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

[Terry Davidson]

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

You are entitled to your opinion Travis (you say imo) however there are some things being said here which need some facts. First of all I am a Master Coach and I'm entitled to speak on snooker subjects. Certified with Snooker Gym (Nic Barrow), IBSF, WPBSA and Matchroom (Wayne and Terry Griffiths). Since I can no longer play with the skill I used to have in the 80's I decided to coach (those that can do, those that can't coach).

The other thing is in the Jack Karnham video it's no wonder he used the top spot because as a billiards player he is very familiar with top-of-the-table play since the only spot used in billiards is the top spot for winning hazards. Billiards players used side on virtually every shot and don't forget Chisholm is also an old billiards player who uses side on virtually every shot. Karnham used to teach the B&SCC coach training course and the only student who every failed that course was Frank Callan who is regarded as the best coach who ever lived. What did Frank disagree with? It was the use of side by Karnham on shots that didn't need side. With ivory and crystalite heavier balls perhaps side was transferred to the object ball in a manner that could be used but I have never used those balls. If side is transferred on Super Crystalite or Aramith Pro balls I don't think it is in a usable amount. Also notice in the Chisholm video he uses the middle pockets which are the largest on most tables. I have noticed the gear effect on angled pots but it's not something that can be controlled, it is what it is.

Throw on the other hand is usable and can be controlled but it takes a lot of practice and skill because it's power dependent. Because a player has to compensate on aiming when using side why use it on shots that don't need it and complicate the shot? The player must learn the deflection of the cueball through experience and take into account the flex of the cue, the weight of the cloth and other things that effect deflection. Vmax uses helping side but he has probably always used it and knows from experience how to use it and he is more confident using it.

It's my OPINION and this is a forum and anyone is allowed to express their opinions on the statements being made, even Mr. B.S. although he seems to prefer to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with him rather than trying to explain his position or opposition clearly. As he says, I might be confused but only because of a lack of clear explanations on whatever topic he is onto.

[alabadi]

+1 Terry....

[itsnoteasy]

You are entitled to your opinion Travis (you say imo) however there are some things being said here which need some facts. First of all I am a Master Coach and I'm entitled to speak on snooker subjects. Certified with Snooker Gym (Nic Barrow), IBSF, WPBSA and Matchroom (Wayne and Terry Griffiths). Since I can no longer play with the skill I used to have in the 80's I decided to coach (those that can do, those that can't coach).

The other thing is in the Jack Karnham video it's no wonder he used the top spot because as a billiards player he is very familiar with top-of-the-table play since the only spot used in billiards is the top spot for winning hazards. Billiards players used side on virtually every shot and don't forget Chisholm is also an old billiards player who uses side on virtually every shot. Karnham used to teach the B&SCC coach training course and the only student who every failed that course was Frank Callan who is regarded as the best coach who ever lived. What did Frank disagree with? It was the use of side by Karnham on shots that didn't need side. With ivory and crystalite heavier balls perhaps side was transferred to the object ball in a manner that could be used but I have never used those balls. If side is transferred on Super Crystalite or Aramith Pro balls I don't think it is in a usable amount. Also notice in the Chisholm video he uses the middle pockets which are the largest on most tables. I have noticed the gear effect on angled pots but it's not something that can be controlled, it is what it is.

Throw on the other hand is usable and can be controlled but it takes a lot of practice and skill because it's power dependent. Because a player has to compensate on aiming when using side why use it on shots that don't need it and complicate the shot? The player must learn the deflection of the cueball through experience and take into account the flex of the cue, the weight of the cloth and other things that effect deflection. Vmax uses helping side but he has probably always used it and knows from experience how to use it and he is more confident using it.

It's my OPINION and this is a forum and anyone is allowed to express their opinions on the statements being made, even Mr. B.S. although he seems to prefer to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with him rather than trying to explain his position or opposition clearly. As he says, I might be confused but only because of a lack of clear explanations on whatever topic he is onto.

This is what this thread is about Terry, I don't know how side transference got mixed in with it, I think it has just confused everything. I totally agree with you , everyone is entitled to his opinion and it doesn't matter if you use throw in your game or not, that's a personal preference but it's knowing it exists, that's all that's being discussed. Billiard players do use a lot more side than snooker players and there is a different emphasis to the game altogether because it's an in off game into pockets rather than a potting game( except when I'm playing) you don't have to be as accurate and the side on the white will throw a lot of wide balls into pockets for you.
Here is just a wee example , watch how many of these would have missed if they were direct pots but the side stakes them in( by the way this is off topic as well, I don't t want to confuse it any more, I just find it fascinating)
https://youtu.be/12KNlnuByCA
Thanks Pat , re TL-DR, I have learned something today

[Little Reggie]

This is what this thread is about Terry, I don't know how side transference got mixed in with it, I think it has just confused everything. I totally agree with you , everyone is entitled to his opinion and it doesn't matter if you use throw in your game or not, that's a personal preference but it's knowing it exists, that's all that's being discussed. Billiard players do use a lot more side than snooker players and there is a different emphasis to the game altogether because it's an in off game into pockets rather than a potting game( except when I'm playing) you don't have to be as accurate and the side on the white will throw a lot of wide balls into pockets for you.
Here is just a wee example , watch how many of these would have missed if they were direct pots but the side stakes them in( by the way this is off topic as well, I don't t want to confuse it any more, I just find it fascinating)
https://youtu.be/12KNlnuByCA
Thanks Pat , re TL-DR, I have learned something today

Pardon me but what is 'side transference'? It sounds like radio ham nightmare.

[blahblah01]

From the 40 odd pages above, I think it is being taken as side spin transferring to the OB ie the OB spins horizontally.

I gave up understanding this pages ago as the point being argued was whether side on the CB made the OB follow a different path than if there were no side spin on the CB.

[Little Reggie]

From the 40 odd pages above, I think it is being taken as side spin transferring to the OB ie the OB spins horizontally.

I gave up understanding this pages ago as the point being argued was whether side on the CB made the OB follow a different path than if there were no side spin on the CB.

Thanks. Just played with two spotted balls, with a cue and in the hand. I spun the CB as hard as I could with my hand to hit the OB. I put a lot of side both top and bottom on the CB with my cue/tip. I'm not seeing any side xfer at all. Not saying it's not possible but the balls would have to grip each other for a split second and it would take some player to impart that action with snooker balls being so smooth.

[Ramon]

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?

Terry ,


If you pay attention and read the posts from couple of previous pages . You'll see that Vmax's argument is that CB changes his path and approaches /hit the OB from a diff angle. ( when you play it with side ) .

Unfortunately few other members got confused / changed the topic and started talking about other stuff. ( By no means saying that i have any problem with that bcuz it's a forum after all and i enjoyed reading it).

The answer to your question , no i do not think the CB deflect and change it's path. I think it's the effect of side spin which changes the OBs path at the time of contact . . Assuming the player cues well. Of cours .
Yes, thr would be sum deflection however, this depends on distance, cue, table an sum other stuff as i already mentioned ??

In a short distance the CB does'nt deflect bcuz thr is no time for that. (Hence i did linked that video ??). In such a short distance 6 - 8 inches the CB has already made contact with OB before getting the chance to deflect and hits the OB from a diff angle . ( Unless you play a swerve shot of cours )
I also did linked another vid in one of my posts and asked you a question ? ( as kind of proeve ),

So , just in case you have time here is that vid again and the question was ;

Why tbe CB stays on it's path all tbe way to the cushion in this vid and does'nt deflect ?
He plays the shot on the B line and he's using side .
And this happens when you aim to pot the OB . In a short distanse the CB does not change it's path and if it does , that would be minimum .

BTW , Thanks for your contributions and your time so far.

[Little Reggie]

In my humble opinion, you can't xfer side to the OB. If the CB changes path I guess the player put monstrous side on, like a masse type shot. He could still pot the ball, or maybe James White could, not me. In this case, the CB would deflect the OB from a slightly different angle. I just found this video, that may be of use.

[blahblah01]

The argument is about this video from about 5 mins in?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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!



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.

-

Lol. I accept your apology, and will even forgive your smartarsedness regarding my autocorrect, if you tell me how the moon was formed. The good ole earthy moon.

Have some light reading on the spherical objects in question.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showth...=115841&page=2

[Little Reggie]

Thankyou again. First thing I noticed with the first shot he played with the three balls, the blue ball rolls to the right after contact (camera angle) even though he plays the CB plain ball. On the second shot, he puts a lot of side on the CB and this creates a swerve, then it 'kicks' the blue in Barry's words. Again, the blue ball rolls to the right. I believe he has a slight roll on his table. He doesn't say side xfer to be fair to him, he says kick. We notice something similar when two object balls are touching but aren't a direct plant, we can kick the second ball over by hitting the OB on the wrong side, making a plant work. This is a creative kick, rather than side xfer. Well, that's my take on it.

[blahblah01]

Yes to his use of "kick" ie the OB goes the slightly the opposite way to the side put on the CB. I do not believe that he has ever said that the side transfers and the OB starts spinning, just that the path is altered.

From a Physics point of view: I am struggling with people thinking that a spinning CB will not change the path of the OB and seen\done it loads of time myself.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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

Lol!

Wow, your side spin-tastic!

It is not my fault you're so completely unable to understand the answers i give to you, and feel free to list all the things I'm wrong about. Actually, as I'm in a good mood this evening, just give me one.

That shouldn't be difficult, should it, bearing in mind my 'mostly false comments'. Hurry up tel!

[Little Reggie]

Yes to his use of "kick" ie the OB goes the slightly the opposite way to the side put on the CB. I do not believe that he has ever said that the side transfers and the OB starts spinning, just that the path is altered.

From a Physics point of view: I am struggling with people thinking that a spinning CB will not change the path of the OB and seen\done it loads of time myself.

The easy way to settle it would be for someone to post a video, maybe with two polka dot cue balls or two striped pool balls. If they can make the second ball spin, fantastic! The video I posted shows a chap saying this is not possible, using two pool balls. I think the null hypothesis is that side does not xfer. It's then up to someone to prove this theory wrong. Evidence would be great. What happens in Mr Stark's video is somewhat open to interpretation.

[PatBlock]

Lol. I accept your apology, and will even forgive your smartarsedness regarding my autocorrect, if you tell me how the moon was formed. The good ole earthy moon.

Have some light reading on the spherical objects in question.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showth...=115841&page=2

Well, there is still some debate about this one, but the current model goes like this:
Two planets collided, they merged, then because of the increased orbital rotation, lots of molten debris flew off, eventually coalescing to form the moon.
Just like on a snooker table. I knew I was wasting my time.

-