Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

Black won't re spot so I held the spot. You said I would get nowhere near.
Try holding the yellow using check side and stick a video up to show us

The black spot wasn't held as CB moved over 2in

[travisbickle]

The black spot wasn't held as CB moved over 2in

It was, are you blind!!!

[j6uk]

Nope. Maybe in the Canadians video. I'll try and get one up but I'm here by myself so maybe when my practice partner shows up in a week or so.

would you mind putting that canadians video up?

[Terry Davidson]

It was, are you blind!!!

OK, no problem. Looked again in slow motion but I can't see the black spot so it's very hard to tell. I thought you were going to replace the black with the cueball.

[Terry Davidson]

would you mind putting that canadians video up?

I don't have it as it was recorded by the CBSA during my semi-final I think. Someone on TSF found it recently (LittleReggie I think) somewhere but I don't know where.

[travisbickle]

OK, no problem. Looked again in slow motion but I can't see the black spot so it's very hard to tell. I thought you were going to replace the black with the cueball.

The black was on the spot when I played the shot, where else would it be?
Put your finger on the right hand side of the black and you can clearly see the spot was held.

[travisbickle]

OK, I'm sure you think this shows how everyone has to hold the cueball, but when I say HOLD, I mean to actually hold the spot, maybe not exactly on it but the CB not moving far enough so the spot is held. Your cueball drifted on another 3" or more. On the j6 black you potted the black plain ball so no SIT there.

I can achieve exactly the same result that you did by using slow screw with no side. Just to see for yourself, (no video) put up a 7/8-black pot and hit it with drag and inside side (RH side in your video) and see if you can actually HOLD the spot and I bet you do. I couldn't do it with a 3/4-black as j6 asked but perhaps he has the stroke to do it.

Maybe it was a matter of mis-communications and you not knowing when I said hold I meant no further movement on the cueball, but I thought I was clear that the spot had to be held.

J6 black was with left hand side, you can clearly see it didn't pot. Freeze the vid on contact and it's nowhere near BOB as that would be impossible!

[jonny66]

The only interesting thing about this is that it can counteract the throw of the cue ball when playing with side. That and all the other things, very difficult though.

You have to strike the cue ball sweetly.

That sentence could replace almost every technique related thread on this site. It's impossible to explain but you know when you do it. That hasn't stopped some people from making/wasting a lot of money and time trying to explain it. The only coach worth seeing is Yoda.

[alabadi]

its this tel

Thanks J6, this is what I was on about exactly. It shows it clearly, I don't think anyone can debate this . The red in the way is clearly stopping hitting the natural potting angle . And clearly u can't hit that . So by hitting it thicker with opposite side the OB would travel turns it in.

MANY THANKS

[vmax]

Nothing wrong with Jason's videos however the tolerance in the set-up is very tight. I wanted to see the shot from the pocket not having the cueball hidden. When I tried these shots on my table yesterday I was able to accomplish them right up until I actually covered BOB (to the edge of the pocket) and then no matter what I did to generate some SIT and pot the ball I couldn't do it. Of course you can say my skills aren't good enough but I believe they are.

I just did exactly the same this afternoon Tel, I even had the red touching the black and could pot it using right hand side. I then placed the cue ball up against the black so that BOB was about a 1/4 inch outside the far jaw, placed a red touching both balls so that to contact BOB would make the black 1/4 inch outside the far jaw with a simultaneous hit of black and red, therefore if I make contact just before the simultaneous hit I should be able to throw the black into the pocket off the far jaw.
Couldn't do it, had about twenty tries, and seeing as I could easily play the shot j6 played I think my technique is adequate enough.

Another shot I tried was to place all 15 reds inside the triangle to give it some weight so that it wouldn't move.
I then lined up the cue ball against and touching the side of the triangle, so it couldn't swerve, with the pink adjacent to it and touching it so that it couldn't deflect, with the black just outside the end of the triangle in a straight line to the pocket.

Played the shot with left hand side so that the pink stopped the natural deflection to the right and the cue ball hugged the side of the triangle because it couldn't swerve to the left, and it contacted the black dead full ball and it went straight into the centre of the pocket.

Conclusion, with deflection and swerve taken out of the picture all there should have been left was the side induced throw but it obviously didn't happen as the black went centre pocket just as it would have plain ball.

Jesus wept (again).

This would be much easier to understand if people stopped mangling different concepts.

1. Every shot at an angle has CIT. Unavoidable, the brain adjusts automatically, nothing to see here.
2. Every shot with side produces *some* side transfer. This does nothing until the OB hits a cushion. Then, the spin on the OB either narrows or widens the rebound angle.
3. Every shot with side produces *some* SIT. This is what we are discussing.


If people could stick to SIT as one single entity, it would be a lot easier to understand. Just as screwback is a single reaction when contact is made, so is SIT.

If SIT is real then there's a gear effect and everything is connected, and if you think that there is 'some' side transfer every time side is used take a look at my video again and watch the balls I make centre pocket on a full ball contact where, according to you there can be no CIT. The stripe remains upright and doesn't rotate to the side despite being struck by a spinning cue ball that IMO has deflected and swerved onto the full ball contact, so not travelling straight and therefore according to you there should be CIT.

So it's either CIT or SIT but can't be proven to be both unless by some kind of magic SIT also only happens on a cut shot, which would be incredibly convenient for Dr. Dave and his acolytes.

Like Terry I can't the results that the bloke in the Dr. Dave videos gets with SIT, but then I don't pivot like he does despite you thinking that I do, and I don't get the same results he does with CIT on stun shots. Top, stun, screw and the line of aim is the same for me, it only changes with side and then I compensate my aiming to allow for that.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I just did exactly the same this afternoon Tel, I even had the red touching the black and could pot it using right hand side. I then placed the cue ball up against the black so that BOB was about a 1/4 inch outside the far jaw, placed a red touching both balls so that to contact BOB would make the black 1/4 inch outside the far jaw with a simultaneous hit of black and red, therefore if I make contact just before the simultaneous hit I should be able to throw the black into the pocket off the far jaw.
Couldn't do it, had about twenty tries, and seeing as I could easily play the shot j6 played I think my technique is adequate enough.

Another shot I tried was to place all 15 reds inside the triangle to give it some weight so that it wouldn't move.
I then lined up the cue ball against and touching the side of the triangle, so it couldn't swerve, with the pink adjacent to it and touching it so that it couldn't deflect, with the black just outside the end of the triangle in a straight line to the pocket.

Played the shot with left hand side so that the pink stopped the natural deflection to the right and the cue ball hugged the side of the triangle because it couldn't swerve to the left, and it contacted the black dead full ball and it went straight into the centre of the pocket.

Conclusion, with deflection and swerve taken out of the picture all there should have been left was the side induced throw but it obviously didn't happen as the black went centre pocket just as it would have plain ball.




If SIT is real then there's a gear effect and everything is connected, and if you think that there is 'some' side transfer every time side is used take a look at my video again and watch the balls I make centre pocket on a full ball contact where, according to you there can be no CIT. The stripe remains upright and doesn't rotate to the side despite being struck by a spinning cue ball that IMO has deflected and swerved onto the full ball contact, so not travelling straight and therefore according to you there should be CIT.

So it's either CIT or SIT but can't be proven to be both unless by some kind of magic SIT also only happens on a cut shot, which would be incredibly convenient for Dr. Dave and his acolytes.

Like Terry I can't the results that the bloke in the Dr. Dave videos gets with SIT, but then I don't pivot like he does despite you thinking that I do, and I don't get the same results he does with CIT on stun shots. Top, stun, screw and the line of aim is the same for me, it only changes with side and then I compensate my aiming to allow for that.

You guys are bananas. Incredibly convenient for dr dave? WTF? Tell me, which part of Coriolis' equations do you think he got wrong? He predated dr dave by quite some time, you know.

You'll never discuss the physics, will you?

And tell me, just for my amusement, which of the other 750 experiments and explanations on dr dave's website do you believe he's got wrong? The one on screw back? The one on top spin? Swerve? Deflection? What?

Wouldn't it be an incredible coincidence for the only one to be wrong the ONE thing you personally were unaware of?

So, go find me some other examples. There must be some, right? Or is this all a giant conspiracy against little old you?

[OmaMiesta]

What am I missing here? How are we still arguing this. Why are we talking about 1/4 and 1/8 angles? The video j6 showed clearly shows an angle that is covered and does not pot naturally. He then proceeds to pot it with the use of side....Wether its 1/4 or 1/8 is irrelevant to the fact that it does not pot plain ball. How can this be explained by deflection/swerve when the potting angle is still covered....at best the cb can only swerve to miss the covering ball which would then hit the ob too thick and cause a miss.

[rimmer10]

Maybe it's time to have a vote?
a for j6, Travis and biggie
b for Terry and vmax
c for I don't know
I'm gonna kick it off with a big fat a

[travisbickle]

would you mind putting that canadians video up?

There are a load on YouTube Jason. Looks mostly down the middle of the CB from the little bits I've seen. Very basic snooker
https://youtu.be/c3uVfYww3Do
Here you go.

[Terry Davidson]

Maybe it's time to have a vote?
a for j6, Travis and biggie
b for Terry and vmax
c for I don't know
I'm gonna kick it off with a big fat a

I will be posting a video which proves either SIT doesn't exist or else there's not enough of it to alter the path of the object ball. My thoughts on Jason's video is he didn't have the BOB to the side jaw covered but in my video it will be and I accurately described the set-up of the black/red and I agree that is doesn't matter what quarter it is, just that BOB is covered.