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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yes I can. And it's right hand side btw

He's thoroughly confused, bless him.

[Ramon]

Terry ,

The video i linked ( if that's what you're referring to ) was to show you that CB can'nt deflect in such a short Distance. Bcuz thr is no time for that.
* . so , it's the effect of the side which changes the OBs path to the md pocket . ( abit off the topic in relation to wat has been said in the last 20 posts though ) .
And you are right , you do'nt need using it all the time .
as a matter of fact,* most pro's trying avoid using side as m as possible . ( as i already mentioned in my pvs posts ) .

[PatBlock]

What do you mean lad? Terry doesn't understand what is being discussed - there's only so many times you can read him trying to decipher it before giving up.

It's not just Terry though is it BS, you dish out those TL-DRs like confetti, so proud of you inability to engage in balanced discussion.

-

[itsnoteasy]

It's not just Terry though is it BS, you dish out those TL-DRs like confetti, so proud of you inability to engage in balanced discussion.

-

TL- DRs.....?
Deleted my other post, thought it read a bit disrespectful, sorry about that.

[PatBlock]

TL- DRs.....?
Deleted my other post, thought it read a bit disrespectful, sorry about that.

It's an abbreviation for "Too Long Didn't Read", seems to be all the rage these days.

I simply see it as Too Lazy : Didn't Read.

-

[PatBlock]

He's thoroughly confused, bless him.

....whether that is planets crashing into each other in deep space or on a billiards table, makes no difference.

Planets crashing into each other, on a billiards table?? It always tickles me when people use astrophysics to support a non-astrophysics point, wrongly.
Poor sentence construction aside, these scenarios are very different indeed, so much so that any comparison is utterly ludicrous.
BAIZE IN SPACE!!! How confused is that.

Seriously BS, You need to read more, lots more, if you can that is.

-

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Planets crashing into each other, on a billiards table?? It always tickles me when people use astrophysics to support a non-astrophysics point, wrongly.
Poor sentence construction aside, these scenarios are very different indeed, so much so that any comparison is utterly ludicrous.
BAIZE IN SPACE!!! How confused is that.

Seriously BS, You need to read more, lots more, if you can that is.

-

Awww, this one fancy his chances, it's so sweet.

So, Einstein, at what point do the laws of physics break down on a snooker table? Is there some dark matter lurking around the pink spot? A black hole or two in baulk? Quarks hiding in pockets? What?

And, for those of us with an interest in such matters, are you suggesting that large objects that collide in space do so without obeying the laws of astrophysics?

To borrow from the BBC's cliche writing dept, this has the capacity to completely revolutionise our understanding of the universe.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It's not just Terry though is it BS, you dish out those TL-DRs like confetti, so proud of you inability to engage in balanced discussion.

-

Like confetti? Then you have seen hundreds of examples - find me some, a mere 6 will do. You like evidence, right?

But there's only so many times you can witness people struggling with concepts they patently do not understand before giving up on them. For instance, your good self appears to struggle with the laws of motion. I'm on tenterhooks waiting for a response to my earlier question, i really am. I sense a noble prize in the offing.

[Little Reggie]

Is it the bosons what dun it? Have they thrown us? was it Robertson that noticed that Bingham favoured one side of the table. This was due to Bingham putting side on every shot, a tad of right I believe. He was weak on tother side of table, so Robertson had him by the short and curlies. He'd deliberately leave a tempter on the wrong side of the table which Bingham would miss, leaving Robertson a nice chance. Bingham spent years with his coach and sight right eliminating side on every shot. He began to centre strike and won the world champs. I'm not saying putting side on everything is a bad thing but you have to be very good at it and succeed. We all favour one leg over the other, one hand, one eye, one side of the driver's seat and probably one side of objects like balls but I'm not sure that it's efficient and effective to do so. They say Ronnie puts side on everything but I'm yet to see the proof and it doesn't seem to make sense given how long he modelled himself on Davis who was meticulous in this regard.

[PatBlock]

So, Einstein, at what point do the laws of physics break down on a snooker table? Is there some dark matter lurking around the pink spot? A black hole or two in baulk? Quarks hiding in pockets? What?

And, for those of us with an interest in such matters, are you suggesting that large objects that collide in space do so without obeying the laws of astrophysics?

For the purposes of this discussion, the two scenarios have practically nothing in common, apart from that they both involve round things (well, round-ish in the case of planets) I think this is where your confusion kicks in. For starters, there's this force called gravity you see, and it has quite a profound effect on the interaction between bodies, relative to their mass. As a result of this force, you don't very often see planets bounce of each other, in fact, you never do, it's never happened and never will.

So yes, both scenarios must of course conform to the laws of physics, but you might just as well compare what happens to your toast while it's under the grill, with what happens to balls on a billiards table, the connection is no less tenuous, roundness notwithstanding.

So it was a silly comparison to use and in a vain attempt to make yourself look intelligent, by invoking astrophysics, you've actually done exactly the opposite, very successfully.

Well done you!

....I sense a noble prize in the offing.

If you read a little more, you'd know that's actually Nobel Prize, not noble. But like planets and pool balls, I suppose the difference is negligible as far as you're concerned.

-

[Terry Davidson]

Right, i think the mystery has been solved, chaps. Terry doesn't play with side so Terry doesn't understand it. Phew, that took a while!

Where did you see a statement from me that I don't use side? I believe I've said the opposite many times. I use right-hand side on the break, I use side on safety shots if I need it, I use side on positional shots if a cushion is involved.

The other thing about you Mr. B.S. is you've never answered one single question regarding any topic, you just like to raise people's tempers with your inane and mostly false comments

[Terry Davidson]

I gave you several you klutz. Why wouldn't being able to manufacture angles that aren't naturally there be a good thing? It gives you more of the OB to play with. And quite what you're on about with your black shot...

You should leave this. I fear you have learning difficulties cos you aren't getting it at all.

You're right, I'm not getting your CRAP at all

[Terry Davidson]

Terry ,

The video i linked ( if that's what you're referring to ) was to show you that CB can'nt deflect in such a short Distance. Bcuz thr is no time for that.
* . so , it's the effect of the side which changes the OBs path to the md pocket . ( abit off the topic in relation to wat has been said in the last 20 posts though ) .
And you are right , you do'nt need using it all the time .
as a matter of fact,* most pro's trying avoid using side as m as possible . ( as i already mentioned in my pvs posts ) .

I'm not sure what some of these supposed players are on about on this string. If you hit the cueball off its centreline it will deflect so therefore every snooker player will compensate for that by aiming off a direct line of aim. I fail to see what a shorter distance has to do with cueball deflection caused by side as it would be worse. Only in a longer shot with lower power which gives the side time to react on the cueball can your statement be correct.

Are you telling me you don't compensate for side when aiming?

[Terry Davidson]

I'm afraid there will be no meeting of the minds on this string. Mr. B.S. refuses to explain clearly what he means which has nothing to do with Chisholm I don't think. Someone said he would play the Karnham black with drag and extreme side when the easiest and correct shot would be a simple stun shot to bring the cueball straight up the table.

And we have Ramon here who says if you have a short distance between CB and OB there is no time for the cueball to deflect from hitting it off the centre-line. That is completely wrong as I just tried it with a dead-in blue with left side and my cue was not pointed down the straight line of aim but rather to the side as I was compensating. When you hit the black with top right check and see where your cue is aiming Ramon. (Or did you make a mistake in your post when you said 'CB can'nt(sic) deflect in such a short Distance'?)

Or are your saying the correct word is throw rather than deflect because that's not right either. What is the correct word by the way for what happens to the cueball when side is applied?

[travisbickle]

Where did you see a statement from me that I don't use side? I believe I've said the opposite many times. I use right-hand side on the break, I use side on safety shots if I need it, I use side on positional shots if a cushion is involved.
The other thing about you Mr. B.S. is you've never answered one single question regarding any topic, you just like to raise people's tempers with your inane and mostly false comments

So if you only use side when using a cushion, you're not the person who should be giving advice on this subject imo