Plain ball all the time - nonsense

[sberry]

I very much doubt ian mc made a good living from the game, there was a thread recently about a 'pro' player who sadly passed away but he was only a pro in that he could play in the comps, if you look at their career prize money and deduct costs they were probably paying to play

back to the point though, if a coach or player says don't use side it's because they can't use it or teach it - it may be easier not to as it is more difficult than not using side but to get past the very basic stage of the game you can't do without it, anyone says you can is talking pish

you may be able to make the odd thirty break without using side or even a forty occasionally with just top and bottom if the balls are set right but that's about it and many breaks start with positional shots that need it, it is an essential part of playing the game to any reasonable standard, end of

[Terry Davidson]

I very much doubt ian mc made a good living from the game, there was a thread recently about a 'pro' player who sadly passed away but he was only a pro in that he could play in the comps, if you look at their career prize money and deduct costs they were probably paying to play

back to the point though, if a coach or player says don't use side it's because they can't use it or teach it - it may be easier not to as it is more difficult than not using side but to get past the very basic stage of the game you can't do without it, anyone says you can is talking pish

you may be able to make the odd thirty break without using side or even a forty occasionally with just top and bottom if the balls are set right but that's about it and many breaks start with positional shots that need it, it is an essential part of playing the game to any reasonable standard, end of

The discussion is not about the use of side. Every player uses side as on the break for example or a red into a top pocket and come up for the blue, or using the yellow/green to break the pack. But all of those shots involve cushions whereas the discussion is about what's called 'helping side' where there is no cushion involved with the cueball but rather the opinion that 'helping side' will help with the pot and/or can be used to develop a different angle off the object ball for better position.

I use side frequently myself but I'm not aware that I ever consciously use 'helping side' on a pot. An example would be when cutting a ball to the right the proponents of 'helping side' state that you should use a touch of left-hand side to help make the pot or sometimes to get better position. Willie Thorne was an advocate of this type of side.

Billiard players use it all the time but mostly in order to make a losing hazard (is that the tight term? potting the cueball anyway) where it is running side into the pocket and this came about because the old billiard pockets were very tight. I don't believe it is of any value in snooker and beginning players should try and avoid it until such time as they have a decent cue action and then they can experiment with it but only on shots where the cueball is going to hit a cushion. It is of no measurable value with the single exception of using side to get around a ball which is slightly intervening with a pot. In this case it can be a very valuable asset to a player's game.

[Byrom]

Nope Terry you are wrong I don't think you have understood my opening post - you are now trying to make make the issue helping side which you seem to be fixated on - I use a bit on occasion I have said though I can and do also use side and plain ball too - basically I cue all over the white and play the right shot to try and obtain position. - I agree with sberry you need to use side to manoeuvre the ball to make a 40 50 plus breaks.

However I have heard you and other coaches say you don't teach players to use side unless they can make regular 50's - correct? I posted your quote earlier - you still never answered me - do you believe this or not? It is ok to say you are perhaps wrong sometimes you know Tel? - Old navy men who never change ships or change course will sink eventually - that one is my expression.

I am saying that to make regular 50's without understanding about using side and stuff it is well hard if not impossible and I think players need to learn about it in order to do be able to make regular 50's - so sberry and others that picked up on this point are correct in that respect I think.

[Terry Davidson]

Nope Terry you are wrong I don't think you have understood my opening post - you are now trying to make make the issue helping side which you seem to be fixated on - I use a bit on occasion I have said though I can and do also use side and plain ball too - basically I cue all over the white and play the right shot to try and obtain position. - I agree with sberry you need to use side to manoeuvre the ball to make a 40 50 plus breaks.

However I have heard you and other coaches say you don't teach players to use side unless they can make regular 50's - correct? I posted your quote earlier - you still never answered me - do you believe this or not? It is ok to say you are perhaps wrong sometimes you know Tel? - Old navy men who never change ships or change course will sink eventually - that one is my expression.

I am saying that to make regular 50's without understanding about using side and stuff it is well hard if not impossible and I think players need to learn about it in order to do be able to make regular 50's - so sberry and others that picked up on this point are correct in that respect I think.

On your opening post you said "I use helping side" so that's where I got the idea you were advocating "helping side" for potting when no cushion is involved. I may have over-stated the 50 break thing as I teach my students about side with a cushion involved but caution them to only use it on easy pots and only where the side is required for better position or to enable them to use less power to get the same position as a higher power shot with straight bottom or top.

As an example, with a student who has a high break of 30 or so, when he gets that blue ball at such an angle that he can't just roll it in for the pink the correct shot will be to go to the top cushion with check side to come back out for the pink. That is a fairly tough shot for his skill level so I would tell him to either roll the blue in for pink in the middle or else use centre-ball top to come off top and side cushions for the pink in the top pocket. If he is a player who is approaching the 50-break stage I would demonstrate the check side option and have him practice it.

I agree making consistent 50 breaks is much easier when using side but only when there is a cushion involved. No coach I know of will say don't EVER use side until you are a consistent 50-break maker (although I apparently did once without thinking about it too much). I would also teach a fairly new player how to do a mini-swerve with side around an intervening ball by demonstrating that for him since when there are a lot of reds on the table that situation often comes up.

In conclusion...all players use side to a certain degree and depending on the circumstances of the shot and positional purposes but this is normally only done when a cushion is involved with the cueball. On the other hand, those players who use side on almost every shot, even when a cushion is not involved, are only making their pots more difficult than they should be.

[Byrom]

So lets break it down then.

Did you miss quote me by saying I said that I use helping side on every shot when I did not say that - yes or no?

Did you say you never teach a player to use side - even in safety - unless he can make regular 50 breaks yes or no?

Are both these things correct yes or no only please - your answers are like a politician - you have to be right you stubborn bugger.

If you changed your mind or you do not do the things you said you did any more or heaven forbid you have to admit you are wrong - we all get things wrong we all have different opinions or change them and we all play differently looking for that bit of something to give us the edge -

I can respect your opinions and not agree with them sometimes or perhaps see something in them that I think is genius just the same way. You said previously that you never teach people side even in safety until they can make regular 50's - I heard someone else - another coach - say something similar too - I think it is a wrong philosophy as making regular 50's in open play is near impossible without that knowledge.

That basically is the point of the thread.

[j6uk]

iv regularly made frame winning breaks without side. iv made many without a cushion too. as for going up for and getting the right side of the blue every time with some side on, i suggest stunning up and don't being afraid of getting closer to the middle pocket. its an eye opener

[sberry]

joe davis allegedly didn't think much of eddie as he only used side when he absolutely had to, but he could and did use it

if you are always striking the cue ball somewhere other than centre I would say you are doing it for effect not need and might gain from not using it where not needed but each to their own, bottom line is you need to understand it and how to play it to get past basic level but as a rule it is easier to play without tan with, anything that complicates something makes it harder

turned into a weird thread

[Byrom]

My last comment on this is all professional players use it so coaches should teach it.

Side comes into the game all the time it helps improve positions and is a necessity to learn how to pot balls with it so you can comfortably play the right positional shots to make a break easier - no player can get perfect position all the time. I have not said I don't hit plain ball and yes you can make breaks without it and stun up and down centre ball - what I am saying is you do need both things in the locker - I feel more comfy doing my thing and well anyway - I give up stuff it.

[Terry Davidson]

So lets break it down then.

Did you miss quote me by saying I said that I use helping side on every shot when I did not say that - yes or no?

Did you say you never teach a player to use side - even in safety - unless he can make regular 50 breaks yes or no?

Are both these things correct yes or no only please - your answers are like a politician - you have to be right you stubborn bugger.

If you changed your mind or you do not do the things you said you did any more or heaven forbid you have to admit you are wrong - we all get things wrong we all have different opinions or change them and we all play differently looking for that bit of something to give us the edge -

I can respect your opinions and not agree with them sometimes or perhaps see something in them that I think is genius just the same way. You said previously that you never teach people side even in safety until they can make regular 50's - I heard someone else - another coach - say something similar too - I think it is a wrong philosophy as making regular 50's in open play is near impossible without that knowledge.

That basically is the point of the thread.

1. NO...it is a copy/paste from your first post.
2. If I did say that then I didn't think it through as I do teach the use of side to players who have a decent cue action.
3. No, I didn't change my opinion but I did make that comment without thinking it through.
4. You said you use helping side and I do not agree with using side without a cushion being involved. Therefore I disagree with you.

If the point of the thread is only about the use of side why did you say you do use helping side? I agree with the use of side just not the use of 'helping side'. Maybe you can go back and edit your first post to remove the 'helping side' comment?

[markz]

So lets break it down then.

Did you miss quote me by saying I said that I use helping side on every shot when I did not say that - yes or no?

Did you say you never teach a player to use side - even in safety - unless he can make regular 50 breaks yes or no?

Are both these things correct yes or no only please - your answers are like a politician - you have to be right you stubborn bugger.

If you changed your mind or you do not do the things you said you did any more or heaven forbid you have to admit you are wrong - we all get things wrong we all have different opinions or change them and we all play differently looking for that bit of something to give us the edge -

I can respect your opinions and not agree with them sometimes or perhaps see something in them that I think is genius just the same way. You said previously that you never teach people side even in safety until they can make regular 50's - I heard someone else - another coach - say something similar too - I think it is a wrong philosophy as making regular 50's in open play is near impossible without that knowledge.

That basically is the point of the thread.

I think it's obvious to say you are both good players and very knowledgable. To improve at the game you need everything in your armoury but it all depends on the individual players ability level and their ability to learn. I'm sure Terry has coached players of all levels, some would show more ability than others and some learn quicker than others. At a limited level it's easier to improve a player by not over complicating the game as they need to concentrate on basics and not try to run before they can walk.

[Byrom]

Ok - so got to justify myself fair enough - can't remember where I saw your advice on the forum somewhere so I cut and pasted it googled it and another site came up with a similar quote on it. Not just picking on you I heard other coaches say things like this too - I just don't agree with it.

http://www.thesnookergym.com/forums/...php/t-648.html


The problem I have with your last comment is that you didn't qualify it to the skill level of the player involved. Players who do not have regular 50+ breaks should not be experimenting with side at all, even in safety play.



Take a look at Mark King's safety game as he uses side on almost every safety shot and frankly suffers as a consequence, so even at his skill level side over distance is a dangerous thing however if a player has ambitions to become a pro then it's one he must master with practice and experience.



Terry
__________________
Originally posted at Http://thesnookerforum.co.uk/board

As for misquoting me - no big deal - read through my posts better next time.

I don't advocate anything in this forum I just give my opinion on what I do and I agree and disagree sometimes - you never stop learning about this game - in closing though I will say this - there is no such thing as a master coach in snooker because you can never ever master this game.

[Terry Davidson]

Byrom:

You said "there is no such thing as a master coach in snooker because you can never ever master this game."

I say - there is such a thing as a master COACH in snooker and I've mastered COACHING but I've never said I've mastered snooker. Not many of the best coaches in the world have been masters in their sport. Frank Callan and Del Hill were never pro snooker players although Nic Barrow, Chris Henry, Steve Davis and Terry Griffiths were. Does it really matter? I think a good coach should be a competent player but not necessarily a professional player.

[Byrom]

Byrom:

You said "there is no such thing as a master coach in snooker because you can never ever master this game."

I say - there is such a thing as a master COACH in snooker and I've mastered COACHING but I've never said I've mastered snooker. Not many of the best coaches in the world have been masters in their sport. Frank Callan and Del Hill were never pro snooker players although Nic Barrow, Chris Henry, Steve Davis and Terry Griffiths were. Does it really matter? I think a good coach should be a competent player but not necessarily a professional player.

So you have mastered coaching Terry?

In what way have you mastered it?

[Byrom]

Have you learnt all there is to know about learning Terry?- I have not you see.

'We are all apprentices in a craft where no one ever becomes a master.'

[thelongbomber]

In an ideal world, Stephen Hendry or Ronnie OSullivan, or Jimmy White would be a master coach and would be able to help others with their game. But that hasn't happened. Well actually, Steve Davis has put out a few books and videos and Jimmy did a DVD with McManus. They have all written books but they aren't available to us today at least as coaches.

The small group of coaches that do exist (both certified or not, like me) have invested time in understanding things others don't care to pay attention to or that others haven't bothered to try and figure out. Many pros know how to win from their own point of view, but not all of them can explain it all that well to someone else. Trying to decipher success in snooker and attributing it to one or two big things is a causation/correlation bias that we all fall victim to. There isn't one thing that makes a snooker pro great. It's many things. Their life experiences, trials, errors, successes, personal life, financial position, physical makeup, and so much more. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious - at least to me.

As a coach, at the very least, I think you should aspire to reach a point where

1. You know how to get new students through your copy, marketing, digital strategy, story telling and more.
2. A majority of your students are overcoming limitations in their game - technical, mental and more.
3. The students have a track record of proof behind them from your input. That proof CAN be winning tournaments if your students have that aspiration, or it can be just improvements in their game or break building or overall happiness with their game.

There isn't a one-size fits all approach to coaching as each student has different goals and inherent limitations.

Anyways, my point is that if you aren't happy with your game, then there are some NEW things you need to learn, and MAYBE some things you need to UNLEARN. Helping side is one of those things that needs to be unlearned, at least in my book. I know where that path ends because I was there. You think it's helpful because you get a result - you pot the ball, but you are actually going down a slippery slope whereby the next thing you want to learn actually becomes more difficult as you will have to reverse errors previously made in sighting, alignment, touch, pace control, and more. I made many of these adjustments a long time ago and continue working on them to discover more insight.

I'm not declaring that center ball is the only true way to play this game. In fact, I'm know I use side but I'm very specific about it. I'm only suggesting that side plays a supplementary role and is often the source of missed pots or breaks. Personally, I don't use helping side to pot balls and if a new student came to me that just started in the game, I would teach simple center ball first as that is starting point to long term success and enjoyment.

P.S. Byrom is right about the title of this controversial post "plain ball all the time isn't accurate", but helping side I don't agree with. Alas each to his own.