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

[vmax4steve]

vmax,

I can relate totally to your post and agree. As stated with my post above about my practice sessions with just reds and the black on its spot, your example about the 3/4 black is correct and fits what I was exactly playing yesterday and many past practice sessions.. I sight and play the blacks the way you describe them. Of course though, the shot still has to be hit with the correct weight, but your observations are correct and 100% with my opinion..

At last someone else who knows, thank you throtts.

[blahblah01]

The CB and OB were in a line to the left of the Angle of the Middle Pocket and I hit aimed full ball and used left hand side side to pot the ball. Any Deflection would have sent the CB to the right, and further from the pocket......

[sealer]

Play a straight shot with side and see if it turns the ball in one way or another. It doesn't.

[vmax4steve]

The CB and OB were in a line to the left of the Angle of the Middle Pocket and I hit aimed full ball and used left hand side side to pot the ball. Any Deflection would have sent the CB to the right, and further from the pocket......

Sorry but I'm none the wiser, what line ?, straight shot ?, angled pot ?, with or against the nap ?, green or yellow side of the table ?, and what on earth is the 'angle of the middle pocket' ?

If you played the Barry Stark shot then I'd know.

BTW you can aim at the correct contact point as long as the shot is played at the right pace for the cue ball to come back onto the correct line after the mandatory initial deflection.
This is usually the case with long pots to nothing back to baulk and the break off shot, but when closer and striking harder or softer you have to compensate your aiming.
Barry Stark in that video doesn't mention this, although I think he does in another video, but if he hasn't then as a coach I wouldn't trust him to teach side.

Those two long balls he makes are good examples of this, as both are played up the table both left and right side are spinning parallel to the nap but when playing across the table it's different as one will spin with and the other against and that you have to allow for.

[PatBlock]

side isn't transfered unless the object ball is frozen on the cushion....

Do you mean absolutely no transfer whatsoever, or so little that it's negligible and has no noticeable effect as far as cuesports are concerned?

-

[blahblah01]

Sorry but I'm none the wiser, what line ?, straight shot ?, angled pot ?, with or against the nap ?, green or yellow side of the table ?, and what on earth is the 'angle of the middle pocket' ?

The straight line from the CB through the OB was outside the left Angle of the Middle Pocket, black side. (ie at the straight part of cushion, not the cut of the pocket)

The CB is aimed Full Ball at OB with extremish (parallel) left hand side - slight top spin, if anything ie not bottom.

Hit pocket weight the OB goes in, and with pace it stays straight.

It's using side to make the potting angle, which is what BS is doing as the red is in the way........

[itsnoteasy]

Tell me what helping side actually is.

It's where you can hit the ob thicker but the spin on the cue ball throws the ball off at a different angle, you will obviously get a different cue ball trajectory as well,that's why you can pot balls you can't quite see. I honestly didn't think there was any argument about this. In fact I played one today, it's no great secret, I learned it from the Jack Karnehm video, it's the same one thats been posted up about the line of aim many times.

[jonny66]

It's where you can hit the ob thicker but the spin on the cue ball throws the ball off at a different angle, you will obviously get a different cue ball trajectory as well,that's why you can pot balls you can't quite see. I honestly didn't think there was any argument about this. In fact I played one today, it's no great secret, I learned it from the Jack Karnehm video, it's the same one thats been posted up about the line of aim many times.

You didn't mention the word collide, fail

[itsnoteasy]

You've won world titles, then? Bravo. The rest of us might need a little help. Some might need a lot. Others still, vmax springs to mind, need a bleeding miracle....

Vmax is right and Dr Dave totally agrees there is always ,even if it's very very slight ,an amount of swerve on the cue ball, how much and what it does to the shot can be debated, but it's there, ask the Dr yourself if you don't believe me, as I have taken the trouble to have an email discussion about all this with him and don't just quote mine him.

[throtts]

Thats me and you in vmax's boat ....

[vmax4steve]

The straight line from the CB through the OB was outside the left Angle of the Middle Pocket, black side. (ie at the straight part of cushion, not the cut of the pocket)

With pace it doesn't stay straight at all, it deflects to the right of the left hand side put on the cue ball but is hit too hard to swerve back onto the line for the correct contact on the cue ball to make the pot, it either hits full ball or slight right side of the object ball.
Hit at the correct pace for the cueball to deflect and come back onto the correct line the pot is made.

Play the shot with right hand side and you'll need to aim for the near jaw rather than just before the jaw because the cue ball is spinning against the nap and doesn't swerve as much.

Now please place the cue ball tight on the cushion and play it along the cushion with side at various speeds and watch it as it deflects and swerves.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The cue ball deflects more as it's making a thinner contact not a thicker one because it's swerved around the intervening ball onto the correct contact point.



A spinning cue ball has no effect on the object ball unless side is transfered, and side isn't transfered unless the object ball is frozen on the cushion and then it's a very, very tiny trace amount. This throw that you think you're seeing is simply the effect of the thinner or thicker contacts taking place due to the spinning cue ball approaching the object ball from a very slightly different angle than the one it would when carrying no spin.



Why don't you enlighten us as to why this shot cannot be played with power, spinning cue ball having an effect on the object ball and all that.
I say it can't because the swerve on the cue ball is the only thing that's being used and to judge a small amount of swerve like this the shot must be played softly, any harder and the swerve happens too late to make the correct contact point.

You say the spin on the cue ball throws the object ball onto a different line therefore making the pot, so you should be able to do this with even thicker contacts and more spin and power in the cue ball, we see this all the time in other ball games, more spin more reaction.
Link to such a shot on a snooker table, don't bother with those Dr. Dave pool videos, that bloke doesn't understand the squeeze effect he's using with all those plants and sets he uses to 'prove' his theories, and has never experimented on a snooker table with a napped cloth, I know because I asked him.

If you simply give the same old physics rhetoric without showing any proof then we'll all know you're talking bollox.

Ah, so we're back to the laws of physics breaking down on a snooker table, are we? The only place in the known universe where this happens.

You're too much of an idiot to explain it to. You may as well try and explain the concept of bungie jumping to a snail as tell you what happens when balls collide.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Steve, i am not swerving around any intervening ball. the shot i am playing is playing the black from the green side of the table from a low position in a line up with a red directly above it. but because i am too low to avoid catching the red i play it thicker with right hand side.

i have to catch the black thicker otherwise the cueball will collide with the red, the natural contact point will catch the red too so i can't be hitting even thinner.

i understand the shot you are talking about swerving around a ball that is blocking the natural contact point, i do this often.

but as in my example its different. i really can't explain scientifically (or in other words can't be bothered) how making contact thicker the ball goes in, all i know it does and thats good enough for me

The balls can be very close, so there is no time for the swerve effect to happen, such as Barry stark's.

And if it's swerve only, why didn't selby just jack up, and you know, actually swerve it?

[throtts]

Nothing changes here then. Still the personal insults from the same old..

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The cue ball always swerves with side on it and you're compensating for that by aiming the object ball thicker. This is what's happening with the intervening ball, this is what's happening even if there's no intervening ball. Whether it's running or check side the aiming point is thicker, I've explained why once before but I'll do it again.

High on a 3/4 ball black off its spot from the yellow side of the table.

running side (left hand) aim the black to the near jaw as the cue ball will initially deflect to the right but as it's spinning against the nap it doesn't swerve much to come back onto the line of aim to strike the correct contact point on the black to make the pot.

check side (right hand) aim the black to an or two inch before the near jaw as the spin on the cue ball is with the nap so the cue ball swerves more than it does when spinning against the nap.

No side is transfered to the black, the cue ball comes off at a different angle than it would with a centre cue ball strike as it has deflected off the line of aim very slightly, swerved a little and come back on, therefore it has contacted the black from a slightly different line. This is what's happening with the shot you're describing to me, nothing more, helping side is what it's known as but no ball is being turned over or thrown into the pocket.

Now all this differs with how much side, the state of the cloth and power used and one has to play the shot and experiment with how much compensation for the aiming is needed.

Now when playing an extreme swerve shot the butt of the cue is raised to accentuate the spin and swerve effect, the harder you hit it the later the swerve takes effect, so when playing any shot with side the spin makes the cue ball swerve, very slightly when hit gently and much more with extreme power.

You can use all these effects to good use, now in the case of the Selby shot that biggie linked, to he has to play that shot gently to make the cue ball swerve in time to contact the red at the correct spot to make the pot.
If the red was further away he would have to play the shot a little harder, the further away the harder he needs to play the shot.
Now if the red was very close he wouldn't be able to play the shot at all as the tip of the cue wouldn't be able to grip the cue ball at the very slow pace he would need to make it swerve to make the correct contact, and there are times when you can but the red wouldn't reach the pocket anyway.

All this is explained in Reardon's book Classic Snooker OK, so if I'm wrong then so is a six time world champion who also gave Ronnie a bit of advice.

Tl:dr, but saw the final para - why didn't selby just swerve it then? Why play with a level cue? Maximum throw is achieved with a sliding CB, so a stun shot. The harder you play it the less throw you get, which is obvious when you think about it.

As for a six times world champion being wrong, a seven times world champion got selby's shot wrong, and Joe Davis thought you couldn't transfer side, which you clearly can and is inevitable. So, there's plenty of world champions who need educating if you want to play that game.

Only in snooker can you get people who despise being educated! Their brittle little egos can't handle it.