Allowing for side

[Ramon]

https://youtu.be/4B4f_IDFips

Just for the record , my friend .

Please try to pay attention to how that guy was cueing ? and what the OB did .



I also noticed there in the comments , Someone saying :

<< Have you thought to get a ball spinning in place in its vertical axis and then hitting the cue ball straight into it with stun (i.e. no spin)? If side spin on the cue ball does not transfer to the object ball, then side spin on the object will likewise not transfer to the cue ball. Just for the record, I believe that side spin does transfer >>

Which is very good point , imo.

Look how he force the angle by using side here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJUvtHpO_s


I have'nt read all the posts so far , tbh. on my way to work .
I'm gonna read the thread as soon as i'm finished with work and try to start a new thread and make sum pictures as soon as i get sum time ,to discussie this matter. ( not sure OP is happy with our posts so far , abit off the topic )

[itsnoteasy]

Just for the record , my friend .

Please try to pay attention to how that guy was cueing ? and what the OB did .



I also noticed there in the comments , Someone saying :

<< Have you thought to get a ball spinning in place in its vertical axis and then hitting the cue ball straight into it with stun (i.e. no spin)? If side spin on the cue ball does not transfer to the object ball, then side spin on the object will likewise not transfer to the cue ball. Just for the record, I believe that side spin does transfer >>

Which is very good point , imo.

Look how he force the angle by using side here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJUvtHpO_s


I have'nt read all the posts so far , tbh. on my way to work .
I'm gonna read the thread as soon as i'm finished with work and try to start a new thread and make sum pictures as soon as i get sum time ,to discussie this matter. ( not sure OP is happy with our posts so far , abit off the topic )

I havent a clue what that video is for, in what way does that prove spin is transferred to the object ball?

[bolty]

It'd be nice to try and get this thread back on track without Mr BS continually polluting it with personal taunts and attacks. Seriously, what's up with him? I much preferred Splasher, at least he wasn't an A hole to everyone - just the wrong people

It'd be great to do an experiment with different sets of balls, of different types and different "dirtinesses" to see how much variation of the transfer of side we see - if at all. Anyone got the resources?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Just for the record , my friend .

Please try to pay attention to how that guy was cueing ? and what the OB did .



I also noticed there in the comments , Someone saying :

<< Have you thought to get a ball spinning in place in its vertical axis and then hitting the cue ball straight into it with stun (i.e. no spin)? If side spin on the cue ball does not transfer to the object ball, then side spin on the object will likewise not transfer to the cue ball. Just for the record, I believe that side spin does transfer >>

Which is very good point , imo.

Look how he force the angle by using side here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJUvtHpO_s


I have'nt read all the posts so far , tbh. on my way to work .
I'm gonna read the thread as soon as i'm finished with work and try to start a new thread and make sum pictures as soon as i get sum time ,to discussie this matter. ( not sure OP is happy with our posts so far , abit off the topic )

And, for clarification, we're not discussing transference of side anyway, we're discussing spin induced throw, which is something entirely different.

SIT is a gearing effect - the spinning CB momentarily grips the OB upon contact, throwing it on a slightly different path. The dirtier the balls, the more friction there is, the more the spinning CB will grip the OB, the greater the throw. New/Very clean balls hardly throw at all, because there is less friction.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It'd be nice to try and get this thread back on track without Mr BS continually polluting it with personal taunts and attacks. Seriously, what's up with him? I much preferred Splasher, at least he wasn't an A hole to everyone - just the wrong people

It'd be great to do an experiment with different sets of balls, of different types and different "dirtinesses" to see how much variation of the transfer of side we see - if at all. Anyone got the resources?

Nice to get a retraction and apology from you, too- if you've got the time, that is...

As for transfer of side, and, as this has been conflated with the matter being discussed, I'll address that too.

All you need do to demonstrate this is play straight doubles into the middle bag. Play some shots with right hand side and some with left, and pay attention to the results. If you've set up the shot correctly, you'll not pot a single shot.

If you're hitting the right hand cushion, and using right hand side on the cue ball, your object ball will sail past the middle pocket by some distance. Play the same shot with left hand side, and the object ball will come narrow. The object ball has check or running side on it when it hits the cushion, just like the cue ball does. You can achieve similar results with top and bottom btw, and by altering the speed.

[Ramon]

I havent a clue what that video is for, in what way does that prove spin is transferred to the object ball?

No problem my friend . I'm gonna give it a try to explain this .
If you pay attention to the strart ( first moment ) of the video..
you'll see that the distance between CB and OB is very short. And he does'nt have the right Angle to pott the OB and the OB is not located at the direct line to the pocket . . the angle is very tight. he choose that angle bcuz he wants to apply side. ( As you heard , the BBC commentator Mentioned it very clear too , few seconds after Ronni Played the shot). in other words , if he does center ball striking , he's gonna miss the shot.

So He is useing side .

At this moment , we have 3 options .

option 1 is :

you could say the CB does deflect and approaches the OB from a diff angle in order to change the CB's line in to the pocket
Bcuz of such a short distance the CB does'nt have the time to deflect and approch the OB FROM a different Angle. In such a short distanc the CB Has already made contact with OB , before he get the chance to deflect.
This is also one of the reasons why players try long potts to test a new cue in orde to find out how much the cue deflect .

option number 2 is:

you could say , the player did cue across the ball in order to change the path of CB to the OB. well, In this case ? that's just impossible. bcuz when it comes to the art of cueing, this guys are the best of the world. No one gonna tell me that S Lee, or ROS, are cueing across the ball. they do apply side and create spin , at the same time they cue stright through the ball.

and this leaves us the option number 3. ( which is the only possiblety left )

he play with side in orde to create spin .the spin will transfer from CB to the OB in order to change his path in to the dirction of the pocket.
So the side ( the spin , note : MR BIG SHOT ) will change the OB's path in to the dirction of the pocket . Otherwise hes gonna miss the pott ( the angle is too tight and the OB is not located at the direct line to the pocket ).

As i already mentioned in my prvs posts make no diff what you do as long as you're able to pott the ball an do it consistent,, then stick with it .

I'm also gonna start a new thread , make sum pictures and try to show , as well as explain this better ( as soon as i get time ).
So , bear with me please .

Finished with work . Bed time for me . gonna dream about playing few shots with side

[vmax4steve]

Where am i 'not accurate'? And what does 'puts emphasis in completely the wrong place mean'?

Be specific, please.

That's a laugh asking others to be specific.

And, for clarification, we're not discussing transference of side anyway, we're discussing spin induced throw, which is something entirely different.

No it's not. Spin induced throw must be the result of transference of side due to friction, otherwise neither would be taking pace, which they don't BTW.

Nice to get a retraction and apology from you, too- if you've got the time, that is...

As for transfer of side, and, as this has been conflated with the matter being discussed, I'll address that too.

All you need do to demonstrate this is play straight doubles into the middle bag. Play some shots with right hand side and some with left, and pay attention to the results. If you've set up the shot correctly, you'll not pot a single shot.

If you're hitting the right hand cushion, and using right hand side on the cue ball, your object ball will sail past the middle pocket by some distance. Play the same shot with left hand side, and the object ball will come narrow. The object ball has check or running side on it when it hits the cushion, just like the cue ball does. You can achieve similar results with top and bottom btw, and by altering the speed.

Like I stated before Dr. Dave's alledged proof of this is with balls coming off a cushion, but the object ball doesn't have any side on it before it hits the cushion (even you can see this in the videos itsnoteasy has linked to) only when it comes off (as in Dr. Dave's videos) because it has dug into the cushion and collected spin from the friction of the cloth. This is why the angle of a double can be altered with pace, the harder the object ball strikes the cushion, the deeper it digs in and comes off at a reduced angle.
Of course Dr. Dave cannot see this or film this happening so he has come up with the wrong explanation as to why angles off cushions can be altered.
You only need to try a few shots yourself rather than trolling this forum everyday looking for posts on side that you can jump on.
Only visit this site now and again my arse, you're on it everyday looking to add your terse little comments with no specifics.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

That's a laugh asking others to be specific.



No it's not. Spin induced throw must be the result of transference of side due to friction, otherwise neither would be taking pace, which they don't BTW.



Like I stated before Dr. Dave's alledged proof of this is with balls coming off a cushion, but the object ball doesn't have any side on it before it hits the cushion (even you can see this in the videos itsnoteasy has linked to) only when it comes off (as in Dr. Dave's videos) because it has dug into the cushion and collected spin from the friction of the cloth. This is why the angle of a double can be altered with pace, the harder the object ball strikes the cushion, the deeper it digs in and comes off at a reduced angle.
Of course Dr. Dave cannot see this or film this happening so he has come up with the wrong explanation as to why angles off cushions can be altered.
You only need to try a few shots yourself rather than trolling this forum everyday looking for posts on side that you can jump on.
Only visit this site now and again my arse, you're on it everyday looking to add your terse little comments with no specifics.

No specifics? Lol!

Some people believe the earth to be flat, you're clearly one of them.

You simply don't understand what happens when balls collide, despite overwhelming evidence. Can't coach brains, as they say.

And one last thing about dr dave, which I've said repeatedly, and another thing that simply doesn't sink in with you, is that all of this has been known since the dawn of cue sports (well, most of them). He hasn't invented any of this. They are all known reactions that maybe the eye cannot see, so he proves or disproves with science, through experiments and evidence, all of which are rigorously tested and peer reviewed.

I'm sure he'd welcome your theories and humbly thank you for correcting him, like all good scientists do. So come on, Einstein, buy a video camera and prove him wrong. No? Oh.

Or you could learn to and play and find out for yourself.

And as for that video...lol! The guy's completely clueless. If that is your evidence then good luck to you, but at least it clears up why you think what you do - You've confused spin transference with CIT. You thought i was saying the object ball picked up spin and was bending into the pocket! LMAO!

And doubles...are you really suggesting side spin on the CB does not affect doubles? That right side spin throws the ball wide and left narrow? Seriously, dude? It is a quite extraordinary claim if that is what you think, deeply concerning, in fact. Dr Dave has chapter and verse on it regarding speed, but this is easy enough to see and understand.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#spin

In super slo-mo

http://billiards.colostate.edu/norma...new/NVB-20.htm

Now where's your "specifics"? Some bozo who starts his video saying ' this is a ten ball. It's basically the 9 ball'? Lol! The same bozo who can't see left hand side throws the ball to the right, and right hand side to the left?

[itsnoteasy]

No specifics? Lol!

Some people believe the earth to be flat, you're clearly one of them.

You simply don't understand what happens when balls collide, despite overwhelming evidence. Can't coach brains, as they say.

And one last thing about dr dave, which I've said repeatedly, and another thing that simply doesn't sink in with you, is that all of this has been known since the dawn of cue sports (well, most of them). He hasn't invented any of this. They are all known reactions that maybe the eye cannot see, so he proves or disproves with science, through experiments and evidence, all of which are rigorously tested and peer reviewed.

I'm sure he'd welcome your theories and humbly thank you for correcting him, like all good scientists do. So come on, Einstein, buy a video camera and prove him wrong. No? Oh.

Or you could learn to and play and find out for yourself.

And as for that video...lol! The guy's completely clueless. If that is your evidence then good luck to you, but at least it clears up why you think what you do - You've confused spin transference with CIT. You thought i was saying the object ball picked up spin and was bending into the pocket! LMAO!

And doubles...are you really suggesting side spin on the CB does not affect doubles? That right side spin throws the ball wide and left narrow? Seriously, dude? It is a quite extraordinary claim if that is what you think, deeply concerning, in fact. Dr Dave has chapter and verse on it regarding speed, but this is easy enough to see and understand.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#spin

In super slo-mo

http://billiards.colostate.edu/norma...new/NVB-20.htm

Now where's your "specifics"? Some bozo who starts his video saying ' this is a ten ball. It's basically the 9 ball'? Lol! The same bozo who can't see left hand side throws the ball to the right, and right hand side to the left?

Biggie if you are going to quote people and call them bozos, at least listen to what they say and quote them accurately otherwise you look like an idiot saying things just to prove yourself right, there's a good fellow.
If you know him get Dr Dave to come on here ,or get me an email so I can contact him and I will prove to him the conclusions he comes up with in those two videos above are either wrong or not taking in all the evidence to come to the conclusions he has.

[acesinc]

Biggie if you are going to quote people and call them bozos, at least listen to what they say and quote them accurately otherwise you look like an idiot saying things just to prove yourself right, there's a good fellow.
If you know him get Dr Dave to come on here ,or get me an email so I can contact him and I will prove to him the conclusions he comes up with in those two videos above are either wrong or not taking in all the evidence to come to the conclusions he has.

Please believe me that Dr. Dave is a fantastic guy. I don't know him personally but I have had a small correspondence and I have followed the work he has done to a certain degree. I am not at all an "apostle" of his. I suspect he would not want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. He is not argumentative; he simply is looking to find the answers to things. He doesn't claim absolutes; he is simply saying that this is what the evidence supports and I (Dr. Dave) am open to anyone who can present evidence to the contrary. If you were to email him, phone him, simply bump into him on the street and say politely, "Hi Dave. I don't believe what you are saying. Please prove it to me." Well, to be honest, why should he? He simply makes his best evidence for things pool related available to people. He has specifically stated that he has not done any snooker specific related studies to date. Wonderful guy; don't get the wrong idea based on how the evidence has been presented to you thus far.

Even if you want to gather your evidence into a package and put together a fancy video and you send it to him in a respectful way, he would look at it in a respectful way and consider it. But think about it logically....how do you scientifically PROVE a negative? PROVE to me that there is no God! PROVE to me that there are no aliens living at the center of the earth running every country's puppet government? PROVE to me that spin is not induced on the object ball and the evidence that Dave presents is just an illusion? I totally support Dr. Dave and I believe what he says, but something that I also know is that Pool equipment and Snooker equipment are two very different things and while they are quite obviously similar, the reactions that occur will not necessarily be identical. Personally, I believe that the effect which is quite prominent on a pool table also does exist on a snooker table but is much more subtle and in fact, I do believe it to be negligible or in fact negative (opposite of what it is supposed to be) on the snooker table in some cases due to the directional nature of napped cloth. In fact, it is so subtle that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be negligible and you can be a very good player and never be convinced that this very subtle characteristic even exists and that is fine, your game can still be awesome. I believe it exists, you do not have to; neither of us will have our games negatively impacted by either of our beliefs.

My first "snooker book" was Cliff Thorburn's Snooker Skills and in it, he confesses that he was playing the game for ten years or something before he finally actually accepted that the nap of the cloth does have a significant and noticeable effect that must be accounted for on certain shots in order to play your best game. I think he was a pretty darn good player even for those previous ten years though.

But my main point is that I doubt very much that Dr. Dave is interested in being involved in this particular conversation.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Please believe me that Dr. Dave is a fantastic guy. I don't know him personally but I have had a small correspondence and I have followed the work he has done to a certain degree. I am not at all an "apostle" of his. I suspect he would not want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. He is not argumentative; he simply is looking to find the answers to things. He doesn't claim absolutes; he is simply saying that this is what the evidence supports and I (Dr. Dave) am open to anyone who can present evidence to the contrary. If you were to email him, phone him, simply bump into him on the street and say politely, "Hi Dave. I don't believe what you are saying. Please prove it to me." Well, to be honest, why should he? He simply makes his best evidence for things pool related available to people. He has specifically stated that he has not done any snooker specific related studies to date. Wonderful guy; don't get the wrong idea based on how the evidence has been presented to you thus far.

Even if you want to gather your evidence into a package and put together a fancy video and you send it to him in a respectful way, he would look at it in a respectful way and consider it. But think about it logically....how do you scientifically PROVE a negative? PROVE to me that there is no God! PROVE to me that there are no aliens living at the center of the earth running every country's puppet government? PROVE to me that spin is not induced on the object ball and the evidence that Dave presents is just an illusion? I totally support Dr. Dave and I believe what he says, but something that I also know is that Pool equipment and Snooker equipment are two very different things and while they are quite obviously similar, the reactions that occur will not necessarily be identical. Personally, I believe that the effect which is quite prominent on a pool table also does exist on a snooker table but is much more subtle and in fact, I do believe it to be negligible or in fact negative (opposite of what it is supposed to be) on the snooker table in some cases due to the directional nature of napped cloth. In fact, it is so subtle that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be negligible and you can be a very good player and never be convinced that this very subtle characteristic even exists and that is fine, your game can still be awesome. I believe it exists, you do not have to; neither of us will have our games negatively impacted by either of our beliefs.

My first "snooker book" was Cliff Thorburn's Snooker Skills and in it, he confesses that he was playing the game for ten years or something before he finally actually accepted that the nap of the cloth does have a significant and noticeable effect that must be accounted for on certain shots in order to play your best game. I think he was a pretty darn good player even for those previous ten years though.

But my main point is that I doubt very much that Dr. Dave is interested in being involved in this particular conversation.

Lol, that's some mastery of understatement!

To my shame, I spent quite a while mocking Dave for not joining this site, but, having actually used the thing for the last couple of years, I'm not surprised he wouldn't. There is a vast difference between here and azb, in every respect. This is simply a self help group for players but is not a platform for enthusiasts to share knowledge and expertise. So many closed minds around here...

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Biggie if you are going to quote people and call them bozos, at least listen to what they say and quote them accurately otherwise you look like an idiot saying things just to prove yourself right, there's a good fellow.
If you know him get Dr Dave to come on here ,or get me an email so I can contact him and I will prove to him the conclusions he comes up with in those two videos above are either wrong or not taking in all the evidence to come to the conclusions he has.

My quote was pretty accurate. There was no substantive difference. He said "I'm going to put the ten ball here. It's a 9 ball, basically". How does that differ to what i said? If you're going criticise people for getting quotes wrong you'll look an idiot when they don't, there's a good lad.

So would you trust the opinion of someone who starts a video saying "this is the green ball. It's the brown ball, basically"? Probably a good indication that what follows is going to be nonsense.

As for Dr Dave, what on earth would he care what you think? Son, this ain't new. This ain't revolutionary. Dave didn't invent any of this. Millions of players have known all this for decades.

Asking dr dave to prove SIT to you personally would be akin to me writing to Stephen Hendry and asking him to show me the screw back shot because i don't think it exists.

He's probably not going to, huh?

[ace man]

...There is a vast difference between here and azb, in every respect. This is simply a self help group for players but is not a platform for enthusiasts to share knowledge and expertise. So many closed minds around here...

No. The only difference is that azb has more members. Both sites are plagued by trolls, which in this day and age is expected, but there is one troll in particular that really knows how to provoke people from both sides of the pond. I wonder who could that be?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No. The only difference is that azb has more members. Both sites are plagued by trolls, which in this day and age is expected, but there is one troll in particular that really knows how to provoke people from both sides of the pond. I wonder who could that be?

Well, it's gone to pot since Wilson starting banning everyone who wasn't a hard core right wing nutjob, but it's a weird world where good and pertinent info is now considered trolling, and abject nonsense is not. Fake news, innit.

Who are you then? I don't think you're even a member, much less a regular.

[ace man]

Well, it's gone to pot since Wilson starting banning everyone who wasn't a hard core right wing nutjob, but it's a weird world where good and pertinent info is now considered trolling, and abject nonsense is not. Fake news, innit.

Who are you then? I don't think you're even a member, much less a regular.

No, not a regular far from it. You don't need to post to know who is who. Haven't used azb in years. Ever since switching from 9b to snooker I also joined this site and have never really looked back.
About those effects of colliding balls...well, my take on it that it is interesting info, but from a playing point of view I don't want to have any thoughts of spin or cut induced this and that. No acronyms please.
I just think that guys who build computer simulations of cue games might want to take a look at that what Dr. Dave presents.