What do people think of Roy Chisholm's Snooker Secrets?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Now set it up as a proper shot with the white around a foot behing so the CB has time to swerve and come back to the line. And also you have space to properly execute a shot with bags of side. Play with extreme side and watch the black go straight while the white keeps spinning either side for a minute after the contact.

Nope. And i wish you people would stop droning on about deflection and swerve - they have nothing to do with this whatsoever. A spinning cue ball has an effect on the path the object ball takes. Fact.

Any player who doesn't know this hasn't been paying attention.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

You use the pivot technique don't you, this is why you get these results as your cue isn't parallel to the line of aim. We snooker players do it properly and get different results. The above shot when played properly with cue parallel to the line of aim would have the black going green side of the spots when using right hand side and yellow side of the spots when using left hand. This is because of the cue ball's initial defection only, as it's so close to the black there isn't time for the swerve to take effect.

As for your push shot, that shot is banned for a reason, and that reason is you can use the squeeze effect to make different angles according to direction of cue and length of contact time effectively pushing the object ball where you want to.

Now once again show us some proof of your physics theory.

Theory? Which other of Newton's laws of motion do you consider to be a "theory"?

You could revolutionise the modern world!

The point of the push shot, Einstein, is to demonstrate that spin on one ball changes the path of another ball. No deflection, no swerve, just throw.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

exactly i'm not bothered , if in fact there was spin transfer or not. all I know I was told I can aim thicker using side and this will make the pot.
so I play it and it works. end of

Spin transfer is unavoidable but is not throw. Throw is the inevitable result of one spinning object hitting another, in this case stationery, object.

We are not discussing spin transfer here.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Pretty much agree with Throtts and this, it's the end result I'm interested in, if someone shows me a shot and it works but their description of what's happening is wrong, I'm not going to stop using that shot. I don't think you can be a thinker and a snooker player it will get you nowhere.

Fine, but where does ignorance get you? Surely it's better to know what's actually happening than not know? I'd rather be armed with facts than myths, half truths and outright lies.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

OK Alabadi, then reverse the Selby shot, same distance from cue ball to red, same distance from red to pocket but where the red is partially covered by a ball nearer to the pink spot rather than nearer to the top cushion, where you have to use left hand side, spinning against the nap.

Will the left hand side throw the red away from the pocket where the right hand threw it in ? If so does there need to be a thinner contact on the red to allow for this throw ? If so can you aim thinner to make the pot or will the cue ball contact the intervening ball if you do this.

Intervening ball or no the shot has to be aimed thicker no matter which side of the table you're on or which side you're using, I've already explained why and it works for me the same as it did for Ray Reardon. Now if throw is the result of side on the cue ball why don't you aim thinner for one side and thicker for the other.
I've no doubt that some do and they are the ones who can't play with side.

Now Roy Chisholm is advocating using helping side at times, so when faced with a 1/4 ball cut that needs running side you aim about 1/2 ball instead and when faced with a 1/2 ball cut that needs check side you aim 3/4 ball instead.
These of course are approximates as distance and cue ball spinning with, against or parallel to the nap make it variable, but that's how to start, play the shots like this and compensate your aiming by how much you miss until you start getting it right.

Biggie can spin in his own little world of CIT CET BHE and continue to frustrate himself with which ball will spin which way and never ever improve while the rest of us can watch, observe and compensate.

Lol. Colour me terrified, but I've done all the improving I'm going to do, thanks.

The way you mangle words, phrases, concepts and now - gloriously - acronyms, is a joy to behold, it really is.

When you've educated yourself - and mastered spin - we can talk as equals. Until then, you'll remain an ignorant buffoon.

Now, go practise that swerve shot you gave us all such a good laugh about that time. I'm sure you'll master it one day.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Would'nt be so sure friend !!

I agree that some of the pool stuff can turn out differently when you try it on snooker table and snooker players in general have an diff point of view .
and this due to difference of cloth / material / and so on ...................

But I can assure you,
That using side and its effects , Is one of the most spoken and sensitive topics in cue sport (including snooker).
I have'nt seen many players (including coaches) sharing the same point of view ( opinion ) regarding this topic ( not just referring to tsf , btw ) .


At the end , all you care about is if the OB went in or not ( as you mentioned ) . good point .

If you started a poll on AZBilliards asking "is throw real?" it would take a very brave person indeed to say it isn't. They'd be laughed off in seconds.

61,000 players, right there. Scores of coaches, dozens of pros... and not one would be moronic enough to say it doesn't exist.

Flat earthers congregate here, sadly.

[itsnoteasy]

Spin transfer is unavoidable but is not throw. Throw is the inevitable result of one spinning object hitting another, in this case stationery, object.

We are not discussing spin transfer here.

Pretty fair assessment Biggie, a spinning ball has to make a difference compared to a rolling ball or a sliding ball, you can debate how much of a difference but there has to be some.

Fine, but where does ignorance get you? Surely it's better to know what's actually happening than not know? I'd rather be armed with facts than myths, half truths and outright lies.

Although I like all the theory stuff, when actually playing I'm more for just doing the basics well, so do I want to be high or low on the next ball, get on line and cue as well as I can, most of the game is covered with that. I honestly believe if you think too much it's not good for you while playing snooker and filling your head with all this isn't necessary.
We are all different though and I'm not saying any of this is wrong, I just feel it over complicates things.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Pretty fair assessment Biggie, a spinning ball has to make a difference compared to a rolling ball or a sliding ball, you can debate how much of a difference but there has to be some.

Although I like all the theory stuff, when actually playing I'm more for just doing the basics well, so do I want to be high or low on the next ball, get on line and cue as well as I can, most of the game is covered with that. I honestly believe if you think too much it's not good for you while playing snooker and filling your head with all this isn't necessary.
We are all different though and I'm not saying any of this is wrong, I just feel it over complicates things.

I've never said differently but if anyone wants to spread misinformation (cough cough vmax) they are going to get corrected.

[sealer]

Nope. And i wish you people would stop droning on about deflection and swerve - they have nothing to do with this whatsoever. A spinning cue ball has an effect on the path the object ball takes. Fact.

Any player who doesn't know this hasn't been paying attention.

Nope. You are wrong. There is no noticable throw caused by the side on the cueball. I think it is because the contact point is too small and there is not enough friction. You havent got a clue about snooker. You showed it by trying to analyse the Selby shot.

[Ramon]

If you started a poll on AZBilliards asking "is throw real?" it would take a very brave person indeed to say it isn't. They'd be laughed off in seconds.

61,000 players, right there. Scores of coaches, dozens of pros... and not one would be moronic enough to say it doesn't exist.

Flat earthers congregate here, sadly.

And I'm one of those who's agree with them

Side has an effect on the path the object ball takes.
For me , it's an Fact.

But thr are some who are disagree with this and not all of them are the members of tsf .
They have a diff point of view and it's fine with me bud , ( regardless of whether they are right or wrong ) .

Having said that ,

I think CB deflection is also an fact and is always there. (how mutch CB deflect depends on the distance between CB and OB, Cue, Players technique and...................) .

It's true , pool and snooker are both cue sports . But thr are some factors ( such as weight difference snooker balls comperd to pool balls ) , which can make a difference in outcome and results . ( imo of cours ).

[itsnoteasy]

Nope. You are wrong. There is no noticable throw caused by the side on the cueball. I think it is because the contact point is too small and there is not enough friction. You havent got a clue about snooker. You showed it by trying to analyse the Selby shot.

Have you watched Nic Barrows potting machine videos Sealer, he proves you can't hit the exact plant position on a shot otherwise you will miss thick, this is because of the friction( gearing) call it what you want between the two balls and that's just on a rolling ball shot, so if there is enough of a contact point to do it then why not with a spinning ball?
Thought I would look it out for everyone as I know how lazy you all are
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Nope. You are wrong. There is no noticable throw caused by the side on the cueball. I think it is because the contact point is too small and there is not enough friction. You havent got a clue about snooker. You showed it by trying to analyse the Selby shot.

Lol. Another who believes the laws of physics break down on a snooker table.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you people?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Have you watched Nic Barrows potting machine videos Sealer, he proves you can't hit the exact plant position on a shot otherwise you will miss thick, this is because of the friction( gearing) call it what you want between the two balls and that's just on a rolling ball shot, so if there is enough of a contact point to do it then why not with a spinning ball?

He is describing cut induced throw. That is inevitable and happens on every shot - the brain will adapt quickly so there's nothing to worry about for experienced players.

Spin induced throw is where the fun starts.

And yes, the gearing effect is what causes CIT and SIT. The rolling cue ball momentarily clings to the stationary object ball, causing it to vary its natural path slightly. The dirtier the balls, the more grip there is at contact, and the greater the throw. Throw is simply friction in action.

[englishboy1971]

I have to agree that a spinning cue ball will definitely throw the object ball . It's obvious on that Selby shot also the Barry Stark shot . Also for that matter Alabadi''s shot . Imho

[sealer]

I know you are a troll.