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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It's obvious by his reaction that he didn't pot it as he intended, surely you can acknowledge that ???
so yes he WAS lucky !

Clueless.

...

[jrc750]

Clueless.

...

I have to agree, you are !

[Terry Davidson]

I have experimented with this using a regular snooker ball and a striped 10-ball of the same size as the object ball. I tried my experiment by placing 2 pieces of chalk on the cushion above the baulkline and then cueing along the baulkline. Anytime the 10-ball hit the chalk that shot was discounted. (I assumed you always had to hit the object ball at the same point in order to pot it.

The balls were not super clean and I did induce a very, very slight rotation of the 10-ball by using extreme left and right side but the cueball was what showed more effect by coming back or going forward at a very slightly different angle.

So, in snooker with a napped cloth and dirty balls it is possible to transfer site to an object ball but so slight that it can be ignored for most purposes. For billiards (3-ball English type) I believe this might have more application although it's difficult to see. In pool with larger balls and no nap perhaps this is useful but I can't say. I never did try it on my pool table when I had one. Also I have seen a demo (personally) with Nic Barrow attempting to change the paths of both CB and OB using extreme side and he came to the same conclusion I did, it has no practical value in snooker and can be ignored except for the need to 'aim-off' when using side.

[tedisbill]

What about when you can't quite see the potting angle of a ball, Terry? Happens all the time in snooker. Two reds say, very close together, and you can't quite hit the one you want to pot thin enough, you'll end up hitting it slightly too thick. Play that shot with side and you'll pot the red.

[englishboy1971]

What about when you can't quite see the potting angle of a ball, Terry? Happens all the time in snooker. Two reds say, very close together, and you can't quite hit the one you want to pot thin enough, you'll end up hitting it slightly too thick. Play that shot with side and you'll pot the red.

Agree with that . This one knows what he is talking about.

[blahblah01]

Agree with that . This one knows what he is talking about.

Yep, 40 pages on.....

[Ramon]

Agree with that . This one knows what he is talking about.

I can assure you that both (Terry a great coach & Vmax) are experienced players and they know what they are talking about. But at the end we are all human and we could be wrong with our judgment at the moment. And that goes for all of us.
The fact is most pro's try to avoid using side with each shot ( as terry mentioned ) and strike the ball in it's swt spot as much as possible. this because ; 1 - using side makes the shot more difficult to play (especially with long pots).
2 - because they do not want to end up near to the cushions with CB.
The more side you use , the more chance you end up near to the cushion .

At the same time, using side is an indispensable aspect in the game of snooker. There's no way a legend like Hendry could manage more than 750 century breaks without using side once. And believe it or not, he knows all about it.

So, What happens at the moment of contact? The effect (as well as CB's deflection) push the OB and change it's path.
How much?? Realy hard to judge. Diff balls / diff tables / diff cloth/ diff cues / and so on ,,,,,,,,.
Not to mention, where you strike the CB (low, top) and how you cueing at the time, could be important and change the result.
Take the shot that Ted played in his vid as an example. I bet he did strike the ball low. What would happened if he would have played the same shot with top side spin and more speed ?
Well in that case, he would be able to pot the ball. Still, you would be able to see that throw effect the OBs path and send it to left or right Jaw in the pocket. But that would be much less. ( Watch the Vid in slowmotion ) .

The idea that some think the spin is off the CB and CB stops spinning is simply not true. Take look at video . (assuming you cueing well, of cours). It's the amount of spin P/S and speed which changes the results. ( also watch Vid nr 2 ) .

At the end, knowledge is good and could be important in your improvement process. But you gonna have to go and put hours in it and practice. Otherwise you never find out / get better and learn. (Especially with using side:snooker.

[blahblah01]

I'm a bit busy atm to watch them but: if you contact the OB full* and with left hand side the OB will go to the right, and vice versa. the more side the more it goes off straight.

*I mean full re the direction of travel of the CB ie allowing for swerve etc.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I have experimented with this using a regular snooker ball and a striped 10-ball of the same size as the object ball. I tried my experiment by placing 2 pieces of chalk on the cushion above the baulkline and then cueing along the baulkline. Anytime the 10-ball hit the chalk that shot was discounted. (I assumed you always had to hit the object ball at the same point in order to pot it.

The balls were not super clean and I did induce a very, very slight rotation of the 10-ball by using extreme left and right side but the cueball was what showed more effect by coming back or going forward at a very slightly different angle.

So, in snooker with a napped cloth and dirty balls it is possible to transfer site to an object ball but so slight that it can be ignored for most purposes. For billiards (3-ball English type) I believe this might have more application although it's difficult to see. In pool with larger balls and no nap perhaps this is useful but I can't say. I never did try it on my pool table when I had one. Also I have seen a demo (personally) with Nic Barrow attempting to change the paths of both CB and OB using extreme side and he came to the same conclusion I did, it has no practical value in snooker and can be ignored except for the need to 'aim-off' when using side.

Extraordinary.

How long have you been playing again? Transferring side is so slight so is to be ignored for most purposes? Are you mad? You've never played a double? Or a safety shot?

Simply unbelievable the level of delusion people will go to to justify their prejudices. Although we're discussing spin induced throw, and not spin transfer, the latter is highly useful on a snooker table, and used routinely.

And quite why spin transfer would have more value at billiards than snooker is beyond parody, frankly.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

What about when you can't quite see the potting angle of a ball, Terry? Happens all the time in snooker. Two reds say, very close together, and you can't quite hit the one you want to pot thin enough, you'll end up hitting it slightly too thick. Play that shot with side and you'll pot the red.

Vmax thinks the cue ball takes a sharp left after the first red.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I can assure you that both (Terry a great coach & Vmax) are experienced players and they know what they are talking about. But at the end we are all human and we could be wrong with our judgment at the moment. And that goes for all of us.
The fact is most pro's try to avoid using side with each shot ( as terry mentioned ) and strike the ball in it's swt spot as much as possible. this because ; 1 - using side makes the shot more difficult to play (especially with long pots).
2 - because they do not want to end up near to the cushions with CB.
The more side you use , the more chance you end up near to the cushion .

At the same time, using side is an indispensable aspect in the game of snooker. There's no way a legend like Hendry could manage more than 750 century breaks without using side once. And believe it or not, he knows all about it.

So, What happens at the moment of contact? The effect (as well as CB's deflection) push the OB and change it's path.
How much?? Realy hard to judge. Diff balls / diff tables / diff cloth/ diff cues / and so on ,,,,,,,,.
Not to mention, where you strike the CB (low, top) and how you cueing at the time, could be important and change the result.
Take the shot that Ted played in his vid as an example. I bet he did strike the ball low. What would happened if he would have played the same shot with top side spin and more speed ?
Well in that case, he would be able to pot the ball. Still, you would be able to see that throw effect the OBs path and send it to left or right Jaw in the pocket. But that would be much less. ( Watch the Vid in slowmotion ) .

The idea that some think the spin is off the CB and CB stops spinning is simply not true. Take look at video . (assuming you cueing well, of cours). It's the amount of spin P/S and speed which changes the results. ( also watch Vid nr 2 ) .

At the end, knowledge is good and could be important in your improvement process. But you gonna have to go and put hours in it and practice. Otherwise you never find out / get better and learn. (Especially with using side:snooker.

I'm sorry mate but neither terry or vmax know what they are talking about when it comes to side - nor does stephen Hendry. He should stick to cooking lol.

[Ramon]

I'm sorry mate but neither terry or vmax know what they are talking about when it comes to side - nor does stephen Hendry. He should stick to cooking lol.

No need to apologize as you express your opinion. Of cours , abit more respect for pro players can do no harm imo . bcuz they are not here to defend themselves !!

When it comes to using side and the effect which can change the OB's path. then i would disagree with both of them ( Vmax and Terry ).
However Sum of their arguments are imo, true and well-founded.

for example, swerv and deflection is always there. In each shot depending on the distance between CB and OB. (the more distance, the more chance CB deflect).
I don't think we can deny this, tbh.

I saw Terry said somthing about pool.
Well, in this case (snooker or pool), realy Does'nt matter. The psyhs are thr . effect does the same work during applying site.
But, the results may vary. This due to the diff in balls weight/diff cloth- np /and even the cue you're using .
You ask any top pool player who ever had palyed snooker once, and he'll tell you the same , honestly .

As for Hendry,
Hendry is a legend. Do you realy think he would be able to achieve so many titles and high breaks without knowing what side is and how to use it?
I doubt it.
Even assuming that his judgment was wrong with KW shot in that video, not indicating in any way that he has no knowledge about the game or side.

It's just like you say that an experienced formula one driver (after 30 years of experience and winning many titles), has no knowledge bout driving just bcuz he made a wrong judgment at the moment once ,and got an accident,.
honestly , that does'nt make any sense, does it ?

On onother note ,

I think it was Ray Reardon who said , we did'nt have this kind of camera / technology / and all kind of stuff , 40 yrs ago .

So, yes . thr may be some stuff which we can see today and others were not able to see it many years ago and they just did it without been aware of it . and this was the result of hard work and practice. (which I personally admire).

[Terry Davidson]

OK Mr. B.S. and Ramon...please explain to me exactly what you both understand this side is achieving. If it's to pot a ball that you can ALMOST get to then I know about using side for those shots but I believe you are bringing the cueball onto the object ball with a different angle, exactly the same as a mini-swerve shot.

I have experimented with side and I have found NO effect on the object balls except for a very minor rotation. I used extreme side at the middle of the cueball and the balls were not the cleanest in the world and neither was the cloth but I could not discover any tranferred spin effecting the object ball.

So, please tell me what the practical application of this knowledge is to snooker because I have experimented with it and also Nic Barrow has experimented with it and we both came to the same conclusions. There is no way to change the path of the object ball if you hit is on the correct spot which is the only spot you can hit it at in order to pot it. Nothing is going to alter the path of the object ball unless you contact it in another spot and then you will not pot it.

And by the way Mr. B.S. - you try and make your points by using insulting comments to everyone who disagrees with you, exactly the same as Donald Trump by the way...so screw you and the horse you rode in on!

[Ramon]

Someone called my name ???? Yeah SIR , here i am .



Terry ,

Did you read the post number397 and did you saw 2 vid i uploaded there?

Did you saw what happened when he played the shot with top sid spin in slow motion ?
You can clearly see that the CB ( effect ) push the OB to the corner of the pocket.

Would he have played the same shot and strike the CB lower than center? than he would have missed the pot. (more effect, The more changing of OBs path)
It's just like you play the scrwback shot. the lower you strike the Ball the more spin.
Well, it's the same with side spin. The lower your strike, the more spin and the more effect.

Yes, I do agree with you, there is deflection and swerv in shot almost all the time.
However, this depends on the distance between CB and OB.
The less distance, the less deflection (assuming the player cueing well/effortless/keep the cue level/and not raise the butt of cours).

What would you do if one of your students put the OB 6 inches from CB and trys to find out how much his cue deflect??
I bet you would be the first one who advises him to keep more distance between CB and OB, otherwise he never find out.

Take a look at this video.
He plays the CB with sid spin and he uses baulk line .

As you see, the CB stays on his path all the way to the cushion. Why ?
There is some deflection there, but in this case, it's minimum. (bcuz of short distance between the tip and the cushion)

[Terry Davidson]

I watched the video and they show side effects on the cueball but there's nothing in the videos which shows this magical thing you and Mr. B.S. are talking about.

So here's an exercise you can try and see if you get a result and if you do please video it as I've tried it and I can't get what I need on the cueball. Place 3 balls across the middle pocket, centre one centered on the pocket and then remove it and push the outside 2 reds more open perhaps an 1/8th of an inch. Now place the blue on spot with cueball 1ft behind it and dead in. The objective is to get on a red which is just above the black WITHOUT USING A CUSHION. (most good players would cheat the pocket, use top and side spin to get on the red). You should find you cannot pot the blue centre-pocket and get on that red above the black unless you use a cushion and cheat the pocket. Try the same blue shot with both left and right hand side and see where the cueball ends up (i.e. - how far off the straight blue path either towards the top or bottom of the table. Even better, try the shot with side but not using aim-off, keeping the cue parallel to the line of aim.

Also, every one of those shots on the videos using side the pros HAD TO aim-off the direct line of the pot because the cueball is pushed out of its true path and that has to be compensated for and it also holds that the cueball is attacking the OB at a different angle depending on the power used and only through experience can a player use this effectively.

On any angled pot I agree there is a 'gear effect' which will place the opposite side-spin on the object ball but there isn't a lot of it and usually that effect can be ignored. Using that effect consistently while trying to cheat a pocket would take a lot of practice.

In addition, pros and good players cheat the pockets all the time to get the cueball where they want it.

Call me thick but I still don't see what the purpose of using side-spin on a shot where there's no cushion involved to get the cueball where you want it without cheating the pocket and cheating the pocket is dangerous unless it's a low power shot. However when I learned on a pool table as a teenager when I had a ball frozen or nearly frozen on the cushion I always used running side and laterally I do the same on a snooker table because that's what I have confidence in my ability to pot the ball. In this scenario on a snooker table and using check side is usually a disaster when a little power is involved.

So I will ask Ramon and Mr. B.S. what is exactly the purpose of talking about this effect? And Mr. B.S. don't say again that I know nothing about the effect of contact between CB and OB because I do so rather than that give an EXPLANATION and maybe a video of what exactly you're talking about since you say you're an expert, better even than Hendry (who on his record is the best snooker player ever and I doubt he used this effect ever).

One more point...I believe on a straight-in shot you cannot move the cueball off the straight path if you haven't cheated the pocket. On an angled pot you can get the cueball anywhere you want by using height and power without using side and its dangers.