Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[travisbickle]

The contact on the first video is enough to make the pot in the right hand side of the pocket, Ramon's screen shots are once again selective, I watched it frame per frame and froze it at point of contact when the cue ball almost obscured the red and that's the line the red was on, second one swerved too much, unlike the Wilson effort that didn't swerve enough but kicked the red into the left hand side of the pocket.

But your grans examples aren't straight though are they travis, so not looking exactly down the line of aim so cannot see the swerve on the cue ball.
Either your gran has dementia or you're not telling her the right shot to play because you know she can't make them.

Now tell her to set them up again, dead straight, pink about 5mm in the way and play shot one plain ball, shot two with left hand side and shot three with right hand side.

If plain ball is able to make the same contact as right hand side, and left hand side, after compensating aiming for the initial throw to the right is be able to make the same contact with the red as plain ball and right hand side, then your gran will prove to me that the cue ball doesn't swerve at low pace and a shiny new cue will be on it's way to her.

And don't tell me that it isn't worth her playing these shots as with two of them she can't pot the ball, we know that, it's an exercise to prove or disprove cue ball swerve at low pace, so if she ducks out we'll all know your gran can't play for toffee, or maybe she can but didn't know how it was done.

This cue offer is open to everyone on the forum, play these three shots on a snooker table and film them and prove me wrong, not only will you get a shiny new cue that you might love or hate and sell on, but I'll also worship at the alter of Dr. Dave and his all seeing 1000 frames per second eye and apologise profusely to biggie.

Remember I'm looking for the same contact point on the OB as with right hand side not the pot.

Nothing worse then someone who can't admit they are wrong.
The whole point of this thread was you trying to disprove side induced throw.
Now someone has proved you wrong (not that there was any doubt in the first place) you move the goalposts lol

[vmax]

Nothing worse then someone who can't admit they are wrong.

What about someone who shows a video at an angle that cannot show what he knows is happening, refuses to carry out a simple exercise to show what he knows is happening simply because he's afraid to lose face and then gets his gran to take the blame

[Terry Davidson]

Throw is no more difficult than using stun screw or side - just another skill to master.

Says the guy who plays on small tables

[matthias]

How many top amateurs & pro's waste their time on this kind of thing, you guys think?

I think they just know how balls react trough 1000's of hours of practice, never giving one thought or a rats *** about the science behind it.

but I could be wrong

[travisbickle]

What about someone who shows a video at an angle that cannot show what he knows is happening, refuses to carry out a simple exercise to show what he knows is happening simply because he's afraid to lose face and then gets his gran to take the blame

I've repeated myself about 5 times on this, all you need to know is on the first vid. Absolutely no swerve.
Ramon's still pics are spot on by the way.
If you think the red would've potted in the right side of the pocket that would explain why you missed so any balls in your line up.
Either that or you're a distant relation to comical Ali lol

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Says the guy who plays on small tables

Lol. And????

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Nothing worse then someone who can't admit they are wrong.
The whole point of this thread was you trying to disprove side induced throw.
Now someone has proved you wrong (not that there was any doubt in the first place) you move the goalposts lol

And he has the sheer nerve to go on about saving face! He is the gift that keeps giving.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

What about someone who shows a video at an angle that cannot show what he knows is happening, refuses to carry out a simple exercise to show what he knows is happening simply because he's afraid to lose face and then gets his gran to take the blame

Where do you think coriolis got his results wrong in 1830 mate? I'd be intrigued to know your thoughts on where you feel the physics breaks down.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

How many top amateurs & pro's waste their time on this kind of thing, you guys think?

I think they just know how balls react trough 1000's of hours of practice, never giving one thought or a rats *** about the science behind it.

but I could be wrong

Ok, and your point is?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I've repeated myself about 5 times on this, all you need to know is on the first vid. Absolutely no swerve.
Ramon's still pics are spot on by the way.
If you think the red would've potted in the right side of the pocket that would explain why you missed so any balls in your line up.
Either that or you're a distant relation to comical Ali lol

Vmax doesn't even realise he pivots so i wouldn't put too much faith in what he sees mate. What he sees ain't what's actually happening. He can't even see the throw he gets on his own shots, let alone other's.

[itsnoteasy]

How many top amateurs & pro's waste their time on this kind of thing, you guys think?

I think they just know how balls react trough 1000's of hours of practice, never giving one thought or a rats *** about the science behind it.

but I could be wrong

For me you are spot on, you only have to know how to play it, the only reason the science stuff is discussed is to prove the theory behind what's happening on the shots because some just won't believe it, as it turns out they refuse to believe the science stuff as well lol.

[Catch 22]

https://youtu.be/pdlbCohmiCw
https://youtu.be/hz_uP_JlpUs

Pause on contact. First vid nowhere near correct BOB contact.
Second vid is exactly the same as Wilson's shot minus the kick or the pot :biggrin-new:

No argument there ....that first video is a perfect example .

A blind man on a galloping horse could see that when the CB makes contact with the OB ,it's lined up to hit the top cushion but yet still makes the pot .

[pottr]

This one's still going on?

I thought the forum reached a consensus of two points?

1 - The laws of physics dictate it must happen, so it happens.
2 - It's rarely applicable within snooker/pool and in those rare instances the hope of controlling such a shot is virtually non existent.

No one is saying anything new... I'd rather worry about where my eyes were looking than this

[Ramon]

No argument there ....that first video is a perfect example .

A blind man on a galloping horse could see that when the CB makes contact with the OB ,it's lined up to hit the top cushion but yet still makes the pot .

How about spin transfer freedom on TSF, then ???

Good post btw ..

[itsnoteasy]

Just a bit of fun, but I came across this fella throwing the ball using spin, don't know who he is


Here is the pic just after contact as you can see the balls still aren't lined up to our left knuckle as all the throw effect hasn't taken place, but any swerve has to have happened as it's a fraction of a second after contact.

where to upload images