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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

If there are any survivors that is. What fascinates me though, as a rubbish player who had a 25 break many many moons ago and never came close since, how can something that should be based on sound principles of physics divide a camp of such an array of accomplished players? You'd think this would be bread an butter and largely agreed upon. Physics are physics at the end of the day. As an engineer by trade this really baffles me.

It's a fair question but players there have been world champions couldn't explain what they do.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The question is guys.

Did Wilson just play the swerve to try and hit the natural BOB to make the pot?.

IMO, Wilson didn't 100% think his 5 o'clock hit turned the OB in the pocket. He considered it was kick too hence the call to the ref to clean the CB. On slow pots the chances of kicks happen more often and when they do happen you can blatantly see the OB straighten up.

And guys, please stop poking fun at Terry. His a respected forum member and has helped many on here with hours and hours of posting. Do yourselves some favours and keep it more tasteful.

Nights,
t....

tbf he's having an absolute mare on this thread, you too as it goes.

As for kicks (real kicks), the majority of kicks in snooker are not bad contacts at all, they are caused by putting unwanted side on the ball, which creating a different than expected contact on the object ball.

It should be noted here Dennis Taylor says kick after every single shot - he is talking out of his backside. Genuine kicks - caused by chalk, hair, dust etc - are pretty rare. Cueing errors are numerous, however. It would be interesting to compare how many kicks a player gets in practise to how many they get in competition, when under pressure. I bet he gets loads more at the crucible than in his snooker room at home.

Conclusion: kicks caused by poor cueing due to increased pressure.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It's not the 70's and early 80's any more, sobriety is the Name of the Game ;wink:

It certainly is very Subconcious, which is why people find it hard to explain what they have just done, even they do it very well and consistently ie they allow for things without knowing they have allowed for them eg the movement off the path of the OB due to the side on the CB.

The big problem is the TV Coverage, and the numpties like DT. they say side, when they should say which side. More use of Super Slow Mo will show loads of jumping CB's and OB's ie not just DT spunking his pants screaming KICK... Also they never (unless they have to) show the cue hands, which would help people learn what they are doing, and who does what....

Snooker is in the dark ages. If it wants to stop its terminal decline it absolutely must embrace more technology. The old timers won't like it but tough tiit.

[throtts]

you too as it goes.


Conclusion: kicks caused by poor cueing due to increased pressure.

Really!!.. Your the one having the mare. Physics good, but judging by your lack of post re cue sport shots, your naff which would blatantly reflect your standard as a player.

Frustration is a terrible thing when coupled with cue sports. Thats my tip to you, buddy...

[Byrom]

You guys do realise if Roy Chisholm ever came on here to read this thread about him and started at the beginning - he would probably be dead before he reached the end

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

So me and my mate Robbie had another mess around with this tonight. If we blocked the potting angle of a red with another ball very slightly, we COULD NOT get the red to pot, even with lots of attempts.

I have attached a small video we did trying to show this, and as I say, this is only a little demo, but even with 20+ attempts, we could not get the red to "throw" or "kick" in the pocket.

So I think Terry and Vmax could well be right here, and I'll be the first to apologise if they are!

There's no easy way to say this but this is NOT theory, there NO discussion to be had, It is NOT up for debate.

It's simple, scientific fact, provable, demonstrable fact. Again the snooker is in the dark ages here.

As for your experiment, watch the dr dave video I've just linked (for the millionth time). It explains all you need to know - and what you are doing wrong.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yes mate. You could well be right. It's certainly maybe changed my mind doing these videos.

As I say, I think Vmax could be bang on here. And I'll hold my hands up and say he's right!

I suppose it's technically possible millions of players are wrong and vmax is right but i wouldn't bet on it.

The phrase 'there's always one' springs to mind!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Can't be bothered reading this to see if it's been done but has anyone actually given the Wilson shot a go?

I'd wager that you won't pot the red hitting it in the same spot as Wilson did without a bad contact.

Yes, of course, a million times. No American pool player worth his salt wouldn't know this shot.

[blahblah01]

You guys do realise if Roy Chisholm ever came on here to read this thread about him and started at the beginning - he would probably be dead before he reached the end

I'm sure that he is aware of it, as it might Google quite high up (7th, as I just checked, with an unreplied to similar post from here 8th).

I wonder why he hasn't posted :wink:

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Really!!.. Your the one having the mare. Physics good, but judging by your lack of post re cue sport shots, your naff which would blatantly reflect your standard as a player.

Frustration is a terrible thing when coupled with cue sports. Thats my tip to you, buddy...

Has your IQ hit 50 yet mate? We can talk again when it does.

[throtts]

Has your IQ hit 50 yet mate? We can talk again when it does.

Hahaha, when your breaks are consistently 50+, we can talk again...:snooker:

[Catch 22]

This thread is getting daft now .

All il say is that I've had the pleasure of spending time with older gents that have played English billiards their whole lives and I've seen these shots a hundred times ....shots I said were not possible and they showed me how to make the shots with side .
I didn't believe it at first but now I'm 100% convinced that side will alter the path if th OB .

If you know anybody that can play English billiards to a very high standard then ask them to show you nursery cannons and the difference between playing them with left and right hand side

Also billiard players like to players use side a lot to get the in offs because they want the object ball to follow a certain path and often they play the shot on the thick side and use side to still get the in off etc .

I've also been told by a pro that he plays vet fine cut shots with helping side as it allows him to hit the ball a bit thicker and still make the pot

[itsnoteasy]

The only point of the blue being in the way, is that the MOST you can hit of the red, will not send it into the pocket. Doesn't matter where you put the cue ball. You can either hit enough of the red or you can't.

I'm sorry i don't understand that, if you set the shot up at an angle so you just can't see the red, then put the cue ball at a straighter angle, you will see less of the red , so instead of having one mill covered you could have three of four making the shot impossible . For this to have any validity, you have to pull the cue ball back in line with the opposite knuckle it's lined up to ,that way you can hit all the red you lined it up with, in the first place.

[blahblah01]

I'm sorry i don't understand that, if you set the shot up at an angle so you just can't see the red, then put the cue ball at a straighter angle, you will see less of the red , so instead of having one mill covered you could have three of four making the shot impossible . For this to have any validity, you have to pull the cue ball back in line with the opposite knuckle it's lined up to ,that way you can hit all the red you lined it up with, in the first place.

Yep: I'll wait for the Mushroom Season to work out using side to pot a straight pot, like in the Clip. I know it can be done, but I think (well am quite certain) the CB needs swerve to make the pot not straight as it is coming from an angle....

[tedisbill]

There's no easy way to say this but this is NOT theory, there NO discussion to be had, It is NOT up for debate.

It's simple, scientific fact, provable, demonstrable fact. Again the snooker is in the dark ages here.

As for your experiment, watch the dr dave video I've just linked (for the millionth time). It explains all you need to know - and what you are doing wrong.

Yes I've seen that video mate. I must say, I fully believe that you can throw a ball in, we just couldn't get it to work yesterday.

We will try what that guy in the video is doing later.