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

[tedisbill]

I'll film some tomorrow with the camera facing the line of the shot and post them up.

[itsnoteasy]

I'll film some tomorrow with the camera facing the line of the shot and post them up.

I don't know if it's possible to play them along the baulkline, you will be able to tell if the cue ball comes off the line easier, as far as I can tell Vmax says it should slightly arc and hit the ob thinner, where as the throwers( for want of a better expression) say you should be able to play it along the baulkline so hitting slightly thick and the ball should get thrown into the pocket, maybe it's so small a fraction you might not notice it coming off the baulkline, I haven't got a clue but it might help you judge.

[Ramon]

looking forward to see it . Good idea .

[tedisbill]

I don't know if it's possible to play them along the baulkline, you will be able to tell if the cue ball comes off the line easier, as far as I can tell Vmax says it should slightly arc and hit the ob thinner, where as the throwers( for want of a better expression) say you should be able to play it along the baulkline so hitting slightly thick and the ball should get thrown into the pocket, maybe it's so small a fraction you might not notice it coming off the baulkline, I haven't got a clue but it might help you judge.

Good idea mate. I'll try and do a video of both then.

[vmax]

I don't know if it's possible to play them along the baulkline, you will be able to tell if the cue ball comes off the line easier, as far as I can tell Vmax says it should slightly arc and hit the ob thinner, where as the throwers( for want of a better expression) say you should be able to play it along the baulkline so hitting slightly thick and the ball should get thrown into the pocket, maybe it's so small a fraction you might not notice it coming off the baulkline, I haven't got a clue but it might help you judge.

It is a small fraction as we're talking about being partially snookered by two or three millimetres and playing the shot slowly with side to swerve the cue ball that tiny fraction.
You could place a strip of low tack masking tape (which won't remove any nap) along the line of aim and see the deflection and slight swerve happening.

You can also answer this question, if the contact isn't the neccessary full ball as it would be without the need for side and there is side induced throw of the object ball, as long as the wider initial deflection of the cue ball is allowed for, why can't the shot be played any harder ?
Surely a harder contact with more spin should throw the object ball even more, yet these shots are played at just about or slightly above pocket weight.

More pace = more spin = greater throw is the physics yet these shots are played so slowly than any side is practically non existant by the time the balls contact each other.
With the regular helping side shots played at pace they still say it's all about the side spin on the cue ball throwing the object ball yet when partially snookered at a small distance you have to play the shot slowly to get this throw happening.

I say that the slight swerve of the cue ball is all that's happening and the pace of the shot dictates how soon or later the side spin grips the cloth to make it happen. So when played at pace the swerve is greater, when played slowly the swerve is very minimal, and very minimal is what's needed when partially snookered at a small distance.

I have a set of snooker size spots and stripes pool balls and have experimented with side using a striped ball as the cue ball. I place the striped ball with the stripe exactly horizontal to the bed of the table and when struck on it's side at either 9 or 3 o'clock, the ball at first deflect away from the side spin applied, skidding along the cloth spinning horizontally before the spin grips, when it grips it rolls forward while spinning on an axis of about 30 degrees to the vertical and carries forward spinning on this axis until the side spin dissipates.
It's during the change from the horizontal spinning skid to gripping the cloth and rolling forward while spinning on the 30 degree axis that the first initial swerve happens, very minimal when played slowly but far more noticeable when struck harder.

When playing a severe swerve shot the butt of the cue is raised to strike at 8 or 4 o'clock to spin the cue ball on the 30 degree axis immediately on contact with the tip, when playing with regular helping side the shot is played 99% of the time at 7 or 5 o'clock which also makes the cue ball spin on this 30 degree axis far sooner than it would with either 9, 10, 2 or 3 o'clock striking.

So this change from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis always swerves the cue ball, at slow speed it's so slight it's hardly visible, but it happens and can be used when partially snookered by two or three millimeters at a short distance but only at a slow pace, any harder and it swerves too late. The greater the distance then more pace is needed, the more swerve that's needed then the cue ball has to be struck to the side below the horizontal centre on the cue ball.

This is my argument, and all without calling anyone an idiot and linking to an obvious kick called by a supposed clueless 7 time world champion and possible greatest ever snooker player.

[Terry Davidson]

I have to stop opening this string as it's 'much ado about nothing'. I agree with vmax here myself (which is somewhat odd in itself)

[itsnoteasy]

It is a small fraction as we're talking about being partially snookered by two or three millimetres and playing the shot slowly with side to swerve the cue ball that tiny fraction.
You could place a strip of low tack masking tape (which won't remove any nap) along the line of aim and see the deflection and slight swerve happening.

You can also answer this question, if the contact isn't the neccessary full ball as it would be without the need for side and there is side induced throw of the object ball, as long as the wider initial deflection of the cue ball is allowed for, why can't the shot be played any harder ?
Surely a harder contact with more spin should throw the object ball even more, yet these shots are played at just about or slightly above pocket weight.

More pace = more spin = greater throw is the physics yet these shots are played so slowly than any side is practically non existant by the time the balls contact each other.
With the regular helping side shots played at pace they still say it's all about the side spin on the cue ball throwing the object ball yet when partially snookered at a small distance you have to play the shot slowly to get this throw happening.

I say that the slight swerve of the cue ball is all that's happening and the pace of the shot dictates how soon or later the side spin grips the cloth to make it happen. So when played at pace the swerve is greater, when played slowly the swerve is very minimal, and very minimal is what's needed when partially snookered at a small distance.

I have a set of snooker size spots and stripes pool balls and have experimented with side using a striped ball as the cue ball. I place the striped ball with the stripe exactly horizontal to the bed of the table and when struck on it's side at either 9 or 3 o'clock, the ball at first deflect away from the side spin applied, skidding along the cloth spinning horizontally before the spin grips, when it grips it rolls forward while spinning on an axis of about 30 degrees to the vertical and carries forward spinning on this axis until the side spin dissipates.
It's during the change from the horizontal spinning skid to gripping the cloth and rolling forward while spinning on the 30 degree axis that the first initial swerve happens, very minimal when played slowly but far more noticeable when struck harder.

When playing a severe swerve shot the butt of the cue is raised to strike at 8 or 4 o'clock to spin the cue ball on the 30 degree axis immediately on contact with the tip, when playing with regular helping side the shot is played 99% of the time at 7 or 5 o'clock which also makes the cue ball spin on this 30 degree axis far sooner than it would with either 9, 10, 2 or 3 o'clock striking.

So this change from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis always swerves the cue ball, at slow speed it's so slight it's hardly visible, but it happens and can be used when partially snookered by two or three millimeters at a short distance but only at a slow pace, any harder and it swerves too late. The greater the distance then more pace is needed, the more swerve that's needed then the cue ball has to be struck to the side below the horizontal centre on the cue ball.

This is my argument, and all without calling anyone an idiot and linking to an obvious kick called by a supposed clueless 7 time world champion and possible greatest ever snooker player.

For me it's a reasonable argument, and I have always been of the thought both things happen, there will be slight swerve but there has to be a different contact between a rolling or skidding ball and a spinning ball on the object ball, that sounds very reasonable to me as well, also if it's good enough for Jack Karnehm it's a good enough explanation for me, if he can aim thick and throw the ball in, well I tend to believe him, I doubt he's not hitting where he wants, unlike us who hardly ever do those old billiard boys know a thing or two about side that's for sure, watch a good billiards player and it's mesmerising what they do with a cue ball and side.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Oh! You said side transference, I can feel Biggie lurking ready to strike

I was going to let that one slide lol. And for the record, spin transfer does occur at impact but is not what causes throw. The gearing effect at impact is what causes throw.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_...ew/HSVA-66.htm

Spin transfer is useful for altering the angle of shots where a cushion is involved ie doubles or for safety purposes.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It is a small fraction as we're talking about being partially snookered by two or three millimetres and playing the shot slowly with side to swerve the cue ball that tiny fraction.
You could place a strip of low tack masking tape (which won't remove any nap) along the line of aim and see the deflection and slight swerve happening.

You can also answer this question, if the contact isn't the neccessary full ball as it would be without the need for side and there is side induced throw of the object ball, as long as the wider initial deflection of the cue ball is allowed for, why can't the shot be played any harder ?
Surely a harder contact with more spin should throw the object ball even more, yet these shots are played at just about or slightly above pocket weight.

More pace = more spin = greater throw is the physics yet these shots are played so slowly than any side is practically non existant by the time the balls contact each other.
With the regular helping side shots played at pace they still say it's all about the side spin on the cue ball throwing the object ball yet when partially snookered at a small distance you have to play the shot slowly to get this throw happening.

I say that the slight swerve of the cue ball is all that's happening and the pace of the shot dictates how soon or later the side spin grips the cloth to make it happen. So when played at pace the swerve is greater, when played slowly the swerve is very minimal, and very minimal is what's needed when partially snookered at a small distance.

I have a set of snooker size spots and stripes pool balls and have experimented with side using a striped ball as the cue ball. I place the striped ball with the stripe exactly horizontal to the bed of the table and when struck on it's side at either 9 or 3 o'clock, the ball at first deflect away from the side spin applied, skidding along the cloth spinning horizontally before the spin grips, when it grips it rolls forward while spinning on an axis of about 30 degrees to the vertical and carries forward spinning on this axis until the side spin dissipates.
It's during the change from the horizontal spinning skid to gripping the cloth and rolling forward while spinning on the 30 degree axis that the first initial swerve happens, very minimal when played slowly but far more noticeable when struck harder.

When playing a severe swerve shot the butt of the cue is raised to strike at 8 or 4 o'clock to spin the cue ball on the 30 degree axis immediately on contact with the tip, when playing with regular helping side the shot is played 99% of the time at 7 or 5 o'clock which also makes the cue ball spin on this 30 degree axis far sooner than it would with either 9, 10, 2 or 3 o'clock striking.

So this change from horizontal spin to the 30 degree axis always swerves the cue ball, at slow speed it's so slight it's hardly visible, but it happens and can be used when partially snookered by two or three millimeters at a short distance but only at a slow pace, any harder and it swerves too late. The greater the distance then more pace is needed, the more swerve that's needed then the cue ball has to be struck to the side below the horizontal centre on the cue ball.

This is my argument, and all without calling anyone an idiot and linking to an obvious kick called by a supposed clueless 7 time world champion and possible greatest ever snooker player.

TL: DR but have you actually researched this? Rather than desperately trying to justify your own theory, just do some research instead. This will quickly tell you your more spin, more pace, greater throw theory is absolute nonsense.

You should also look into gearing English - a highly likely explanation as to why you aren't getting it.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I have to stop opening this string as it's 'much ado about nothing'. I agree with vmax here myself (which is somewhat odd in itself)

It is advanced shot making. Quite how a Canadian doesn't understand throw is beyond me, but there you go.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Helping side is simply using the swerve of the cue ball to change the angle of the shot very slightly, thin cuts can be aimed thicker and at slow pace thick cuts can be aimed thinner. If you have a 3/4 angle then you can aim half way between 3/4 and full ball to let the cue ball approach the object ball from a very slightly different angle, we're talking about 10mm here for a basic medium pace stun shot.
The likes of biggie and co see the cue ball come off the object ball differently and think there's some kind of side transference or throw going on, but the fact is the cue ball has initially defected away from the side applied and then come back onto the line of aim from where it deflected to so comes off the object ball differently.



You would when partially snookered which is what biggie linked to twice both with Selby and with Wilson. The Selby shot showed nothing as it was from the side, the Wilson shot was a definite kick which Hendry called, now if it hadn't kicked I would already be converted, but it did so I'm not and every shot I played last week said different as none of them kicked and there was no throw at all just the spin and swerve of the cue ball reacting on the cloth and the nap.

I only counted the ones that went dead centre of the pocket, I potted many off both near and far jaw and of course with these very slightly thicker and thinner contacts the cue balls angle off the object ball was even more evident.

I wasn't using my my own SC balls either, played with the clubs dirty grubby TC's so lots of friction going on, NOT!



On the defensive already ? Oh dear



This is all you've got, it's like istening to Theresa May preaching strong and stable, get your smartphone out and show us, if it happens every time and you play 100 of these shots every time you play then you've nothing to be afraid of. It's very simple to upload a video onto to youtube and post it on the forum, Ive done it myself a few times but I don't have a smartphone or video camera with which to film myself, you do so why don't you.

We can all get to hear your cue's annoying little rattle at the same time and maybe tell you what's wrong with it, but then again I'm a little unsure why anyone would break into someone's locker at a snooker club, nick the cue, make it two inches shorter and fit a new ferrule and then put it back

Because the cue is a beast. I know the manager likes it because i overheard him talking about it to one of his mates, which came as a surprise as I'd never let him play with it. He broke it because the end of the case is missing and the shaft can slip out if you aren't careful. He's also a rampant alcoholic.

Oh, and he used it because he's watched me playing shots with it that the likes of you would think are impossible.

Anyway, enough of my cue troubles. All you need do is ask yourself why did selby and wilson play the shots the way they did? What were they hoping to achieve?

And you have your answer. They played the shot deliberately and executed perfectly. Either they were playing for a kick, which seems unlikely, or they were playing with side to alter the path of the object ball.

[rimmer10]

[QUOTE=Hello, Mr Big Shot;936206]And for the record, spin transfer does occur at impact but is not what causes throw. The gearing effect at impact is what causes throw.
/QUOTE]
Pardon my ignorance mate, but I thought spin transfer and gearing effect is the same thing.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

[QUOTE=rimmer10;936213]

And for the record, spin transfer does occur at impact but is not what causes throw. The gearing effect at impact is what causes throw.
/QUOTE]
Pardon my ignorance mate, but I thought spin transfer and gearing effect is the same thing.

The gearing effect of two spherical objects colliding, when one is spinning, produces both spin transfer and spin induced throw.

I rather like the Russian's videos. Those who pay close attention to double kisses and the like will have noticed remarkable results of a non spinning cue ball hitting a spinning object ball.

https://youtu.be/VJfLbfjfG4I

[tedisbill]

Right, couple of shots today that I got as decent examples. First one is plain ball. As you can see, I hit the red slightly on right as I look, and it goes to the left as you would expect.

In the second shot, I play with lots of left hand side. I hit the red slightly on the left (just a fraction), as I look, and it goes a lot to the right.

Thoughts?

[rimmer10]

Right, couple of shots today that I got as decent examples. First one is plain ball. As you can see, I hit the red slightly on right as I look, and it goes to the left as you would expect.

In the second shot, I play with lots of left hand side. I hit the red slightly on the left (just a fraction), as I look, and it goes a lot to the right.

Thoughts?

Thank you and good night!