Terry's Videos Showing SIT or No SIT?

[travisbickle]

tel you keeps putting in this appeal that the black goes, you can pot it, and its not 1/4 ball covered.. i thought you were into the sit thing a few posts back but that it was a chalk gear change on bob under certain conditions so, not quite sure whats going on now.

Give him a chance Jason. He has only studied this for 3 days

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I have placed some people on my 'ignore' list to not have to see all their insulting and harassing comments. With all the spare time freed up I have spent the past 3 days of quiet researching SIT. I did find it exists under very specific and finite conditions and in the end I was able to get about an additional 5-6* of SIT by setting up these ideal conditions.

When I set up my ideal conditions I was able to cut the black into the top cushion 2" before the pocket jaw while using my set-up for the balls and using the Travis set-up I was able to get a further 3* or so. So much for Travis getting his measly 2* or so and slopping the ball in. As for Hello, Mr. Big Shot he couldn't even get anything because he never tried. I still don't believe Judd Trump pivots his cue to get side either. He says things just to get people worked up.

However since I'm monumentally ignorant, stupid and have a rotten cue action and am a poor substandard player who somehow managed to IMPROVE on things I'm not going to post a video nor tell anyone how I achieved this feat because they'll never believe me, even with a video and will figure I've rigged the game or have been 'cute' (which is one for you Jason). I get disgusted by people who push something and then attack people who disagree with them so the very least you should do is fully research the subject
before you preach which was not the case here.

After my experiments I found SIT to be very limited, not getting any with good playing conditions and then maybe around 2* or so when I lowered the standard and totally useless to the average match player because it doesn't come up much either but fun to try out in a knock-about with your mates. Sit can be increased dramatically by playing with dirty balls, slow and dirty cloth and even a pit in the black spot which slightly resists the black leaving the spot. When I tried my worse conditions I cut the black to where it hit the top cushion 2" BEFORE the top pocket near jaw.

If I'm feeling generous I MAY put up a video and show how it's done but right now I'm happy I improved on what you two brought up as established gospel, problem is it wasn't the WHOLE truth was it? Ramon has also p*ssed me off for all the pithy and sarcastic remarks (when I could understand what he was saying). Yes Ramon, being a coach entails having the smarts to fully understand something before you pass it on to students as established gospel but you have to give the coach some time to understand it. I do NOT believe SIT is something useful which can be used by snooker players and I do NOT believe it is what makes an object ball which has an intervening ball in the way with some distance between all 3 balls even a small one like what Travis did. I can't prove this because I don't have a hi-speed camera but it's what I believe.

Oh!

http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...t=Trump+pivots

[Terry Davidson]

tel you keeps putting in this appeal that the black goes, you can pot it, and its not 1/4 ball covered.. i thought you were into the sit thing a few posts back but that it was a chalk gear change on bob under certain conditions so, not quite sure whats going on now.

It's not an appeal unless it's an appeal to your good senses. It's really very simple Jason. As I said in my post (did you read all of it?) I reached these conclusions (Travis - I'M NOT STATING THESE AS FACTS, JUST WHAT CONCLUSIONS I CAME TO AFTER CAREFUL OBSERVATION AND TESTING):

1. SIT happens under specific conditions and is helped by high humidity and/or chalk and dust and a slower cloth.
2. Conditions favourable for kicks are good for using SIT or gear effect because I believe this thing is a mini-kick, but a well controlled one that is expected.
3. For the first shot in your first video there is no need for SIT to help pot the ball, just use RH side and play it normally but not too hard. When I first set up your shot as I understood it from the screen shot I was able to make it plain ball but I thought that might not be right as a player with your experience should be able to tell a 1/4-ball. Everyone disagreed with my assessment of how much was covering the black, even my fellow Canadian. (I will have to address this at our next tournament)
4. It appears I was wrong because what you set up was nearer 1/8th-ball when I measured it. The nay-sayers (perhaps including yourself) will say 'Terry must be blind that's obviously more than 1/4-ball'. Well it ain't. This is why I say everyone sees what they want to see and it's usually in line with their own preconceived views.
5. Well then measure the damned thing on your screen with calipers (or is it caliphers?) (Damn, checked Oxford Dict and it's 'callipers', now I know)
6. In conditions favourable to SIT you stand a chance of over-cooking the shot and straightening it too much which is no big deal on a pool table but could cost the shot in snooker. That says to me unless you're a master at it like Travis then don't use it in a match. (Travis doesn't play matches anyway)
7. Set up your shot again and play it with RH side at medium pace and I'm positive you can make it as it doesn't need SIT at all because BOB is not hidden enough.
8. Then set up Travis's shot or my shot which both require SIT in order to slop into the pocket although Travis' set-up is close to the edge (expect comment from Travis).
9. Neither are easy shots but I figure you have the skill level to pot both. It took me awhile to pot the Travis shot and I never did pot mine until I added those conditions which help SIT to work and then I OVER-STRAIGHTENED the damn thing a couple of times. (Couldn't believe my eyes!)

Is that clear enuff now or do you need further clarification?

Please post a video of you potting both the Travis shot and my shot and then I will post a video showing the extreme SIT I achieved so I can crush your ego with snooker dexterity and aplomb

[snari]

maybe a players cue action and timing can minimize kicks as well as help a player to be more successful at turning in these kind of shots?

This is possibly the best answer.

[RunningSide]

I wonder what I did wrong in my SIT video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe8u749-60g

I tried my best to do the set up as Terry described. When I started, the set up looked impossible to me. I was very surprised when the OB dropped in first time (had three succeeded pots before making the video). 20 cm more distance between cue ball and OB made the pot impossible for me (practiced that about half an hour at previous night before this video shot - next day I suddenly understood that only way for me to make the pot is to shorten the travel of CB to maintain enough spinning at that low pace shot). My cloth is Hainsworth Precision, dirty yes, but still fast. The balls used in video are Aramith TC.

[j6uk]

I wonder what I did wrong in my SIT video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe8u749-60g

I tried my best to do the set up as Terry described. When I started, the set up looked impossible to me. I was very surprised when the OB dropped in first time (had three succeeded pots before making the video). 20 cm more distance between cue ball and OB made the pot impossible for me (practiced that about half an hour at previous night before this video shot - next day I suddenly understood that only way for me to make the pot is to shorten the travel of CB to maintain enough spinning at that low pace shot). My cloth is Hainsworth Precision, dirty yes, but still fast. The balls used in video are Aramith TC.

yep thats the bingo moment.. often in practice with all the lineups, max lines, sequential lines, max sequence without touching other reds etc. these shots will pop up when you get too close to your work and you gotta steer your way out of it.. and i found better conditions better responses


-

[Ramon]

I wonder what I did wrong in my SIT video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe8u749-60g

I tried my best to do the set up as Terry described. When I started, the set up looked impossible to me. I was very surprised when the OB dropped in first time (had three succeeded pots before making the video). 20 cm more distance between cue ball and OB made the pot impossible for me (practiced that about half an hour at previous night before this video shot - next day I suddenly understood that only way for me to make the pot is to shorten the travel of CB to maintain enough spinning at that low pace shot). My cloth is Hainsworth Precision, dirty yes, but still fast. The balls used in video are Aramith TC.

Great vid ,
I could'nt agree more with J6 !!


Just one off the topic point !!

It would be nice if you consider to get all those stuff off the table and treat the snooker table with more respect ? please !!

[j6uk]

It's not an appeal unless it's an appeal to your good senses. It's really very simple Jason. As I said in my post (did you read all of it?) I reached these conclusions (Travis - I'M NOT STATING THESE AS FACTS, JUST WHAT CONCLUSIONS I CAME TO AFTER CAREFUL OBSERVATION AND TESTING):

1. SIT happens under specific conditions and is helped by high humidity and/or chalk and dust and a slower cloth.
2. Conditions favourable for kicks are good for using SIT or gear effect because I believe this thing is a mini-kick, but a well controlled one that is expected.
3. For the first shot in your first video there is no need for SIT to help pot the ball, just use RH side and play it normally but not too hard. When I first set up your shot as I understood it from the screen shot I was able to make it plain ball but I thought that might not be right as a player with your experience should be able to tell a 1/4-ball. Everyone disagreed with my assessment of how much was covering the black, even my fellow Canadian. (I will have to address this at our next tournament)
4. It appears I was wrong because what you set up was nearer 1/8th-ball when I measured it. The nay-sayers (perhaps including yourself) will say 'Terry must be blind that's obviously more than 1/4-ball'. Well it ain't. This is why I say everyone sees what they want to see and it's usually in line with their own preconceived views.
5. Well then measure the damned thing on your screen with calipers (or is it caliphers?) (Damn, checked Oxford Dict and it's 'callipers', now I know)
6. In conditions favourable to SIT you stand a chance of over-cooking the shot and straightening it too much which is no big deal on a pool table but could cost the shot in snooker. That says to me unless you're a master at it like Travis then don't use it in a match. (Travis doesn't play matches anyway)
7. Set up your shot again and play it with RH side at medium pace and I'm positive you can make it as it doesn't need SIT at all because BOB is not hidden enough.
8. Then set up Travis's shot or my shot which both require SIT in order to slop into the pocket although Travis' set-up is close to the edge (expect comment from Travis).
9. Neither are easy shots but I figure you have the skill level to pot both. It took me awhile to pot the Travis shot and I never did pot mine until I added those conditions which help SIT to work and then I OVER-STRAIGHTENED the damn thing a couple of times. (Couldn't believe my eyes!)

Is that clear enuff now or do you need further clarification?

Please post a video of you potting both the Travis shot and my shot and then I will post a video showing the extreme SIT I achieved so I can crush your ego with snooker dexterity and aplomb

yes spaghetti clear in that quite a bit of your findings iv not come across, but a chin scratcher of a break down.. and yeah i too have got my 3/4 and 2/3 mixed in the past.
look forwards to another vid from 'the tel'.. now get back to your work

[j6uk]

Great vid ,
I could'nt agree more with J6 !!


Just one off the topic point !!

It would be nice if you consider to get all those stuff off the table and treat the snooker table with more respect ? please !!

i quite like the jason bourne hangout look.

[Ramon]

i quite like the jason bourne hangout look.

hahaha,

lol,jason bourne would get mad if he sees something like that.
No problem though, the timing was good, I needed a shock anyway !!

quite Surpris you did'nt brought it up!!

[travisbickle]

This thread is going completely off course with this crazy snooker limbo contest to prove SIT exists.
It exists every time you put side on the CB ffs!!
It's like saying screw back don't exist unless you can screw 10 feet!!

Fact that TD/vmax don't recognize this is neither here nor there.

Look at TD in his third video, a video he denied getting any SIT whatsoever btw.
Look how he plays the shot all wrong by aiming for correct BOB most of the time.
When he was playing with his favorite check side he was missing to his right, then with the few shots he played with the correct running side he missed to his left bar one shot which in his words "pissed him off" lol)
How he & vmax don't see this is beyond me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhs8B...2NvJ62PA%3D%3D

Until TD/vmax recognize what is happening to OBs when you use side they simply won't get it.

[vmax]

No need. Already potted a black not using BOB.
Do you think I hit correct BOB??

Yes I think you contacted BOB to the far jaw by swerving around the red, now if the red is actually touching the black and hiding BOB to the far jaw by 2mm then that swerve is out of the question and if you can still pot the black using SIT then you win, OK, you win.
Now I've tried and can't do it yet I can do your black and jasons black and jasons red and running sides black but for the life of me I can't pot the black with BOB to the far jaw covered by a touching ball.

Anyway I couldn't really care less if you don't believe it happens. Yes you do, you've said you'll leave the subject alone yet here you are still banging on with Ramon and biggie backing you up, Ramon with a high break of 16 and biggie the troll who doesn't have a cue

The fact that you can pot unpottable balls with it is an added bonus.

But it wasn't unpottable was it because you potted the bloody thing didn't you, now man up and show yourself failing when BOB to the far jaw is covered by a touching ball. I know you've tried it and failed otherwise you would have posted your proof instead of constantly arguing that 'your black' is proof enough, it isn't. That's an easy shot for anyone to play using side, you're not brilliant or special just because you can play that shot.
According to you and biggie I'm a 30 break jabber yet I can play that shot and a lot more besides. If you think my video was me trying for 30 minutes to get a few right you're very mistaken. When my eyes in and I'm playing well with my glasses on I can make all those shots first time when needed.
I was showing what happens when the shots are hit too hard, too soft, not enough/too much compensation of aiming and with and against the nap, I wasn't pivoting the cue either, that was what it looked like from behind the pocket with extreme compensation of aiming when striking a straight shot hard to allow for the greater deflection.

And when I hit them correctly and the OB went into the centre of the pocket there was no throw of the OB, no transfered side and the cue ball travelled a tad off straight after contact because it came to the OB from a different line.

What have you shown ? just the last six inches of someones cue playing a series of shots filmed from the side so we can't track the deflection and swerve of the cue ball and make us all believe in SIT. Not good enough for me to change my mind.

[travisbickle]

Yes I think you contacted BOB to the far jaw by swerving around the red, now if the red is actually touching the black and hiding BOB to the far jaw by 2mm then that swerve is out of the question and if you can still pot the black using SIT then you win, OK, you win.
Now I've tried and can't do it yet I can do your black and jasons black and jasons red and running sides black but for the life of me I can't pot the black with BOB to the far jaw covered by a touching ball.



But it wasn't unpottable was it because you potted the bloody thing didn't you, now man up and show yourself failing when BOB to the far jaw is covered by a touching ball. I know you've tried it and failed otherwise you would have posted your proof instead of constantly arguing that 'your black' is proof enough, it isn't. That's an easy shot for anyone to play using side, you're not brilliant or special just because you can play that shot.
According to you and biggie I'm a 30 break jabber yet I can play that shot and a lot more besides. If you think my video was me trying for 30 minutes to get a few right you're very mistaken. When my eyes in and I'm playing well with my glasses on I can make all those shots first time when needed.
I was showing what happens when the shots are hit too hard, too soft, not enough/too much compensation of aiming and with and against the nap, I wasn't pivoting the cue either, that was what it looked like from behind the pocket with extreme compensation of aiming when striking a straight shot hard to allow for the greater deflection.

And when I hit them correctly and the OB went into the centre of the pocket there was no throw of the OB, no transfered side and the cue ball travelled a tad off straight after contact because it came to the OB from a different line.

What have you shown ? just the last six inches of someones cue playing a series of shots filmed from the side so we can't track the deflection and swerve of the cue ball and make us all believe in SIT. Not good enough for me to change my mind.

If you think the black pots naturally then it's no wonder you've never hit 3 figures!

No I don't care what you or TD do, not one bit.
However I am against both of you misleading players on here saying it's a totally useless tool to use for snooker players when you both don't know the first thing how to use it to your advantage!

Your last paragraph I just skim read as it just seems youre just waffling on with your usual rubbish.
Read my last post. This is not a limbo competition lol

Just to add, no I don't think you can do that shot, and definitely not the red I potted full ball..not in a million years with your cue action!

Prove me wrong and I'll put my hands up

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

This thread is going completely off course with this crazy snooker limbo contest to prove SIT exists.
It exists every time you put side on the CB ffs!!
It's like saying screw back don't exist unless you can screw 10 feet!!

Fact that TD/vmax don't recognize this is neither here nor there.

Look at TD in his third video, a video he denied getting any SIT whatsoever btw.
Look how he plays the shot all wrong by aiming for correct BOB most of the time.
When he was playing with his favorite check side he was missing to his right, then with the few shots he played with the correct running side he missed to his left bar one shot which in his words "pissed him off" lol)
How he & vmax don't see this is beyond me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhs8B...2NvJ62PA%3D%3D

Until TD/vmax recognize what is happening to OBs when you use side they simply won't get it.

Very true. What on earth they are on about with this bob bollox is anyone's guess.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yes I think you contacted BOB to the far jaw by swerving around the red, now if the red is actually touching the black and hiding BOB to the far jaw by 2mm then that swerve is out of the question and if you can still pot the black using SIT then you win, OK, you win.
Now I've tried and can't do it yet I can do your black and jasons black and jasons red and running sides black but for the life of me I can't pot the black with BOB to the far jaw covered by a touching ball.



But it wasn't unpottable was it because you potted the bloody thing didn't you, now man up and show yourself failing when BOB to the far jaw is covered by a touching ball. I know you've tried it and failed otherwise you would have posted your proof instead of constantly arguing that 'your black' is proof enough, it isn't. That's an easy shot for anyone to play using side, you're not brilliant or special just because you can play that shot.
According to you and biggie I'm a 30 break jabber yet I can play that shot and a lot more besides. If you think my video was me trying for 30 minutes to get a few right you're very mistaken. When my eyes in and I'm playing well with my glasses on I can make all those shots first time when needed.
I was showing what happens when the shots are hit too hard, too soft, not enough/too much compensation of aiming and with and against the nap, I wasn't pivoting the cue either, that was what it looked like from behind the pocket with extreme compensation of aiming when striking a straight shot hard to allow for the greater deflection.

And when I hit them correctly and the OB went into the centre of the pocket there was no throw of the OB, no transfered side and the cue ball travelled a tad off straight after contact because it came to the OB from a different line.

What have you shown ? just the last six inches of someones cue playing a series of shots filmed from the side so we can't track the deflection and swerve of the cue ball and make us all believe in SIT. Not good enough for me to change my mind.

Fair enough.

How about the physics then? Will that change your mind?
Coriolis- does he change your mind?
Jimmy white's shot? Mark selby's? Wilson's? Don't those shots change your mind?
What about the testimony of millions of players worldwide? Will they make you change your mind?
Or how about the commentators that say "he's using side to turn the ball over" - don't all those former world champions change your mind?

No?

How about Terry's third video? Travis'? J6's?

Still no?

What about YOUR video?

By eck lad, you've got yersen in a right pickle over this, you really have.