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

[Ramon]

I think and I hope you will agree with this Biggie ,and Vmax if I'm honest, it feels you two are that busy having a ding dong you aren't seeing that on a lot of these shots both things are happening, there is a bit of swerve and there is no doubt cut/ spin throw happening when the balls collide(just for Jonny) I have used it on balls I couldn't quite see, and they have been just behind the blocking ball so you couldn't swerve it enough for it to be swerve only, so the side had to have had an effect, but that doesn't mean there was no swerve, to me it means both things happened.

Can'nt agree more .

which is one of the reasons why most players consider a cue with less deflection as : The Holy Grail. :snooker:

[vmax4steve]

He also said "denial is a river in Africa", so i don't know what to tell you man.

The cue was level - very little swerve. Look at the shot again, this time without looking at the CB at all - the OB clearly is thrown to the left on impact You have to be blind not to see it.

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.

There's no throw going on, that's what you can't grasp. A sliding cue ball isn't gripping the cloth enough to swerve so the harder you hit a shot the more distance the cue ball travels before it grips the cloth and starts to swerve which why Selby played it slowly. He was only snookered by about two or three millimetres so only needed the very slight swerve that playing the shot with right hand side at that pace gives. Yes he could have played the shot a tad harder with bottom right hand side but that amount of swerve would have left the cue ball on the top cushion leaving him no colour.

He's pretty clever that Selby, experience has taught him this on both snooker and pool tables and when you actually play this wonderful game of ours and experiment with side for a few years you'll find that out.

I know, and have explained it to you many, many times. It's not my fault you're not grasping it.

You've explained nothing because you know nothing, all you've ever done is link to Dr. Dave, whom you slavishly follow, and throw insults.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

There's no throw going on, that's what you can't grasp. A sliding cue ball isn't gripping the cloth enough to swerve so the harder you hit a shot the more distance the cue ball travels before it grips the cloth and starts to swerve which why Selby played it slowly. He was only snookered by about two or three millimetres so only needed the very slight swerve that playing the shot with right hand side at that pace gives. Yes he could have played the shot a tad harder with bottom right hand side but that amount of swerve would have left the cue ball on the top cushion leaving him no colour.

He's pretty clever that Selby, experience has taught him this on both snooker and pool tables and when you actually play this wonderful game of ours and experiment with side for a few years you'll find that out.



You've explained nothing because you know nothing, all you've ever done is link to Dr. Dave, whom you slavishly follow, and throw insults.

Completely clueless, as ever. Have a chat with your octogenarian mate, he appears to get it.

As for the good doctor, he catalogues and demonstrates all sorts of shots - are you suggesting he's wrong about all of those, or is it just throw where you think he's wrong?

[sealer]

Wrong! Place black on its spot, CB an inch or two behind it, now play a soft stun up the table, directly over the spots. Right spin will see the black head towards the yellow pocket and left spin will see it go towards the green pocket.

Not convinced? Now play the same shot but have the CB touching the black. Now play a deliberate push shot and see where the balls end up - they won't go up and down the spots, that's for sure.

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.

[throtts]

https://youtu.be/bY8-Eq3s01E

Keep your eyes on the red - don't look at the white.

From 7:40

Many thanks.

I did look at the red, but and the question is - after the CB had finished its slight swerve did it hit the exact contact point on the OB which executed the pot. This would be my call..

Selby's tip is at a 5 o'clock strike on the CB, its a delicate soft draggy swerve , thats the way I would put it anyway. Plain 3 o'clock strike WILL NOT POT THE RED....Players would only know about this shot from hours and hours of practice ( having your own table )..

[vmax4steve]

Wrong! Place black on its spot, CB an inch or two behind it, now play a soft stun up the table, directly over the spots. Right spin will see the black head towards the yellow pocket and left spin will see it go towards the green pocket.

Not convinced? Now play the same shot but have the CB touching the black. Now play a deliberate push shot and see where the balls end up - they won't go up and down the spots, that's for sure.

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.

[alabadi]

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.

Steve I understand what you are saying , and agree, that at slower pace the cue ball swerves then comes back onto the correct line to pot.

however in my case if I hit the correct contact point to pot direct, with no side just plain ball (or with side for that matter) then the cue ball will collide with the red above it.
using right hand side in my case aiming thicker, the cue ball again will swerve as it should and comeback to the thicker contact point I selected ( not to the actual contact point to pot) . this is why when it hits the black (yes I know its coming from a different line) it deflect thick and misses the red.

knowing this the black shouldn't go in because the contact point hit is thicker than the actual contact to make the pot. but it does go in , so all I can deduct from this the black has been turned over due to the spin on the white and the angle its coming from.

I can't see if I have aimed thick, selected how much side and pace to hit that (thick) contact point then played it and the swerve has actually not hit that point but actually the correct contact point to make the pot. (surely I can't be that good) that would mean the side I put on the white wasn't enough for it to come back and hit the point I selected, therefor I was just lucky.

[throtts]

I think with Snooker all snooker players describe the same successful shot / pot differently and thats another reason why this thread will go on.

@alabadi, you would no doubt play that shot again and pot it with a lot practice. And you don't care ultimately what has happened when the CB and OB collided, all you care about is if the OB went in. Of course, on sighting you may have seen the CB going thick towards the black and that may make a lot of players look in to the physics of the reason why the black dropped and why you manage to miss the canon on the red, but does it really matter because muscle memory will execute that shot time and time again, just like the Selby shot.

[jonny66]

I think with Snooker all snooker players describe the same successful shot / pot differently and thats another reason why this thread will go on.

@alabadi, you would no doubt play that shot again and pot it with a lot practice. And you don't care ultimately what has happened when the CB and OB collided, all you care about is if the OB went in. Of course, on sighting you may have seen the CB going thick towards the black and that may make a lot of players look in to the physics of the reason why the black dropped and why you manage to miss the canon on the red, but does it really matter because muscle memory will execute that shot time and time again, just like the Selby shot.

I agree with this part 100%, I think everyone on here except for one guy does.

[alabadi]

I agree with this part 100%, I think everyone on here except for one guy does.

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

[itsnoteasy]

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

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.

[vmax4steve]

Steve I understand what you are saying , and agree, that at slower pace the cue ball swerves then comes back onto the correct line to pot.

however in my case if I hit the correct contact point to pot direct, with no side just plain ball (or with side for that matter) then the cue ball will collide with the red above it.
using right hand side in my case aiming thicker, the cue ball again will swerve as it should and comeback to the thicker contact point I selected ( not to the actual contact point to pot) . this is why when it hits the black (yes I know its coming from a different line) it deflect thick and misses the red.

knowing this the black shouldn't go in because the contact point hit is thicker than the actual contact to make the pot. but it does go in , so all I can deduct from this the black has been turned over due to the spin on the white and the angle its coming from..

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.

[Ramon]

I think with Snooker all snooker players describe the same successful shot / pot differently and thats another reason why this thread will go on.

@alabadi, you would no doubt play that shot again and pot it with a lot practice. And you don't care ultimately what has happened when the CB and OB collided, all you care about is if the OB went in. Of course, on sighting you may have seen the CB going thick towards the black and that may make a lot of players look in to the physics of the reason why the black dropped and why you manage to miss the canon on the red, but does it really matter because muscle memory will execute that shot time and time again, just like the Selby 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 .

[Catch 22]

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

I know what your talking about . Was shown this when I was first starting out . I agree with you , the ball isn't swerving...edit ...yes there is swerve .what I mean is that the side causes the OB to take a different path also

[Catch 22]

If your playing billiards and playing nursery cannons (the three balls very close together for those that don't know )

If you play the soft cannons with side the balls move apart .....playing with the opposite side keeps them together . A very good billiard player showed me this . It's very interesting to watch how the shot is very different depending on which side you play . This is with the CB only traveling 10 -20mm.

Side definetly causes a reaction on the OB imo