Allowing for side

[alabadi]

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.

well , think of what i did a bit.
i'm low on the green side of the table, so i'm potting to the left (yellow side black pocket). by putting right hand side on the white would push the white to the left and therefor hit the OB (the black) thicker. so in theory i would miss on the thick side.

i have observed this the black actually starts off looking to miss and then it turns over the last foot.

we are talking small margins here probably half an inch. i have used this technique in various situations where i need to pot but need to avoid another ball so aim thicker for position. it only works when close 12-18" and done slowly. i understand the arcing theory however because of the close proximity to the object ball i don't think there is time for the white to arc back to hit the actual potting angle. (as you suggest is happening)

now i am no scientist and haven't got a high speed camera to see what is actually happening and why. all i can say like some of the coaches who are much more experienced and knowledgeable than me and have demonstrated it does work.

[sealer]

Maybe the pocket is pulling it in? Needs to be leveled :-)

[travisbickle]

Maybe the pocket is pulling it in? Needs to be leveled :-)

Snooker players are taught from a early age not to decellerate, but believe me once you've mastered decellation/drag/side a whole new world will open up for you

[vmax4steve]

i understand the arcing theory however because of the close proximity to the object ball i don't think there is time for the white to arc back to hit the actual potting angle. (as you suggest is happening)

Actually the cue ball arcs pretty soon after striking when played slowly and the side dissipates very quickly as well, the harder the shot the later the arcing and the longer the cue ball carries its spin, and in your shot with the cue ball spinning against the nap the arc is less than if was spinning in the same direction as the nap, which is why when high on the black and playing left hand side from the green side of the table you also aim thicker.
But hey it doesn't matter why the pot is made, the advice is correct even if the reason is wrong and all you need to know is to aim thicker no matter which side you put on the cue ball.

Play a shot along the baulk line with both right and left hand side and watch the cue ball.

[ace man]

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.

No snooker is not in the dark ages. Mr. Big, you are arguing semantics and language differences without realizing it. Cue sport world as you call it speaks many many languages and dialects. It isn't only English. Millions of people play this game. No cue sport forum nor any internet news group has any authority over correct cue sports terminology. Whenever two players discuss colliding balls, anywhere in the world, using any spoken language, all you will ever hear is gibberish. Of that I'm certain 100%.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No snooker is not in the dark ages. Mr. Big, you are arguing semantics and language differences without realizing it. Cue sport world as you call it speaks many many languages and dialects. It isn't only English. Millions of people play this game. No cue sport forum nor any internet news group has any authority over correct cue sports terminology. Whenever two players discuss colliding balls, anywhere in the world, using any spoken language, all you will ever hear is gibberish. Of that I'm certain 100%.

Then you are 100% wrong and clueless as ever.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

Completely clueless.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

Lol. Clueless.

[sealer]

Lol. Clueless.

Thank you for your short summary of my understanding.

Point me to those pool videos please, where the concept of the side and cut induced throws are explained as I do not want to watch something you do not approve.

I am interested to see what they claim.

Maybe you just play with dirty balls to much?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

It is purely an act of physics, what MUST happen when spinning objects collide. Makes no difference whether it's the planets in the universe or balls on a billiards table; there is a predictable and measurable response to the contact.

That many are too stupid to understand this is regrettable, but cue sports players in this country ain't smart IME, so no surprise there.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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:

Very true.

What you are describing is a technique called Back Hand English. I can't be bothered to go into the technical aspects but it is where the player uses the cue's natural pivot point and plays side without adjusting their bridge hand ie cueing across the CB. This cancels the deflection. Many snooker players do this, unusually subconsciously. Very noticeable with trump.

[jrc750]

Then you are 100% wrong and clueless as ever.

Completely clueless.

Lol. Clueless.

Seems you have a big attitude problem !

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

Observe differently mate. And better...

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Thank you for your short summary of my understanding.

Point me to those pool videos please, where the concept of the side and cut induced throws are explained as I do not want to watch something you do not approve.

I am interested to see what they claim.

Maybe you just play with dirty balls to much?

My pleasure.

Dirty balls do throw more than clean balls, actually. Friction, innit?

It's all physics. It's not 'pool'. A spinning cue ball does not care whether it hits a stationary snooker ball, pool ball, billiards ball, golf ball or ping pong ball. It has an effect on all of them.

The laws of physics do not break down on a snooker table, no matter what simpletons like vmax say.

Chapter and verse:

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

And to the idiots who think any of this is wrong, the good doctor is always grateful to be proven wrong, like all good scientists. So hurry up and make a name for yourselves, 30 break heroes!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Seems you have a big attitude problem !

Only with the perpetually clueless mate.