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

[itsnoteasy]

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.

1 , gear effect can be ignored! I beg to differ
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q
2, it can't be better explained than this, or is Jack Karnehm wrong, he was only a top class billiards player , snooker player and coach .
https://youtu.be/I8p_XeckYEg
I also noticed you said you played extreme side centre line of the cue ball, try and experiment a bit, none of the shots played here have been extreme side and none have been centre line of the cue ball.

[Terry Davidson]

1 , gear effect can be ignored! I beg to differ
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q
2, it can't be better explained than this, or is Jack Karnehm wrong, he was only a top class billiards player , snooker player and coach .
https://youtu.be/I8p_XeckYEg
I also noticed you said you played extreme side centre line of the cue ball, try and experiment a bit, none of the shots played here have been extreme side and none have been centre line of the cue ball.

Watching the Nic Barrow video and reading his comments just confirmed what I've already said. With angled pots there is a slight gear effect but it doesn't alter the path of the object ball or if it does then inaccurate cueing is a bigger causes of misses.

The Jack Karnham video is sort of useless in that he didn't need to use any side at all to pot that black and if he potted it into centre pocket with a little stun he would have had the cueball in the exact same spot. (Audio was very bad)

So I will ask again...of what practical use is this effect. Nic didn't use side and Jack did but in reality he didn't need it. As I said with the correct use of centre-ball striking combined with height and power used you can get the cueball anywhere you want and there's no need to use side or factor in any effect side might have. Most players would be safer not using side on a pot that doesn't use a cushion as they will have less to think about and in addition their cueing accuracy is more likely to cause a problem than anything else.

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL USE OF THIS EFFECT, and how can it be factored into a shot to get a better outcome. Jack certainly didn't have to use it to get his cueball where he did and he could have potted the black in the widest part of the pocket instead of the right jaw where a small error to the right would cause the pot to be missed so if he used too much side or too much power he was risking the pot.

You have a different opinion...fair enough. I would rather not use side on a shot not involving a cushion so call me Eddie Charlton if you like. I know Vmax (and Willie Thorne) advocate the use of 'helping side' but my cueing is bad enough I prefer not to take more chances with the pot.

I used the example of middle ball striking on the waist to show where you get maximum side. I use side all the time when there's a cushion involved which is what Nic Barrow advocates and I believe a lot of coaches would agree with but to each his own. If you think it helps you then use it as you will have more confidence with the shot.

[Terry Davidson]

By the way, both Jack Karnham and Chisholm learned as billiard players where the use of side was second nature to them and they took that with them when they took up snooker. It doesn't mean it's necessarily right or wrong but is them showing students how THEY play rather than letting the student follow his own natural path.

That's why I made the billiards comment.

[travisbickle]

Watching the Nic Barrow video and reading his comments just confirmed what I've already said. With angled pots there is a slight gear effect but it doesn't alter the path of the object ball or if it does then inaccurate cueing is a bigger causes of misses.

The Jack Karnham video is sort of useless in that he didn't need to use any side at all to pot that black and if he potted it into centre pocket with a little stun he would have had the cueball in the exact same spot. (Audio was very bad)

So I will ask again...of what practical use is this effect. Nic didn't use side and Jack did but in reality he didn't need it. As I said with the correct use of centre-ball striking combined with height and power used you can get the cueball anywhere you want and there's no need to use side or factor in any effect side might have. Most players would be safer not using side on a pot that doesn't use a cushion as they will have less to think about and in addition their cueing accuracy is more likely to cause a problem than anything else.

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL USE OF THIS EFFECT, and how can it be factored into a shot to get a better outcome. Jack certainly didn't have to use it to get his cueball where he did and he could have potted the black in the widest part of the pocket instead of the right jaw where a small error to the right would cause the pot to be missed so if he used too much side or too much power he was risking the pot.

You have a different opinion...fair enough. I would rather not use side on a shot not involving a cushion so call me Eddie Charlton if you like. I know Vmax (and Willie Thorne) advocate the use of 'helping side' but my cueing is bad enough I prefer not to take more chances with the pot.

I used the example of middle ball striking on the waist to show where you get maximum side. I use side all the time when there's a cushion involved which is what Nic Barrow advocates and I believe a lot of coaches would agree with but to each his own. If you think it helps you then use it as you will have more confidence with the shot.

I can play that Karnham black full ball with slow drag and loads of side and the CB travels just a few inches. How does that work then if you have to hit the correct part of the OB to pot it?

[itsnoteasy]

Terry , in Nics video from half ball onwards he has the balls lined up well outside the pocket and when played the black goes in the far side of the pocket, I would call that far from slight. Granted it's easy to learn for most folk and then applied without thinking but it certainly can't be ignored.
It doesn't matter where Jk learned and he does say this isn't easy and is advanced stuff, so probably wouldn't be taught to absolute beginners, the audio is awful but I have seen this whole video so I kind of know what he's saying easier than someone trying to listen to it cold so to speak. It doesn't really matter whether you or I or anyone else uses it, it only matters if it exists, it's usefulness is then up to the individual.
I would like to say I agree with you on over using side, it's an invaluable tool( little bits) around the black spot but that doesn't really effect aiming and cueing much, but in an ideal world I would have that cue ball exactly where I want it all the time so wouldn't need to use it, but I can't so I do lol.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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!

Lol.

You don't understand what is actually being discussed. why don't you ask your mate nic barrow - there's not a chance he doesn't understand throw - he even developed a machine to demonstrate the collision induced variety, so the odds on him not understanding spin induced is slim.

Look mate, this is not theory, not controversial - it is known by millions of players and is the inevitable consequence of spinning spheres coming into contact with each other, whether that is planets crashing into each other in deep space or on a billiards table, makes no difference.

[Ramon]

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.

Terry ,

Using side is to compensate.
No way some one like Hendry could run more than 700 cntrys just by striking the CB in the center with every shot he played and end up in a right position.
You said something about cheating the pocket. How do you think they can pull that off??
most of the time you can cheat the pocket by using abit side and this to make sure that the CB stays and is not gonna run out of position .

I honestly do'nt thnk anyone here mentioned, that side can do some kind of magical thing.
It's a matter of effect which can chnage the OBs path.

You're right, this could be slightly.
It also can be alot. Depending on amount of spin and speed.
And this goes for deflection too. You could get alot of it or less. (depending on how well you cueing/balls/table-np/distance/and many other factors.......).

Why do you think that most players consider a snooker cue with less deflection as a Holy Grail???
Using side is one of the main reasons.
The less deflection, the easier to play and apply side.
Bcuz, in this case you have only one thing on your mind to consider before you take the shot and that is: how much to compensate.in orde to apply the side .
A cue with lot of deflection? well, than 1 - you gonna have to consider how much error to compensate due to the side
2-How much to compensate bcuz of deflection of the CB
And that makes playing the shot alot more harder.

in my opinion in every shot we have 3 diff factors,

1-Effect of the side
2-Deflection
3-Swerve

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Watching the Nic Barrow video and reading his comments just confirmed what I've already said. With angled pots there is a slight gear effect but it doesn't alter the path of the object ball or if it does then inaccurate cueing is a bigger causes of misses.

The Jack Karnham video is sort of useless in that he didn't need to use any side at all to pot that black and if he potted it into centre pocket with a little stun he would have had the cueball in the exact same spot. (Audio was very bad)

So I will ask again...of what practical use is this effect. Nic didn't use side and Jack did but in reality he didn't need it. As I said with the correct use of centre-ball striking combined with height and power used you can get the cueball anywhere you want and there's no need to use side or factor in any effect side might have. Most players would be safer not using side on a pot that doesn't use a cushion as they will have less to think about and in addition their cueing accuracy is more likely to cause a problem than anything else.

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL USE OF THIS EFFECT, and how can it be factored into a shot to get a better outcome. Jack certainly didn't have to use it to get his cueball where he did and he could have potted the black in the widest part of the pocket instead of the right jaw where a small error to the right would cause the pot to be missed so if he used too much side or too much power he was risking the pot.

You have a different opinion...fair enough. I would rather not use side on a shot not involving a cushion so call me Eddie Charlton if you like. I know Vmax (and Willie Thorne) advocate the use of 'helping side' but my cueing is bad enough I prefer not to take more chances with the pot.

I used the example of middle ball striking on the waist to show where you get maximum side. I use side all the time when there's a cushion involved which is what Nic Barrow advocates and I believe a lot of coaches would agree with but to each his own. If you think it helps you then use it as you will have more confidence with the shot.

Your posts are too long for me to bother reading but the what's the practical use question really has me baffled.

Are you for real?

[travisbickle]

Your posts are too long for me to bother reading but the what's the practical use question really has me baffled.

Are you for real?

It's practical all over the table for better cue ball control. Makes the game more enjoyable too, which at the end of the day is what it's all about

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Terry ,

Using side is to compensate.
No way some one like Hendry could run more than 700 cntrys just by striking the CB in the center with every shot he played and end up in a right position.
You said something about cheating the pocket. How do you think they can pull that off??
most of the time you can cheat the pocket by using abit side and this to make sure that the CB stays and is not gonna run out of position .

I honestly do'nt thnk anyone here mentioned, that side can do some kind of magical thing.
It's a matter of effect which can chnage the OBs path.

You're right, this could be slightly.
It also can be alot. Depending on amount of spin and speed.
And this goes for deflection too. You could get alot of it or less. (depending on how well you cueing/balls/table-np/distance/and many other factors.......).

Why do you think that most players consider a snooker cue with less deflection as a Holy Grail???
Using side is one of the main reasons.
The less deflection, the easier to play and apply side.
Bcuz, in this case you have only one thing on your mind to consider before you take the shot and that is: how much to compensate.in orde to apply the side .
A cue with lot of deflection? well, than 1 - you gonna have to consider how much error to compensate due to the side
2-How much to compensate bcuz of deflection of the CB
And that makes playing the shot alot more harder.

in my opinion in every shot we have 3 diff factors,

1-Effect of the side
2-Deflection
3-Swerve

The order is, as I've did repeatedly:

1. Deflection
2. Swerve
3. Throw.

Please remember, we are only discussing throw here. Deflection and swerve are entirely separate issues and it only muddies the waters to bring them up.

[Ramon]

The order is, as I've did repeatedly:

1. Deflection
2. Swerve
3. Throw.

Please remember, we are only discussing throw here. Deflection and swerve are entirely separate issues and it only muddies the waters to bring them up.

No problem , i'll remember that .


And yes you're right . in a particular order would be :

1. Deflection
2. Swerve
3. Throw.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It's practical all over the table for better cue ball control. Makes the game more enjoyable too, which at the end of the day is what it's all about

True. It's also useful to pot balls when you're partially snookered - just ask selby or wilson. Can probably forget about asking Hendry.

Or how about using it to kill a CB - aka helping side?

SIT (and spin transfer) creates all sorts of angles when playing doubles.

It widens your choice of safeties.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No problem , i'll remember that .


And yes you're right . in a particular order would be :

1. Deflection
2. Swerve
3. Throw.

Thanks. People are confused enough!

[PatBlock]

Your posts are too long for me to bother reading.....

You're priceless BS, you really are. I've never known anyone so proud of their ignorance.

-

[Terry Davidson]

OK. Deflection and swerve are effects on the cueball prior to contact with the OB. When does throw occur and to what ball because I can't understand any of the explanations on here. I can see the effects of throw on any angled shot and it's usually modified by the amount of power used but not by any side on the cueball, or at least I don't think so.

You can easily see this with a half-ball black into the top pocket where you want to come off the top cushion and smack the pack. You would shoot that quite hard and if you didn't use top stuff to curl the cueball off the cushion you would likely miss the pack. Also, depending on where you want to hit the pack you may want to use a touch of running side.

I understand throw on angled pots and take it into consideration on every shot where I use more than medium power. Is this what you're talking about? Because that comes almost by accident after a few years of practice.