|
By:
Well, yes and no.
There was a link to a website hosted by a chap called David Alciatore which offered video evidence appearing to show a fractional overspin (for want of a better word) of maybe 25th of a second, but I don't believe it was conclusive at all and such a miniscule reaction could easily be attributed to the tiniest of imperfections on the cloth. I should point out, though, that I was already familiar with this gentleman's work and there is no doubt he is extremely knowledgable on the subject of billiard physics. |
|
By:
I still contend, of course, that the blue ball test does offer conclusive proof against the existence of cue-induced topspin.
|
|
By:
I watched those youtube videos with the sandpaper. Not very conclusive.
If I remember rightly, Steve Davis paid some detail to he physics of the game. Recall him doing a show on the Q.E.D. programme on BBC in the mid 80's. |
|
By:
Did he? I remember the QED series but I must have somehow missed that episode. :(
Most professional players are largely ignorant of the physics. I don't blame them, of course, why bother with it if you're brilliant anyway? Steve has always been the exception here; I think he is genuinely interested to learn everything he can and always seems open to new ideas. |
|
By:
Not totally relevant to the debate, but I try to avoid above centre striking, unless absoloutely necessary. Feel far more comfortable using centre or below centre striking.
Lots of older players address the cue ball very high. Perhaps it's a trait from playing pool with a smaller white? Fergal O' Brien used to have a site ("Ask Fergal" I think) where he would gladly respond to snooker related questions. |
|
By:
That's an interesting comment about the older players; I'll look into that one.
And also about Fergal's website. I wasn't aware of that either. Mind you, I once had quite an argument with Mark Williams on here concerning the physics of the game, so perhaps it may be wise not to antagonise yet another professional; there won't be any left to endorse my book! |
|
By:
My memory is a bit sketchy, but I think the Q.E.D. programme involved S.D. and a robot, choosing shots based on probability.
I seem to recall S.D. beating the robot easily. Considering he's no longer a prolific break builder, a lot of Davis's longevity must be down to his shot selection. |
|
By:
The engineers at MIT once built a pool-playing robot and it struggled to string three balls together; the physical variables were just too legion.
|
|
By:
Just to clarify about the older players, I'm referring to club players, not the pros. I've never seen much footage of Joe Davis et al.
Someone on the Snooker forum (may have been SnookerBacker) partly attributed J. White's poor performances on his low striking on the new finer cloths. |
|
By:
Just to clarify about the older players, I'm referring to club players, not the pros. I've never seen much footage of Joe Davis et al.
Someone on the Snooker forum (may have been SnookerBacker) partly attributed J. White's poor performances on his low striking on the new finer cloths. |
|
By:
Did he expand on that theory at all Graham? Why exactly did he think striking low would have an adverse effect on a thinner cloth?
|
|
By:
I think it was generally a lack of control. It was when JW played King in the wildcard at Wembley and JW struggled to control the cue ball.
|
|
By:
Whoever it was stated that they couldn't see JW winning another match on the new tournament cloths.
Jason**who popped up in your quiz earlier may have contributed to that thread. |
|
By:
Hmmm? It seems a bit of a paradoxical belief, as you're not alone in feeling more in control, not less, with a lower strike Graham; most players would say the same.
I'm not saying he is not correct, of course, but it would be interesting to know if snookerbacker has based this assumption on any physical evidence, or just a general hunch. |
|
By:
I've just brought the White v King match thread up on the snooker forum.
Unfotunately, I can't read it, as I have trouble reading old posts using Firefox. |
|
By:
Cheers Graham. :^0
Unfortuantely IE isn't working for me either sir! I'm on Firefox, too, and it just apears as funny symbols for me, also. Hopefully, I'll be able to read it tomorrow if we're back to normal. |
|
By:
*appears
|
|
By:
I may be doing SB a dis-service here. I can't recall for sure who posted
If it's not on the match thread that I've ttt'd , start a new post on the snooker forum. I'm sure whoever raised the issue, will elaborate. To be fair, on that night it was difficult to argue, given JW lack of cue ball control. Strangely enough, JW is allegedly playing really well away from the tournament tables. (147 & 146 in an Exh. this week). |
|
By:
I will do Graham., thanks for your help sir. :)
I'll say goodnight now. Great chatting with you as always. |
|
By:
You too Poker.
I've logged on IE and can read the archived posts. If I can find it, I'll copy & paste it in here and you can view it at your leisure. Goodnight. |
|
By:
Found it! :)
snookerbacker 10 Jan 21:41 That shot into the pack of reds demonstrates the Jimmy of old and new, he hasn't adapted his game, Davis has done it, Hendry is trying to do it. Jimmy never will, he seems to think he can play the old shots on new tables. tennis plums done 10 Jan 21:44 how dyou mean SB, snookerbacker 10 Jan 21:46 Jimmy plays most shots with bottom tpd. He doesn't concentrate on striking the cue ball in the centre to make the shot and control the pace. You have to do that here. The difference between the tables he wins on and these is immense. tennis plums done 10 Jan 21:48 yeah, he addresses very low, always has done. your right it must be hard to hit plain ball, which is key on these cloths yes treble 10 Jan 22:21 I just hope that more tournies involving Jim will be on the box. I still like the guy, but he needs to buy himself one of those championship tables and needs more time on TV. |
|
By:
Thanks very much Graham! :)
I just checked back after making a drink. Snookerbacker and TPD are both in agreement, but I'd be interested to hear if they are just speaking from experience or if they actually know why it is imperative to dead ball the white on the thinner cloths? |
|
By:
Physically, they are saying it is favourable for the cueball to be rolling rather than sliding, but I wonder why this should be so?
As you have experienced for yourself, Graham, a sliding ball is usually easier to control. Interesting. |
|
By:
Out of courtesy, I've just let SB know that I've C & P his & tpd's comments on one of his threads, so he may wish to elaborate with you.
|
|
By:
Great. Thanks again Graham. :)
|
|
By:
Jimmy hits another 147 and a 146 is the thread.
SB has his own blog, (listed on that thread) should you wish to discuss it at further length. |
|
By:
Excellent. It's always good to converse with knowledgable people.
|
|
By:
Britain just won a gold medal at the Olympics. :)
|
|
By:
poker very entertaining top shelf stuff..
|
|
By:
Poker, I've found the programme we spoke about last night. It was called Q.E.D. The Snooker Robot, broacsast in March 1988.
Here are the links from google. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=AA8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=Q.E.D.+the+snooker+robot&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= Incidentally, I may be able to forward some contacts to help with your project. If you contact Dark destroyer, I'll ask him to forward my email address. darkdestroyer9@h o t m a i l.co.uk (no spaces on the hot bit) |
|
By:
That's fantastic Graham, thank you very much sir.
I'm on the road at the moment. Just checking in to acknowledge your generous help and will contact Dark Destroyer as soon as I return on Friday. Thanks again. |
|
By:
Cheers Kevin.
|
|
By:
PM it's a great quiz and format(thoroughly enjoyed it and the banter) and no criticism intended...but could the format possibly be tweaked a bit to stop any possible temptation for copying?
|
|
By:
GVG ,,URGENT ...please..
Can you resend your League questions to DD BUT in a non-WPS format please .. maybe just in the body of your e mail not as an attachment ..? --- I have forwarded your e mail addy to Pokermonster to speed things up and assist you . |
|
By:
GrahamVGreen ^^
|
|
By:
Ive just looked in on this quiz, yet again its a fantastic quiz despite the hiccups with a couple of questions. Pokermonster you always do put on a good quiz my friend.
Im very very impressed with Mr Nibbs scoring, its absolutely amazing. I cant get my head round how its done in such a short space of time!! I take my hat off to you my friend, before that we thought a few underlining names and leaders in bold was as good as it got.... how we can laugh at us mere mortals now!! Great work Poker and Mr Nibbs.. and Congratulations Dan ;) id have laid the 50`s too :^0 |
|
By:
MrNibbs scoring is truly extraordinary.
|
|
By:
Q's resent Joe.
Thanks for passing on the email details. |
|
By:
I only spent 2 minutes doing the odds on page 2 , and thought Dan was too big at 33/1 as he was a previous Group 1 winner :)
Amazing how he won that at the end though :0 |
|
By:
yep cheers GvG.
------------ YW.. |