Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Byrom]

I am also trying to figure out how, before Dr. Dave, did we ever pot a ball since he shows you can get between 2* and 6* OB throw using pool balls, pool table, very short length with not showing where the cueball started but gee, those balls are deflecting. So how did we ever pot ANY balls at all if every shot was changing direction by up to 6*, maybe not enough to matter on a pool table though.

Secondly, as Dr. Dave proves up to 6*, how in hell are some of us here getting 15* (and possibly more)? You should stay within the boundaries of the proof provided by Dr. Dave. The pink Travis did could have possibly changed direction from OB throw more than 6* yet he says 15* at least! Could it be with RH side on the cueball and using aim-off to compensate for side that the cueball did curve a bit, maybe as much as 15*?

I will have a pop at answering this and (I may be wrong) but if the OB ball starts out on a deviation of natural angle due to not being 'geared' sent on the right line or hit correctly...it then obviously stays on that path and because the path is a further distance away on a snooker table because it is larger road to travel and may have imparted spin on it - by the time the OB reaches the pocket that small deviation from the outset has become a wider miss from the intended line of the shot. Therefore perhaps these small things these guys talk about - are actually important in a physics/collision theory or whatever it is called sense.

Basically they are correct - and you are too - A. physics plays a part in snooker as it does in the natural world - you cant deny this? and B. Its not really all that important to know this to play the game to a high level and they should realise this too

I have a question though - if someone could please help me this has troubled me for years and I would like to know the answer.

[blahblah01]

I have watched the video of Terry play that seems to be held against him all the time. I will also say this for the umpteenth time, I'm not here to slag Terry or Vmax off, sure I don't get where they are coming from here as it seems bleeding obvious with all the evidence supplied but it doesn't detract in any way from how I respect them on most other things we discuss on the site. Terry has always been honest and open how he plays now and since his long lay off, that it's nowhere near the standard he used to play at, ( would probably still be better than most in match situations with all his experience)so what, he still loves the game ( he might not understand it just joking Terry) and to me that's far more important, jeez the man has his own table, enters comps all round the world and gives us his time freely on here, do you know how old he is? . It can be very frustrating when someone can't see the obvious but I'm sure Terry and Vmax feel exactly the same from their perspective, maybe it's time to let this go, we have all had our say and it's getting to the point it's just insults now.

Pretty much this: I can't be doing with the insults, while I struggle with them being able to hit an OB Full Ball with side on the CB and the OB going straight. I spent an afternoon mucking around potting with side ie different amounts creating differing angles....

It is VERY useful as the CB reacts straighter (top, middle and bottom) than through centre CB striking and potting with the angle. Also my finer cuts are better, as it seems to counter the whatever we are calling the thing Nic shows with his Pin-ball CB machine.

[itsnoteasy]

I have watched the video of Terry play that seems to be held against him all the time. I will also say this for the umpteenth time, I'm not here to slag Terry or Vmax off, sure I don't get where they are coming from here as it seems bleeding obvious with all the evidence supplied but it doesn't detract in any way from how I respect them on most other things we discuss on the site. Terry has always been honest and open how he plays now and since his long lay off, that it's nowhere near the standard he used to play at, ( would probably still be better than most in match situations with all his experience)so what, he still loves the game ( he might not understand it just joking Terry) and to me that's far more important, jeez the man has his own table, enters comps all round the world and gives us his time freely on here, do you know how old he is? . It can be very frustrating when someone can't see the obvious but I'm sure Terry and Vmax feel exactly the same from their perspective, maybe it's time to let this go, we have all had our say and it's getting to the point it's just insults now.

[ace man]

Oh please, I'd rather give my cat a game. At least it would be a challenge. Jabberwocky is awful. I know 80 year olds who cue better than that and none of them have ever claimed to make 147s or even tons in competition. I know another guy who claims a HB of 136 but also, like Jabber, struggles to make 30s. It's a huge cliff these guys have dropped off: NOT!

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but snooker isn't that easy. I've been to EBSA championships once and to a few pro am tournaments. There were plenty of top quality amateurs probably miles better than almost anyone on here who also struggled to get over 30 at times as you put it. Knocking about at your club versus playing hard match snooker against quality opposition is hardly the same thing. Many excellent amateurs collapsed under pressure. Who's to say that wouldn't happen to you if the two of you played a match that actually meant something? Don't underestimate or overestimate players based on a single video or some TSF posts.
Jabby cue action, beautiful smooth cue action...we all know which one we prefer to have, but it means very little as far as tournament results go. There are thousands of other factors which determine how well one will do in comps. Good snooker brain comes to mind.
I have never seen those who openly underestimate and criticise other players do well at comps. Have you?

[Little Reggie]

Reggie splash, I don't agree with Terry regarding this particular topic on side, throw...etc, but I do think he's a very good player. Yes, I've seen videos of him playing and I didn't find it painful at all. I saw someone who knew what shot to play under tournament conditions (national championships) wearing a full dress code. Do you think you could beat him in an actual snooker match?

Oh please, I'd rather give my cat a game. At least it would be a challenge. Jabberwocky is awful. I know 80 year olds who cue better than that and none of them have ever claimed to make 147s or even tons in competition. I know another guy who claims a HB of 136 but also, like Jabber, struggles to make 30s. It's a huge cliff these guys have dropped off: NOT!

[ace man]

INE, you're wasting your time. He can't play side xfer with his hands, he's a jabberwocky. I've seen videos of him and his donkey cue action. Google him. It was painful mate. :biggrin-new:

Reggie splash, I don't agree with Terry regarding this particular topic on side, throw...etc, but I do think he's a very good player. Yes, I've seen videos of him playing and I didn't find it painful at all. I saw someone who knew what shot to play under tournament conditions (national championships) wearing a full dress code. Do you think you could beat him in an actual snooker match?

[Little Reggie]

INE, you're wasting your time. He can't play side xfer with his hands, he's a jabberwocky. I've seen videos of him and his donkey cue action. Google him. It was painful mate. :biggrin-new:

[itsnoteasy]

I am also trying to figure out how, before Dr. Dave, did we ever pot a ball since he shows you can get between 2* and 6* OB throw using pool balls, pool table, very short length with not showing where the cueball started but gee, those balls are deflecting. So how did we ever pot ANY balls at all if every shot was changing direction by up to 6*, maybe not enough to matter on a pool table though.

Secondly, as Dr. Dave proves up to 6*, how in hell are some of us here getting 15* (and possibly more)? You should stay within the boundaries of the proof provided by Dr. Dave. The pink Travis did could have possibly changed direction from OB throw more than 6* yet he says 15* at least! Could it be with RH side on the cueball and using aim-off to compensate for side that the cueball did curve a bit, maybe as much as 15*?

Again Terry you are not telling the whole truth, that's six degrees on a straight shot, that doesn't mean to say that's the maximum for all angles ( at least we are getting somewhere as you now acknowledge it does happen) we are looking at the effects on the object ball, that's why the camera is zoomed into the contact, I don't know what you mean over a short distance , if you throw the ball six degrees and that equates to say five mill over a few inches of travel, that could mean a few inches over a few feet, or easily enough to turn it into or away from a pocket, or do you think the object ball comes back on line? Why does it matter where the cue ball started? If it's spinning and you hit centre line on contact at medium pace you will get throw, being able to play the shot is the hard part, which is where you and Vmax come from, the I can't do it so it doesn't exist, camp, unfortunately that's not how things work, it does exist, you either practice until you can do it, or you don't use it, your choice, but it still exists.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Has to be, so now you've lost that excuse but it's funny no one thought about it before it was proven by Dr. Dave who (we should ask) might be receiving some remuneration for that proof.

Lol. Now you're playing the man and not the ball. Wonder if you've had a little chat with your wee pal vmax, who played a similar trick when he was losing an argument a while back. Dr dave gives all his content away for free on YouTube, but also sells dvds to anyone that prefers to own them. Sounds fair enough to me. And, just to clarify the issue, he is not sponsored by anyone, or on commission, or in any way paid for his services. Just a chap with a technical expertise and a passion for cue sports. We are exceptionally lucky to have him.

And for the millionth time, dr dave did not invent any of this, this is as old as billiard chalk and leather tips. All he does is set up experiments to explain what happens on hundreds of different shots, i think i saw 750 different ones IIRC. Now, why don't you look through some of those and tell me which ones he has wrong? Find me one - just one - that is wrong and I'll donate 50 CAD to the charity of your choice. If you can't find any that are wrong, why on earth would he be wrong about throw, and throw alone? That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?

So go on, find me the other shots that are wrong. Just one. Prove the good doctor doesn't know what he's on about.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Because when we disagreed with you your first arguments were to use insults and sarcasm to attack our abilities. Do you play just pool? What kind of pool? Do you play snooker too? Just how good/bad are you at billiards. This is so we can attack you the same as you attacked us.

Now go away and have a nice drinky with Dr. Dave in Denver and run down all those ignorant snooker players who never even knew about OB throw and must have missed millions of pots because of it and still are because the refuse to BELIEVE!

There are none so blind as those that will not see, but they were not my first arguments, not by a long shot. I've been banging this drum since i joined this place, and it's only just now some are finally getting it. So i didn't start by using insults and sarcasm to attack your abilities. I started to use insults and sarcasm when you failed to understand what was being told to you and started to invent extraordinary rubbish about curving object balls and the like.

There's only so many times you can explain something to someone without losing your cool, and you've been a very slow learner, it must be said.

[matthias]

Has to be, so now you've lost that excuse but it's funny no one thought about it before it was proven by Dr. Dave who (we should ask) might be receiving some remuneration for that proof.

:biggrin-new:

[itsnoteasy]

This is exactly why. Now tell me how I can use it in snooker or better yet explain to me how I can use it. The Travis pink ball didn't show any OB throw at all despite what you say.

Why don't you stop with the insults and agree to disagree? I don't care whether it exists or not as long as I can use it to effect when I need to, whether it happens to be transferred side, OB throw or curving the cueball into the sweet spot.

I AGREE transferred side can happen in snooker (I've already agreed that by the way) however it's of no use as even you experts have agreed it can't be used to bend the OB around an intervening ball as all it does is change the direction which remains in a straight line. Every video put up is from a pool table but perhaps the effect is less on a snooker table with smaller balls and pockets where there is a lot more area involved.

itsnoteasy has said here that OB throw, be it angled or side, happens on every shot but as I've never noticed and thousands of great snooker players have never noticed then perhaps it has only come to light because Dr. Dave filmed it and now he has his proof that it happens but I have to wonder how many pots I've missed because I misjudged this OB throw. I know the answer to that one sure enough and I bet a lot of pool players (before Dr. Dave) never noticed it either.

So I ask you 3, of what use is it to the AVERAGE snooker player. It's of no consequence as long as that average snooker player is able to use side to curve the cueball to where he wants it, whether he hits BOB to pot the ball or gets some kind of 15* OB throw which he has never noticed before and up until your proof from Dr. Dave snooker players were very happy in their supposed ignorance of what's really happening.

I note in the video itsnoteasy posted the maximum spin OB throw is 6 degrees. What we don't know is just how the incoming path of the cueball was determined as it's hard to see in the video over such a short length. Tell your Dr. Dave it would be a lot more convincing to us 'unbelievers' if he showed a few full table shots from over the pocket to which the ball is pocketed.

Sorry can't let that go, I never said on every shot, there is no throw on straight shots, there is always and I mean always impact throw on any cut shot, every single player who has ever lived ,who has ever picked up a cue and potted an angled shot has compensated for impact throw, that is just a fact, from me and you to Ronnie and Hendry. Terry if you are now denying impact throw I don't know how you can understand anything that is going on here. Please take a look at this again, you have had coaching off Nic, try and understand what he's saying here.
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q
Once you have watched that ( please watch it all the way through) watch this and ask yourself, is the object ball being turned off the straight line because of the spin, if you are honest with yourself, you will have the answer.
https://youtu.be/GpsVeOYGcu8

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Everyone knows pool players (not British ones though like yourself) have bigger balls, smaller tables, no nap and bigger tips. They also seem to have a lot of videos proving various different theories especially aiming systems and OB throw.

But what difference is there between a pool player and a snooker player when it comes to spin induced throw?

The laws of physics do not break down on a snooker table, despite what some will have you believe. It is virtually impossible to create a situation where there is no throw at all - i would think the balls would have to be in zero gravity and polished to within an inch of their lives for there not to be at least some grab at impact.

Of course playing conditions will affect throw but what happens on a pool table will also happen on a snooker table.

[Terry Davidson]

Why?

I couldn't out argue Isaac Newton on the laws of gravity but i know a falling apple when i see one.

Because when we disagreed with you your first arguments were to use insults and sarcasm to attack our abilities. Do you play just pool? What kind of pool? Do you play snooker too? Just how good/bad are you at billiards. This is so we can attack you the same as you attacked us.

Now go away and have a nice drinky with Dr. Dave in Denver and run down all those ignorant snooker players who never even knew about OB throw and must have missed millions of pots because of it and still are because the refuse to BELIEVE!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I am also trying to figure out how, before Dr. Dave, did we ever pot a ball since he shows you can get between 2* and 6* OB throw using pool balls, pool table, very short length with not showing where the cueball started but gee, those balls are deflecting. So how did we ever pot ANY balls at all if every shot was changing direction by up to 6*, maybe not enough to matter on a pool table though.

Secondly, as Dr. Dave proves up to 6*, how in hell are some of us here getting 15* (and possibly more)? You should stay within the boundaries of the proof provided by Dr. Dave. The pink Travis did could have possibly changed direction from OB throw more than 6* yet he says 15* at least! Could it be with RH side on the cueball and using aim-off to compensate for side that the cueball did curve a bit, maybe as much as 15*?

Firstly, your eyes, brain and muscle memory takes care of any adjustment that is required - hit a million balls and all that.

Secondly, you'll not hear me say 15 degrees, although i do think i get more than 6.