Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[travisbickle]

this is the first time iv watched this video all the way through and from halfway through its the best video to witness sit in full flow.

https://youtu.be/TRhs8Bit0ng?t=5m37s

as we see tel is clearly getting sit though says its curl/spin and seems somewhat baffled by it, but we can see the spinning cb as terry is throwing the ob from one side of the pocket to the other as he attempts to pot the black and hold the spot.


-

Yes Jason I agree.

This is the way vmax would play the shot also.
They are both aiming for correct BOB and missing and they are not getting/seeing it one single bit.
Very baffling.

[travisbickle]

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.

I'm sorry vmax but you are way off on this.
Maybe that's the way you & Tel play the shot, but it's definitely not the way I play it.
When trying to hold/kill the CB I never aim to hit BOB...never.

How do you think I can hold the CB on half ball pots and TD & probably you can't??
The reason is you're swerving onto the correct line and I'm not.
It's all very simple, how you don't see it I don't know.

[j6uk]

can you see bob?

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.
you said this yes but only happens on the swerve shot after the white has stopped spinning
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.
yes a good cue action and timing gives the best results
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.

this is the first time iv watched this video all the way through and from halfway through its the best video to witness sit in full flow.

https://youtu.be/TRhs8Bit0ng?t=5m37s

as we see tel is clearly getting sit though says its curl/spin and seems somewhat baffled by it, but we can see the spinning cb as terry is throwing the ob from one side of the pocket to the other as he attempts to pot the black and hold the spot.


-

[vmax]

There is so much more to SIT then potting balls that are not on.
This is what the two of you can't see

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.

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.

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.

[travisbickle]

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.

Tom.

These shots come up all the time, in every frame in fact.
It's not just about potting balls where you can't see the potting angle.

Try potting all 21 balls down the middle of the table in order (top to bottom) without using cushions, and using no side at all.
Then try the same exercise using sidespin.
Then tell me which is easier ok

[tomwalker147]

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.

[tomwalker147]

Nope. Just wondered what the hell you were on about, as ever.

That's rich.

[Ramon]

You are being a very sanctimonious twit Ramon and no one has made you the keeper of good manners on here.

lol , far from that!! Someone offered me to buy some courage many years ago . And I took his offer .

which I think is what you need to do these days . Find some courage in orde to act like a adult person and balance back.

So, i hope you visit some online stores and buy some, in the next few days.
Who knows you may start act like a coach again and we may learn something here?
For the sake of good old times!! :snooker:

[Terry Davidson]

I'm sorry you think like that.

I am also biased towards snooker, but whether that gives me the right to disrespect any kind of cue sport?
I doubt it.

You are being a very sanctimonious twit Ramon and no one has made you the keeper of good manners on here.

[Ramon]

What the heck are you on about Ramon? Pool of any sort on a 7ft table does not compare to the difficulty of snooker on a 12ft table. Hello Mr Big Shot has never mentioned his record at playing pool just his record of looking up instructional videos from the USA. My credibility is fine and I don't see how my behaviour is a 'shame' to snooker. I'll admit I am biased towards snooker though.

I'm sorry you think like that.

I am also biased towards snooker, but whether that gives me the right to disrespect any kind of cue sport?
I doubt it.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

touch a nerve Mr BS? You know pool, that game even pissed up blokes in bars can play half decent?

Nope. Just wondered what the hell you were on about, as ever.

[Terry Davidson]

if some one like my dear friend (Tom 147) talk like that , then at least i can undrstand* that.
Performing cue sport ( pool or snooker ) or any other sport for that matter , in high standard is not easy. .

You have damaged your credibility and your behavior at the moment is a shame to the game of snooker.
hopefully you learn some day to balance back and re-group.
*
*it's up to you !!

What the heck are you on about Ramon? Pool of any sort on a 7ft table does not compare to the difficulty of snooker on a 12ft table. Hello Mr Big Shot has never mentioned his record at playing pool just his record of looking up instructional videos from the USA. My credibility is fine and I don't see how my behaviour is a 'shame' to snooker. I'll admit I am biased towards snooker though.

[Ramon]

I'm almost certain Biggie plays on those massive 7ft Brfitish pool tables with the smaller balls and tight little pockets and a smaller cueball. Although he's never told us what he plays or how well he plays even that game. I think the main problem they have at that game is not the potting because it's so small but all the congestion with 15 balls scattered around mostly the top end of the table. I also think this is why Travis had to learn about side so quickly. And children can reach the bed of the table.

if some one like my dear friend (Tom 147) talk like that , then at least i can undrstand* that.
Performing cue sport ( pool or snooker ) or any other sport for that matter , in high standard is not easy. .

You have damaged your credibility and your behavior at the moment is a shame to the game of snooker.
hopefully you learn some day to balance back and re-group.
*
*it's up to you !!

[Terry Davidson]

touch a nerve Mr BS? You know pool, that game even pissed up blokes in bars can play half decent?

I'm almost certain Biggie plays on those massive 7ft Brfitish pool tables with the smaller balls and tight little pockets and a smaller cueball. Although he's never told us what he plays or how well he plays even that game. I think the main problem they have at that game is not the potting because it's so small but all the congestion with 15 balls scattered around mostly the top end of the table. I also think this is why Travis had to learn about side so quickly. And children can reach the bed of the table.

[tomwalker147]

Erm, silly little tables with massive bags?

WTF are you on about?

touch a nerve Mr BS? You know pool, that game even pissed up blokes in bars can play half decent?