Allowing for side

[bolty]

I do wonder how many times i need to explain this before it starts to sink in.

The snooker world is in the dark ages when it comes to the physics of what happens when balls collide. What snooker calls'throw', the rest of cue sports calls 'squirt' (or 'deflection'). Fine. What the rest of cue sports calls 'throw', snooker calls...nothing, because most snooker players don't know it exists, even pros and commentators. They use vague euphemisms like 'turn the red over' or using side to 'create the potting angle'.

Probably worth remembering that you are actually in a snooker forum then. Something else that doesn't seem to sink in!

I mentioned the transfer of side in my original post - which was the very first reply, so clearly we do know it exists. For me, it makes so little difference that it rarely has any noticeable effect on the shot.

[Smeeagain]

Probably worth remembering that you are actually in a snooker forum then. Something else that doesn't seem to sink in!

I mentioned the transfer of side in my original post - which was the very first reply, so clearly we do know it exists. For me, it makes so little difference that it rarely has any noticeable effect on the shot.

I'd suggest then you've not mastered it. I think this video helps explain and demonstrate. By means watch it all but he does nice little exercise starting around 6.44 on the video with a blue red and white showing what happens with/without side applied
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L6P...hPhuKe&index=3

[vmax4steve]

Maybe someone should ask Mr Stark why the shot where the blue is partially obstructed by the red can't be struck above pocket weight. The answer is because the blue isn't kicked to the right by the side on the cue ball, it's because the cue ball has swerved around the red and if hit any harder it doesn't have time to grip the cloth and come back onto the line of aim after the initial deflection to the left.
You cannot play this shot any harder, if transference of side was the factor then you surely could, and in fact the harder the ball is hit then surely the more angle you could create, and yet you can't, you'll miss by the same distance the harder you hit it even allowing for perfect adjustment for the greater deflection of the cue ball, as you could with centre ball striking.
Try it yourselves folks.
Top snooker coach giving good information but for the wrong reason. You aim thicker or thinner to allow for the deflection and swerving of the cue ball, not for transference of side, and it differs according to the direction of the spin either with or against the nap.

[jonny66]

Sometimes side noticably transfers on to the object ball, I'm not sure if this is because of a bad contact.

[Smeeagain]

Interesting, thanks.

[Terry Davidson]

Sometimes side noticably transfers on to the object ball, I'm not sure if this is because of a bad contact.

On a new set of balls or a clean set of snooker ball the transfer of side would be so little as it shouldn't go into the calculations. With a dirty set of balls covered with a little chalk (on either ball) there might be some side transferred but not a lot.

I can't speak for larger pool balls but I suspect there's not a lot there either. I attempted to try this along the baulkline using a spotted cueball and a fairly fast 6811 cloth and I got a very small amount of transferred side, not enough to effect a pot at all.

[sealer]

Transfer of side does not exist. I haven't seen it yet:-)

Barry Stark talking about side kicking the balls to the opposite side of the spin applied to cue ball is wrong.

Same Mr Big Shot Is wrong, he does not understand what is happening when you apply side.

You are simply arcing the cue ball that is all.

[alabadi]

Transfer of side does not exist. I haven't seen it yet:-)

Barry Stark talking about side kicking the balls to the opposite side of the spin applied to cue ball is wrong.



You are simply arcing the cue ball that is all.

i have met Mr Stark and he actually demonstrated this to me , i have tried it myself. i was playing the lineup and was low on the black and the angle i had would mean i would clip the next red and i would lose position.

Barry Stark suggested to me to aim thicker and use a bit of right hand side ( i was cutting it to the left) to avoid contacting the red. he told me if i play it slow it will turn the black to the left.

i tried it and it worked , and ever since i have tried it when necessary . it was different to the demonstration Barry shows in the you tube clip where he turns it around an object. the one i did there wasn't an obstacle to maneuver around.

all i can say for those who don't believe it is try it, whats to lose.

[acesinc]

i have met Mr Stark and he actually demonstrated this to me , i have tried it myself. i was playing the lineup and was low on the black and the angle i had would mean i would clip the next red and i would lose position.

Barry Stark suggested to me to aim thicker and use a bit of right hand side ( i was cutting it to the left) to avoid contacting the red. he told me if i play it slow it will turn the black to the left.

i tried it and it worked , and ever since i have tried it when necessary . it was different to the demonstration Barry shows in the you tube clip where he turns it around an object. the one i did there wasn't an obstacle to maneuver around.

all i can say for those who don't believe it is try it, whats to lose.

This thread has wandered from its original intent of a specific question, so as far as this new thread direction goes, all I can add is, Alabadi, yes, Jack Karnehm was teaching this 30 years ago, probably even longer than that, I suppose. He did not try to go into any sort of scientific explanation or boast about it, simply demonstrated and explained the usefulness and practicality of it in his soft-spoken style. I have seen some of Barry Stark's work and he seems to fit a similar mold so your story does not surprise me in the least. Myself, I don't go out of my way to convince anyone as people are beholden to their own experience. I certainly don't try to belittle others as some would do. But as far as this concept goes, I use it regularly for various reasons, probably about 3 or 4 times a frame, often more that that. It simply works and is particularly useful as a positional tool as you explained in your post. But you cannot sell beef to a vegan. Even if it is filet mignon.

[Ramon]

Using side is one of the most difficult things in this game to learn.
It's true, a coach can give you some instructions.
But at the end, you gonna have to try and find your own way to master it.
There are also many players who put the cue across the CB when the side should be applied . instead of cueing stright.
This is one of the reasons why they don't get the required effect by useing side, imo.

funny side of it is, some of these players are not aware of doing that and get used to it , and despite of this bad habit can play very well. :snooker:

[Smeeagain]

i have met Mr Stark and he actually demonstrated this to me , i have tried it myself. i was playing the lineup and was low on the black and the angle i had would mean i would clip the next red and i would lose position.

Barry Stark suggested to me to aim thicker and use a bit of right hand side ( i was cutting it to the left) to avoid contacting the red. he told me if i play it slow it will turn the black to the left.

i tried it and it worked , and ever since i have tried it when necessary . it was different to the demonstration Barry shows in the you tube clip where he turns it around an object. the one i did there wasn't an obstacle to maneuver around.

all i can say for those who don't believe it is try it, whats to lose.

I have tried it and it does work, but what I think Vmax and others is saying is that it works, but not for the reason stated by MR Stark. And I think I agree with vax. here is a deliberately and very exaggerated example to try and demonstrate what I believe is happening. Exaggerated examples are often easier to make a point. Let us say the object ball (in the video at 6.45 it is the blue) has the four points of a compass on it - North South East West. IF we play the cue ball full ball dead straight (no spin) towards the blue we hit the North mark. The blue travels onwards in a straight line due South. But if we apply side and were to curse the white right round that it could hit the West marker, the ball would then travel straight, due East. IT is now travelling sEast not because we turned the blue ball with spin but because we arced it round and simply struck the blue on a different face. Very exaggerated I know and for clarity Im not saying the white would arc that much, it is just to demonstrate the point, particularly given how slowly he plays it in the video to get the side to 'bite' and take on the cue ball.
Max have I understood you correctly?

[sealer]

i have met Mr Stark and he actually demonstrated this to me , i have tried it myself. i was playing the lineup and was low on the black and the angle i had would mean i would clip the next red and i would lose position.

Barry Stark suggested to me to aim thicker and use a bit of right hand side ( i was cutting it to the left) to avoid contacting the red. he told me if i play it slow it will turn the black to the left.

i tried it and it worked , and ever since i have tried it when necessary . it was different to the demonstration Barry shows in the you tube clip where he turns it around an object. the one i did there wasn't an obstacle to maneuver around.

all i can say for those who don't believe it is try it, whats to lose.

So you suggest that you have hit the black in the spot that would result in missing but the side kicked it in.

I suggest you hit the black precisely in the potting spot but the white aproached the black from a different direction (due to arcing caused by side) so it comes off the black differently even though it hits the same spot as plan ball.

Stark explains it in cuting back reds with right hand side and back on the blue but he doesnt come with the right conclusions. He keeps saying less resistance and all it is that the white comes to the potting spot from the left rather then full on so it has a simillar effect to a thiner cut - white travels quicker of thebm ball and then hits the cush with side which also helps it to come back.

It is a typical problem of observing the same and drawing different conclusions.

[travisbickle]

I do wonder how many times i need to explain this before it starts to sink in.

The snooker world is in the dark ages when it comes to the physics of what happens when balls collide. What snooker calls'throw', the rest of cue sports calls 'squirt' (or 'deflection'). Fine. What the rest of cue sports calls 'throw', snooker calls...nothing, because most snooker players don't know it exists, even pros and commentators. They use vague euphemisms like 'turn the red over' or using side to 'create the potting angle'. Complete gibberish: what they are attempting to describe is the effect of a spinning cue ball on a stationary object ball; a CB with left spin will throw the OB to the right and vice versa. Lots of variables will alter that amount, however.

100% agree with this. Snooker is in the dark ages.
It's amazing what angles you can create using drag & side.

[sealer]

100% agree with this. Snooker is in the dark ages.
It's amazing what angles you can create using drag & side.

Can you explain what do you mean by 'creating angles'?

[travisbickle]

Can you explain what do you mean by 'creating angles'?

Around the pink & black spots aiming sometimes as much as 2 inches away from the pocket to create a unnatural angle. The slower you can play the shot the more squirt you can create. Makes the game fun and interesting.