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

[rimmer10]

Gotcha! Hendry blamed a kick!

https://youtu.be/e5T1ZRPkeo0

03:20. You will not find a clearer example of SIT on a snooker table, where, bizarrely, the laws of physics do not break down, vmax.

Who der thunk?

Well done mate! I was up till 2 last night checking the game against John Higgins

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

There is a very slight deviation of the cue ball as soon as it left his tip. Again, its a 5 o'clock hit , the same as Selby's, hit softly so the slight drag aids the shot too. And again, you need a lot of hours on the table to execute and understand shot, muscle memory is key on this one too..

And just to add, no pro would pot that striking the CB at 3 o'clock. DT just stating ""loads of side"" is no good to any player learning, he must know the actual shot surely..

Right. What are you on about anorl?

I'm beginning to see why you lot don't get this...

[travisbickle]

Players get the cue ball cleaned all the time when they don't need to. A better question to ask would be, if he was playing to swerve around the impeding ball, why didn't he just play the swerve shot, with the cue jacked up?

The answer is, because he knew the reaction he'd get by spinning the cue ball.

Yep the cue ball would've ended up much closer to the black if he had swerved it and also making it a much harder shot to pot the red swerving the cue ball.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Snooker players do use traces of side for position - they can use side in various ways - if he cannot see the ball fully then this shot is called a soft swerve. shot.

However that is not all the full story - the thing is that throw he imparts here ever so slightly on contact effects the OB and I know it is also possible to straighten up a shot with side and make the pot for a ball that does not go in from the natural potting angle. Which could be what Mark Selby does here... therefore Mr Big Shot technically I do think has a point . Though he shows a distinct lack of patience with people when arguing his case.

There are ways of limiting the effects of side and throw- traces of side can be used. Less throw by using top and side or even by using backhand English as they say over the pond. I do think snooker players can learn a lot from pool players and visa versa.

Moving on...can a spinning object effect what it hits?

Lack of patience? We have been over this and over it and over it...it comes to the point where you have to conclude the people on this site ain't terribly smart. Even when the evidence is pointing them in the face they don't seem to get it.

And what has BHE got to do with this? You realise we're talking about throw, not deflecion, don't you?

There's no need to mention pool, either. This phenomenon occurs on every single spherical object in the known universe. It applies to snooker just as much as any other cue sport.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Well done mate! I was up till 2 last night checking the game against John Higgins

Funnily enough, found it straight away, third shot i saw.

[jrc750]

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

Err females shed more hair !

[rimmer10]

Funnily enough, found it straight away, third shot i saw.

And I had to be up at 5. Anyway if that doesn't put the argument to rest nothing will. Good job

[itsnoteasy]

Gotcha! Hendry blamed a kick!

https://youtu.be/e5T1ZRPkeo0

03:20. You will not find a clearer example of SIT on a snooker table, where, bizarrely, the laws of physics do not break down, vmax.

Who der thunk?

For me there is no kick on this shot, no balls bounce and no pace is taken off either of them. If there is swerve it's minimal and can no way account for how the balls react. Just watch the contact point, look at when the balls touch and look at the line the red should take, then look at the direction it does take, that's throw in action . If you still dont believe look at where the red entered the pocket, if it was swerve only did the cue ball swerve around the pink enough for it to hit the spot on the red to send it into the side of the pocket, for me it clearly didn't, which only leaves the answer as throw again.
Why clean the cue ball? Maybe he left some chalk stuck to it from that shot, could be a few reasons, it's not always for a kick that they get it cleaned.
As someone said play it yourself , it's the best way , it's quite noticeable when you are right behind the shot.

[jonny66]

Can nobody here read? I am not saying it doesn't get thrown into the pocket from the side. I said that in my original post. I am saying there is a kick which makes it throw much more than it normally would. I saw that, Stephen Hendry saw it, and all the evidence points to Kyren Wilson seeing it too.

[jonny66]

For me there is no kick on this shot, no balls bounce and no pace is taken off either of them. If there is swerve it's minimal and can no way account for how the balls react. Just watch the contact point, look at when the balls touch and look at the line the red should take, then look at the direction it does take, that's throw in action . If you still dont believe look at where the red entered the pocket, if it was swerve only did the cue ball swerve around the pink enough for it to hit the spot on the red to send it into the side of the pocket, for me it clearly didn't, which only leaves the answer as throw again.
Why clean the cue ball? Maybe he left some chalk stuck to it from that shot, could be a few reasons, it's not always for a kick that they get it cleaned.
As someone said play it yourself , it's the best way , it's quite noticeable when you are right behind the shot.

No pace taken off the balls? Look at the white when it contacts the red, it's nowhere near full ball and it hardly moves an inch, how is that no pace taken off?

[Byrom]

Lack of patience? We have been over this and over it and over it...it comes to the point where you have to conclude the people on this site ain't terribly smart. Even when the evidence is pointing them in the face they don't seem to get it.

And what has BHE got to do with this? You realise we're talking about throw, not deflecion, don't you?

There's no need to mention pool, either. This phenomenon occurs on every single spherical object in the known universe. It applies to snooker just as much as any other cue sport.

I was trying to add a bit of humour - don't get the hump with me I do see your point but was just adding a bit extra to this tired debate myself. We call that shot a soft swerve over here in UK. Anyway ....I was just making a few points but what the hell you would argue with yourself I think. Snooker players are not blind to the effects of side/throw or deflection. The decent/half decent players know all about it when it comes to playing the shots even if they cant describe it they can do it and at the end of the day that is all that matters. I can talk all day long about my love of France, I love going and embroil myself in the culture of the place but I cant speak the language.

It does not matter what you read or what you do. It is just about making the pot and making the ball do what you want. For you to say 7 time world champion does not know what he is talking about is quite ludicrous really - I think you lost the argument from that moment onwards.

Ps I never noticed anyone playing pool on that video I posted - was she? Oh yes sorry she was ....my eyes were elsewhere forgive me.

I'm off to watch a film now its called Trolls ... Have you seen it?

[throtts]

We call that shot a soft swerve over here in UK.

MBS, he would not know that judging by his post, Byrom. It also most probable that he can't execute and actually play the shots we see in the 2 vids.

He stated above, ""why didn't KW just play a normal swerve shot then"", well, MBS, its because the shot he played ( 5 o clock hit ) gave him more control and a better chance of having more ideal position on the black.

""Normal swerve shot"" - lmao, any player hitting regular 50+ breaks would tell you just dropped the ball big time, buddy.. Go and practice more and as you say ""PAY ATTENTION""..:snooker:

Jeeps , imagine being married to that, no, he surely can't be....

[itsnoteasy]

No pace taken off the balls? Look at the white when it contacts the red, it's nowhere near full ball and it hardly moves an inch, how is that no pace taken off?

It's a half drag shot, the sound of the shot seems ok and the ball has traveled well over an inch, if you played a stop shot, you would be left roughly a half ball black, the cue ball has run through to a thick three quarter ball. Just my opinion of course but in no way is that a full blown kick for me. I couldn't get that other pic upload site to work so it has to be this little picture

[throtts]

It's a half drag shot

Yep, exactly...

[itsnoteasy]

MBS, he would not know that judging by his post, Byrom. It also most probable that he can't execute and actually play the shots we see in the 2 vids.

He stated above, ""why didn't KW just play a normal swerve shot then"", well, MBS, its because the shot he played ( 5 o clock hit ) gave him more control and a better chance of having more ideal position on the black.

""Normal swerve shot"" - lmao, any player hitting regular 50+ breaks would tell you just dropped the ball big time, buddy.. Go and practice more and as you say ""PAY ATTENTION""..:snooker:

Jeeps , imagine being married to that, no, he surely can't be....

Agreed Throtts and Byrom, snooker players KNOW what happens, it's just they learn by observation and trial and error not out of a text book, I do think a lot of them don't know theoretically what's happening but it doesn't stop them playing and knowing the results of shots. Jesus we are on here telling the seven times world champion at snooker he's a bozo, or whatever he was called, well I wish I was as much of a bozo as him. As the old saying goes, those that can ,do, those that can't , come on here and talk about it