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

[blahblah01]

Spin on the OB and the path it takes are not the same thing, imho ie the latter happens, regularly.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

Terry. This is the point i have made since i joined this forum: the terminology used in snooker is confused and, more to the point, confusing. It would be beneficial all round if terminology in cue sports was unified, so we all know what is happening on the table and how to describe it.

It has become extremely frustrating having to point things out that good players really should know what is happening when balls collide. They should know there are three reactions to every shot 1. Cue ball deflection (which the snooker world calls throw), 2. Swerve (something all cue sport players agree on) and 3. throw, which is a) always collision induced throw (CIT) and sometimes b) spin induced throw (SIT). And number three is the difficulty: the snooker world is, largely, blissfully unaware of it, so much so it doesn't even have a name! This leads to all sorts of vagaries like "he's used side to turn the red over" and the like. WTF does that mean? It is better to have precise, unambiguous terminology that everyone understands.

This is a decent introductory video. There's no need to get to involved in the physics side of things, and it can get crazily complicated at times, but it is useful to know the basics.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

It has and it isn't. It's been laughed out of town already.

Please people, watch the videos i link. I've done side transfer several times now. And can this thread, from now on, be about spin induced throw only?

Is it too much to ask?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

A slight roll on the table? Best lol yet from this thread! Even vmax would blush at that one.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

-

Thanks. So, if I've read you correctly, two planets have indeed collided?

It's funny but i coulda sworn you said earlier that an event like that couldn't ever happen, anywhere in the known universe. What were the odds of it happening, and I'm trembling with excitement at the mere thought of it, right on our very doorstop?! Out of the gazllion planets, orbiting trillions of stars, in billions of galaxies and the very thing you previously said was impossible, has happened right under our very noses, so to speak!

They've never properly replaced Patrick Moore, you know. There's definitely a vacancy there mate.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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.

There are hundreds of these kicking around on YouTube

https://youtu.be/tRKBjl2PuSw

[PatBlock]

Thanks. So, if I've read you correctly, two planets have indeed collided?

It's funny but i coulda sworn you said earlier that an event like that couldn't ever happen, anywhere in the known universe. What were the odds of it happening, and I'm trembling with excitement at the mere thought of it, right on our very doorstop?! Out of the gazllion planets, orbiting trillions of stars, in billions of galaxies and the very thing you previously said was impossible, has happened right under our very noses, so to speak!

They've never properly replaced Patrick Moore, you know. There's definitely a vacancy there mate.

No, you haven't read me correctly, now there's a surprise. I said planets never bounce off each other, which is just one reason why comparing astrophysics to billiard table physics is silly.

-

[throtts]

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.

Nice post, Terry. :snooker:

[blahblah01]

This leads to all sorts of vagaries like "he's used side to turn the red over" and the like. WTF does that mean?

It means changed the path of the OB by using side :wink:

It is better to have precise, unambiguous terminology that everyone understands.

Yep. Maybe it would help if we decided to use the same terms in this thread?

[throtts]

And to all learners out there reading.

DO NOT read in to this thread too deeply. It will, without doubt, impede your progress as a player. This game is all about practice practice and practice, which and will develop your memory for all shots.

Enjoy...

[itsnoteasy]

I agree we should use the same terms, so we will use snooker terms as this is a snooker forum, I don't think that's asking too much. If you want to use pool terms , there is a pool forum run by the same folk, that never gets used for some strange reason considering pool is far far more popular than snooker, must be too busy trying to educate us on here.

[Little Reggie]

No, you haven't read me correctly, now there's a surprise. I said planets never bounce off each other, which is just one reason why comparing astrophysics to billiard table physics is silly.

-

This is not true. Planets bounce off each other or rather, collide, all the time in the universe, hence the asteroid belt. The Theia or Big Splash impact between two planets may have formed what we know as Earth and our moon today. Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations but is that because Earth imparted spin on to the resulting moon? Actually, no because tellingly, the Moon always has its dark side, no imparted side spin then.

[blahblah01]

I agree we should use the same terms, so we will use snooker terms as this is a snooker forum, I don't think that's asking too much. If you want to use pool terms , there is a pool forum run by the same folk, that never gets used for some strange reason considering pool is far far more popular than snooker, must be too busy trying to educate us on here.

So you can call them then

[itsnoteasy]

So you can call them then

Great I'm going to make my own list up and we all have to use them

[Little Reggie]

There are hundreds of these kicking around on YouTube

https://youtu.be/tRKBjl2PuSw

That's footage over a 1/10th of a second. What I'd like to see is the object ball spinning over a couple of feet, visibly and obviously spinning. Have you got vid of anything like that?