Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[j6uk]

The thread is going absolutely nowhere. I can understand both sides of the coin and have done so a long while back but at the same time it does not matter one bit what side of that fence your on because both sides claim they can make the shots in question. Purely its a ego thing then.

I agree with Tel about the disrespect and names his been called. Pretty cringe worthy guys..

its not logically or reasonably possible to agree with both sides of the argument, and its not practically possible as i and others have taken the time to show video evidence.

no harm in banter between gown ups but i agree theres no need for insults, false accusations and stirrers all are are as bad as each other.



-

[j6uk]

The proof is in the pudding. Side most definitely imparts on to the object ball, altering its path.... If the cue ball was just swerving from deflection onto the potting angle, it would hit the red and the black would never go. The fact that Jason showed the potting angle is covered with the red is 100 percent proof that sidespin transfer is real in my books.

More of this logic please. Your vid potting that black with the red making the angle impossible said it all for me. Not sure there is anything left to prove. You can't swerve into the black with the red in that position. Enjoyed the thread but you've nailed it as far as I am concerned. Cheers.

Got to agree crafty. Cheers for video Jason, it's plain to see the red is blocking the natural angle of the pot.

thanks lads, i am now thinking about turn it in pt3. i would also like to expand on what our terry rightly talks about when side on the white does actually make contact with bob. hopefully we can get this conversation moving and expanded..





-

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I haven't talked to Nic but I know he doesn't like to offend anyone and when I was over there about 8 years ago we did experiments on his match table, trying to induce spin or get some impact throw. At the time neither one of us had heard of SIT so I don't know what Nic believes in now.

If I said CIT was due to friction it must have been a typo. I believe if SIT exists then it has something to do with the friction of the cloth on the OB holding it in place however as you say if you use more power SIT disappears for some reason. I haven't sorted that reason out to somewhere logical that I can believe. To me, more power and consequently more spin should get you more SIT but it doesn't.

Is it cold yet over there? When everything freezes, try my brush experiment. See what happens and report back.

Too much spin (and hence cue ball speed) doesn't give time for friction to take effect. This is not dissimilar to a swerve shot - more speed and spin doesn't equate to a bigger swerve.

[throtts]

its not logically or reasonably possible to agree with both sides of the argument, and its not practically possible as i and others have taken the time to show video evidence.

no harm in banter between gown ups but i agree theres no need for insults, false accusations and stirrers all are are as bad as each other.

-

Hi Jason,

No, I do not ""agree"" with both theories. I just understand both theories. If a player can play the shot then I think most players do not care about how its happened. Also, yourself taking time out to do the vids is very appreciated too.

Banter, yes, but there has been more blatant insults imo which is school playground BS.

I am one of these guys who can't be bothered to go on and on with a disagreement. I am the type to agree to disagree and then sit down and have a cuppa with them.

Peace and happy days to all then :snooker:

[vmax]

Could you clarify the difference between the two? I was under the impression that spin induced throw is caused by the transferring of spin from cb to ob?

That's my take on the subject as well. If a gear effect is happening at slow speed then side must be transfered to the OB. I understand that too fast a pace and the contact time between the balls means that there will be less friction, but in my video I proved that there was no spin transfer on a full ball contact at low speed, yet there is supposed to be on a cut shot, yet impact throw is supposed to be what happens on a cut shot and is shown by Dr. Dave to induce a tiny amount of spin, and we're supposed to differentiate between the two when the cue ball is spinning, just how is that done ?

[j6uk]

imo in a nutshell: the cb will push on impact of tip played with side, and the ob on impact from the spinning cb will push. and the variables of result will depend on distance between ob cb, pace, high low center etc on the cb, maybe conditions of equipment table cloth tip cue.. and, undoubtedly how well the shot is executed.

[Terry Davidson]

Is it cold yet over there? When everything freezes, try my brush experiment. See what happens and report back.

Too much spin (and hence cue ball speed) doesn't give time for friction to take effect. This is not dissimilar to a swerve shot - more speed and spin doesn't equate to a bigger swerve.

Your priceless comparison of why SIT disappears with more spin and power was totally bogus Biggy. You said trying to make my way across an ice sheet (very smooth) with a broom (coarse) in no way compares to two polished billiard balls, both smooth. Try this on for size, trying to get off a sheet of ice using a broom handle with a small sheet of ice attached to it. You'd have to wait until the ice melted and swim ashore.

What I find on this debate is the SIT supporters are very fast to feel slighted if anyone questions their faith but their explanations and comparisons are SO WEAK. We have sheet of ice and broom comparison to explain why SIT disappears with more power and spin which just begs belief. Then we have Travis showing how he gets SIT when bending around the pink or potting the pink but he can't explain how he gets that same SIT when the side has worn off the cueball. Logic dictates no spin = no SIT. Then we have Jason who puts up some impressive shots which most of us have been using for decades and his video doesn't prove much because we're down to a tolerance of millimeters and it's too hard to tell in a video. Jason! When you set up a shot tell us exactly how because you aren't shooting from the pocket. In your video check where the black/red plant is pointed. For a true 1/4-ball is has to be somewhere between the green pocket and side cushion between green and middle pocket. I couldn't really tell where yours was lined up. I tried it lined up to the green pocket but it was too easy.

Travis never shows his SIT justifying shots from behind the pocket and neither did Jason who actually hides the cueball with his body when making the shots. Put the camera behind the shots so those of use who don't believe can actually see proof we can't argue with.

I would hate to be a defendant on trial with you lot defending me, as I would surely hang and go to SIT hell. Put up a shot where it actually shows without any doubt 15* of SIT if you want me to change my mind.

Oh yes, it's going to be 82F or 27C over here today because I'm in SOUTHERN Ontario which is very close to the tropics (if you know your geography)lol. No sheets of ice yet on our lakes, sorry.

[Terry Davidson]

thanks for not saying i have cus it wouldnt be true.. but yeah the level of tsf coaching seems to be taking a dip, hope it dosent go any further.
i will stay away for this part of the forum if straight forward ideas backed up by logic, reason and video evidence cant be grasped

I just don't agree with the logical conclusions being reached by the SIT fans. Why does it disappear using more speed? To me logic says more energy would be transferred. How does Travis get SIT effects when the spin had died on his cueball?

I'm not Mr. Spock but we have 2 different sets of 'logic' here and it is possible there is some truth in both of them. I believe Travis' shot is one where it's the angle of the curve on the cueball however if someone can put up a video of your shots Jason there might be a chance of proving this on a snooker table and not on a 7 or 8ft pool table with slow cloth, more dense balls and pockets the size of Montana. OK, so maybe I have less respect for a guy proving his theories on a kid's toy table than a man's 12ft table.

The other problem I have, and maybe it's my cue action but I can't get the amount of side Travis and Biggy claim. For instance using a level cue and extreme side with drag I can only get about 3" of swerve. Of course I can get more by raising the butt. Biggy said place pink on spot and cueball 2" behind it and use maximum side and have pink just reach the cushion. He said it should be about 9" on a 9ft shot. Well, I tried it and couldn't get any more that about an inch and that was the roll in my table to the right. Then I realized even with the balls that close together you have to compensate for the side and when I did that I could get anywhere from zero to about 2ft on either side, anywhere I wanted actually. Do you see my problem with some of your 'proof'?

[j6uk]

Your priceless comparison of why SIT disappears with more spin and power was totally bogus Biggy. You said trying to make my way across an ice sheet (very smooth) with a broom (coarse) in no way compares to two polished billiard balls, both smooth. Try this on for size, trying to get off a sheet of ice using a broom handle with a small sheet of ice attached to it. You'd have to wait until the ice melted and swim ashore.

What I find on this debate is the SIT supporters are very fast to feel slighted if anyone questions their faith but their explanations and comparisons are SO WEAK. We have sheet of ice and broom comparison to explain why SIT disappears with more power and spin which just begs belief. Then we have Travis showing how he gets SIT when bending around the pink or potting the pink but he can't explain how he gets that same SIT when the side has worn off the cueball. Logic dictates no spin = no SIT. Then we have Jason who puts up some impressive shots which most of us have been using for decades
if you have been playing these shots for decades why are you scratching your head in how the shot looks like (never mind works) on screen? you dont recognize such familiar shot situations?
and his video doesn't prove much because we're down to a tolerance of millimeters and it's too hard to tell in a video. Jason! When you set up a shot tell us exactly how because you aren't shooting from the pocket. In your video check where the black/red plant is pointed. For a true 1/4-ball is has to be somewhere between the green pocket and side cushion between green and middle pocket. I couldn't really tell where yours was lined up. I tried it lined up to the green pocket but it was too easy.

Travis never shows his SIT justifying shots from behind the pocket and neither did Jason who actually hides the cueball with his body when making the shots. Put the camera behind the shots so those of use who don't believe can actually see proof we can't argue with.

I would hate to be a defendant on trial with you lot defending me, as I would surely hang and go to SIT hell. Put up a shot where it actually shows without any doubt 15* of SIT if you want me to change my mind.

Oh yes, it's going to be 82F or 27C over here today because I'm in SOUTHERN Ontario which is very close to the tropics (if you know your geography)lol. No sheets of ice yet on our lakes, sorry.

it dont add up. the long posts proving superior denial has lost all its steam.

[Terry Davidson]

imo in a nutshell: the cb will push on impact of tip played with side, and the ob on impact from the spinning cb will push. and the variables of result will depend on distance between ob cb, pace, high low center etc on the cb, maybe conditions of equipment table cloth tip cue.. and, undoubtedly how well the shot is executed.

Surely that's Impact Throw or CIT?

[Terry Davidson]

it dont add up. the long posts proving superior denial has lost all its steam.

To answer your question it's simply because when you set them up they're like trick shots and a difference of 1mm can change the ability of the shot to be potted. Also because no one puts the camera over the pocket except pottr.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Your priceless comparison of why SIT disappears with more spin and power was totally bogus Biggy. You said trying to make my way across an ice sheet (very smooth) with a broom (coarse) in no way compares to two polished billiard balls, both smooth. Try this on for size, trying to get off a sheet of ice using a broom handle with a small sheet of ice attached to it. You'd have to wait until the ice melted and swim ashore.

What I find on this debate is the SIT supporters are very fast to feel slighted if anyone questions their faith but their explanations and comparisons are SO WEAK. We have sheet of ice and broom comparison to explain why SIT disappears with more power and spin which just begs belief. Then we have Travis showing how he gets SIT when bending around the pink or potting the pink but he can't explain how he gets that same SIT when the side has worn off the cueball. Logic dictates no spin = no SIT. Then we have Jason who puts up some impressive shots which most of us have been using for decades and his video doesn't prove much because we're down to a tolerance of millimeters and it's too hard to tell in a video. Jason! When you set up a shot tell us exactly how because you aren't shooting from the pocket. In your video check where the black/red plant is pointed. For a true 1/4-ball is has to be somewhere between the green pocket and side cushion between green and middle pocket. I couldn't really tell where yours was lined up. I tried it lined up to the green pocket but it was too easy.

Travis never shows his SIT justifying shots from behind the pocket and neither did Jason who actually hides the cueball with his body when making the shots. Put the camera behind the shots so those of use who don't believe can actually see proof we can't argue with.

I would hate to be a defendant on trial with you lot defending me, as I would surely hang and go to SIT hell. Put up a shot where it actually shows without any doubt 15* of SIT if you want me to change my mind.

Oh yes, it's going to be 82F or 27C over here today because I'm in SOUTHERN Ontario which is very close to the tropics (if you know your geography)lol. No sheets of ice yet on our lakes, sorry.

You're either deluded or in denial. So far, you have been presented with:

1. The physics at play when a spinning object hits a stationary one. This has been known since 1835. You demanded proof of this but now, all of a sudden, you don't have time to look into it properly.
2. Conclusive video proof and clear explanation from Dr Dave et al.
3. Conclusive video proof fromJ6 and Travis on a snooker table.
4. Conclusive video proof from Mark Selby and keiron wilson with the camera angles you demand.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, they say. Well quite. You just continue to believe in the snooker fairies doing such things sight unseen, and we'll continue to believe the science, the evidence and the facts. Then we're all happy.

[jonny66]

Anyone got a link to some live streamed American Football?

[Terry Davidson]

I have been guilty in the past to which I've apologized directly.
But I don't think anyone has shown poor form against TD recently, certainly not me.
I've have been questioning his use of side when trying to hold the CB that's all.

Every player worth his salt should know it's running side without a cushion.
Only time I would use check side to hold would be if I was coming off a cushion.
So if he doesn't understand that how does he understand throw??
So really it's TD spreading misinformation to others on the forum, which he is totally against ironically.

He has said far worse to me about my game in the last few days thinking he was in the right and getting all cocky (not that I'm bothered, it's a forum, there should be a little banter). But TD simply doesn't like it when you question his knowledge on the subject and cries wolf

He has stated in the last few months that he hardly uses side when not hitting a cushion, so is clearly not an expert on the subject.

Just because he is a qualified coach doesn't mean I have to agree with him because I simply don't.
If he was my coach and come out with this nonsense I would demand my money back!

Where's your video because it should provide proof of using running side to hold the cueball and something I can agree with. pottr held his with inside side and i can hold on my table here with inside side but can't with outside. throtts apparently holds with outside side as you do. So there is some disagreement on this point.

I have never said I was absolutely correct at all as I always leave room for the other side of the argument. Your statements didn't make logical sense to me because of the curve always put on the cueball with side unless it's high power. Jason's video made sense to me and I've played those shots for a long time and I can't remember when I was shown them it was that long ago. (Discounting your 'old' comment)

[j6uk]

I just don't agree with the logical conclusions being reached by the SIT fans. Why does it disappear using more speed? To me logic says more energy would be transferred. How does Travis get SIT effects when the spin had died on his cueball?
stun would be a factor

I'm not Mr. Spock but we have 2 different sets of 'logic' here and it is possible there is some truth in both of them. I believe Travis' shot is one where it's the angle of the curve on the cueball however if someone can put up a video of your shots Jason there might be a chance of proving this on a snooker table and not on a 7 or 8ft pool table with slow cloth, more dense balls and pockets the size of Montana. OK, so maybe I have less respect for a guy proving his theories on a kid's toy table than a man's 12ft table.
yeah maybe

The other problem I have, and maybe it's my cue action could be but I can't get the amount of side Travis and Biggy claim from what i have seen of you your timing is out so you dont seem to generate any rotation. For instance using a level cue and extreme side with drag I can only get about 3" of swerve. Of course I can get more by raising the butt. Biggy said place pink on spot and cueball 2" behind it and use maximum side and have pink just reach the cushion. He said it should be about 9" on a 9ft shot. Well, I tried it and couldn't get any more that about an inch and that was the roll in my table to the right. Then I realized even with the balls that close together you have to compensate for the side and when I did that I could get anywhere from zero to about 2ft on either side, anywhere I wanted actually. Do you see my problem with some of your 'proof'?

pm me tel if you wanna get into any of it.