]

tom, do you and pott play in those dodgy Tokyo thongs. hahaha :snooker:

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

But we can travis, I myself use helping side often, what you're not grasping is that there are two camps here that think the reason why it happens is different. You say you contact the OB thicker and the side throws the OB onto the correct line to pot it, we say that the cue ball initially deflects and then swerves onto BOB to pot the ball.
You say you hold the cue ball with a thicker contact due to SIT, we say the cue ball approaches the OB from a slightly different line due to deflection and swerve to hold the cue ball.
We all play the same shots, the outcome is the same but the reason why is what we're banging on about and the contact point is so very, very close to making the OB far jaw or centre pocket that's it's very hard to tell without a high speed video showing the whole of the shot where the trajectory of both balls can be seen throughout the shot.

Anyone can simply forget the actual reason why this happens and simply play the shots, get the desired result and carry on, but a lot of people are confused and as a result don't bother to learn to use side and to me that's something that's holding them back.

Terry and I are trying to get some fundamentals across and are constantly being ambushed by biggie and the only thing he can bash people with. He goes months without posting anything and then as soon as sidespin becomes a topic there he is with all his curt replies and insults holding people back from experimenting and this time I'm not backing away from it.



According to the SIT devotees this shouldn't happen as SIT should throw the OB, but then they have their get out clause that SIT happens at a certain pace with a certain amount of side at certain angles. Anything slightly too hard/too soft/less or more sidespin/thicker or thinner contact and it somehow magically dissipates.
That has been shown to happen by Dr. Dave and a bloke who pivots his cue to apply side with the CB and OB only a couple of inches apart. Cue parallel to the line of aim to apply side and put a couple of feet between CB and OB and the results are different and IMO show the differing levels of deflection and swerve only.

Two camps? There's only you in one camp mate. You're less of a camp and more of a one man tent.

I'm holding people back from experimenting now, am i? Okayyy

As for SIT happening more or less at certain speeds etc, how is this different to any other shot? Do you always get screw if you hit the ball below the middle? You don't help yourself mate.

PS there has been one bloke who pivots his cue and demonstrates SIT on this thread - you!

[Terry Davidson]

Apart from wilson, selby and white, you mean?



You stick to admiring pottr's undercrackers mate. You'll get your hands on them one day, I'm sure.

Those weren't SIT anyway, just curve. Are you calling Tom gay?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Played at Pottr's house last night, we were discussing the SIT thread.
We had a discussion around it and agreed that at certain times we have both tried to use SIT in the past but that the effects on the object ball are minimal (i'm sure most will agree with that). Sometimes it has worked for us and other times it hasn't but yes it isn't a myth it can work. I'd say that this shot only comes up in snooker once in a blue moon though. I had my positional play doubted by somebody and the truth is I probably wouldn't play for a ball that didn't pot plain ball because I do not trust the use of SIT.

We also both happened to play shots where we couldn't see the potting angle on the object ball but were able to swerve the cueball in such a way that the cue ball would impact on the correct point of the object ball, therefore being able to pot it. On this thread this theory has been doubted but anybody with an ounce of ability will know this works too.

There have been a lot of put downs by people (i'm no saint) when talking about SIT. Personally my reason for not giving it much time is that my focus is snooker and in my opinion even the best players in the world don't see the value in using it.

Apart from wilson, selby and white, you mean?



You stick to admiring pottr's undercrackers mate. You'll get your hands on them one day, I'm sure.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Lol! I never said I could hold the spot at all.
Where did you get that from??
I said I can hold half ball cuts better because I'm hitting the OB thicker.
Something that's flying over your head for some reason.

Anyway I'll leave you swim in your own ignorence!

And for the last time I play snooker not pool and have just as much right as you do on here.
At least I know what I'm talking about on this subject!

He got that from the same place he got the notion an object ball could pull a handbrake turn around an intervening ball.

Terry: sees things that aren't there, blind as a bat to things that are.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

See what you want to see and believe what you want to believe but that was just me compensating for the side wrong on those gentle shots. For goodness sakes, now the SIT fans are saying EVERY shot with side has SIT and that's just plain wrong. I'm sorry I couldn't pot the black and hold the spot but it's not a shot I would play anyway. I use drag and stun to stop a cueball or at least slow it down on an angled pot.

I see Travis claims he can hold a spot on a 1/2-ball cut and I believe that's not accurate unless he's talking about much lighter balls on a slow cloth as for instance in British pool.

Now? My good man, it was first discovered in 1835 that there is SIT on every shot, not now!

If you want to eliminate SIT entirely, you'll have to do better than give yer balls a quick rub. I suppose it's technically possible to get rid of friction entirely but it's not terribly likely on a snooker table: where's there's friction, there's SIT.