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

[tedisbill]

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.

I think I see what you're saying. But if we put the cue ball where we did, then we can send that red just to the far jaw just exactly as we set it up, without catching the blue? So if we can send it there, why can't we pot it using side?

I see your point, that I could place the white on the black spot and then couldn't see the red at all, but in our test, we could still see the red to send it exactly as we set it up.

[blahblah01]

As above: you have set up a straight pot and are then trying to use side....

[Terry Davidson]

Should have waited for the gloating lol.

That video is total crap mate.

Try one from the experts, who have actually studied the game in infinite detail, rather than a hack that thinks a ten ball is a nine ball lol.

Please actually watch this for once as I'm getting rather sick of linking it.

https://youtu.be/-jUL_8aZ2LU

And have another, there are thousands of these things if you actually bother looking

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xoSyNGpzw50

So, after all your whining and insults you finally show your true colours. You post 2 videos as your proof which show common everyday shots where these 2 guys use bending the cueball to get their effects. These videos show nothing new and certainly nothing that I and everyone else on this string didn't already know.

You have gone on and on about how real pool players are able to BEND AN OBJECT BALL AROUND AN OBSTRUCTING BALL BY USING SIDE and I have yet to see anyone be able to do that. All you're showing is bending (or swerving if you like), the cueball into the correct potting point which is BOB. In all cases it is BOB and physics demands it can only be BOB.

You are no more knowledgeable than anyone else on here yet you try and perform the role of all-knowing billiards guru. You are nowhere near that and appear to get your jollies off by insulting other people, in an apparent attempt to make them look smaller so you can believe in doing that you make yourself look bigger. Well, no one is fooled by rank stupidity (except possibly Trump supporters).

So Mr.B.S. (the billiards guru) SHOW ME A VIDEO WHERE THE OBJECT BALL BENDS AROUND ANOTHER BLOCKING BALL BY USING SIDE (I presume opposite side) ON THE CUEBALL ONLY. In order to do this you will have to cheat because it's IMPOSSIBLE. I expect to see a object ball jump over the edge of the intervening ball. Now remember, no cueball effects please.

[travisbickle]

So, after all your whining and insults you finally show your true colours. You post 2 videos as your proof which show common everyday shots where these 2 guys use bending the cueball to get their effects. These videos show nothing new and certainly nothing that I and everyone else on this string didn't already know.

You have gone on and on about how real pool players are able to BEND AN OBJECT BALL AROUND AN OBSTRUCTING BALL BY USING SIDE and I have yet to see anyone be able to do that. All you're showing is bending (or swerving if you like), the cueball into the correct potting point which is BOB. In all cases it is BOB and physics demands it can only be BOB.

You are no more knowledgeable than anyone else on here yet you try and perform the role of all-knowing billiards guru. You are nowhere near that and appear to get your jollies off by insulting other people, in an apparent attempt to make them look smaller so you can believe in doing that you make yourself look bigger. Well, no one is fooled by rank stupidity (except possibly Trump supporters).

So Mr.B.S. (the billiards guru) SHOW ME A VIDEO WHERE THE OBJECT BALL BENDS AROUND ANOTHER BLOCKING BALL BY USING SIDE (I presume opposite side) ON THE CUEBALL ONLY. In order to do this you will have to cheat because it's IMPOSSIBLE. I expect to see a object ball jump over the edge of the intervening ball. Now remember, no cueball effects please.

There is no bending of the object ball, where are you getting this from?
All that's happening here is you are hitting the object ball thicker and using drag/side to pot it.
Also you saying there is no use for side to be played whatsoever unless you are using a cushion is just crazy talk!

[Terry Davidson]

There is no bending of the object ball, where are you getting this from?
All that's happening here is you are hitting the object ball thicker and using drag/side to pot it.
Also you saying there is no use for side to be played whatsoever unless you are using a cushion is just crazy talk!

Mr. B.S. stated that but meybe he was trying to get a discussion going so he could insult more people.

You believe what you like regarding side. I can be used to pot a ball that is not pottable on a centre-ball pot, used on the break normally. Not much use anywhere else without a cushion and it doesn't alter much with the exception you are hitting the OB at a different approach angle and getting a bit different movement of the cueball. But to use it you have to compensate on the aiming so it makes the shot more complicated.

I happen to disagree with you but Karnham would agree with you.

[itsnoteasy]

I think I see what you're saying. But if we put the cue ball where we did, then we can send that red just to the far jaw just exactly as we set it up, without catching the blue? So if we can send it there, why can't we pot it using side?

I see your point, that I could place the white on the black spot and then couldn't see the red at all, but in our test, we could still see the red to send it exactly as we set it up.

I set this up in the club today Ted, pulled the cue ball straight back and after many attempts I couldn't do it( hit blue at the same time some times and potted it a bit like your video, ) I was going to give up, then started cueing differently and trying all different paces and drags etc, then all of a sudden one turned and turned a lot, it went into just the left hand side of the pocket, from being lined up to the right knuckle,to me it seems so very very pace and cueing specific and all I can say is , when I think I have been playing them , I haven't , I reckon it's been swerve mostly , but I'm not saying thats proving anything except that I can't cue very well .
I have just watched Biggies video and it might be I was playing too far from centre at the start, as the video was saying you can get less throw the further out you go, I will try again tomorrow

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

So, after all your whining and insults you finally show your true colours. You post 2 videos as your proof which show common everyday shots where these 2 guys use bending the cueball to get their effects. These videos show nothing new and certainly nothing that I and everyone else on this string didn't already know.

You have gone on and on about how real pool players are able to BEND AN OBJECT BALL AROUND AN OBSTRUCTING BALL BY USING SIDE and I have yet to see anyone be able to do that. All you're showing is bending (or swerving if you like), the cueball into the correct potting point which is BOB. In all cases it is BOB and physics demands it can only be BOB.

You are no more knowledgeable than anyone else on here yet you try and perform the role of all-knowing billiards guru. You are nowhere near that and appear to get your jollies off by insulting other people, in an apparent attempt to make them look smaller so you can believe in doing that you make yourself look bigger. Well, no one is fooled by rank stupidity (except possibly Trump supporters).

So Mr.B.S. (the billiards guru) SHOW ME A VIDEO WHERE THE OBJECT BALL BENDS AROUND ANOTHER BLOCKING BALL BY USING SIDE (I presume opposite side) ON THE CUEBALL ONLY. In order to do this you will have to cheat because it's IMPOSSIBLE. I expect to see a object ball jump over the edge of the intervening ball. Now remember, no cueball effects please.

Terry, Terry, Terry...please go and have a lie down in a darkened room. If you're not trolling, I'm genuinely concerned about you. You've taken this discussion into twilight zone territory lol. Waistlines and horns? Bananaing object balls? I mean WTF are you on about?

Here's a bit of light entertainment to view before you do:

https://youtu.be/FYkj4sGQqOE

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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

Wow, 50? You're amazing.

[Terry Davidson]

OK, Mr. B.S. and Travis believe you can transfer side to the OB. vmax, throtts, myself, tedisbill, joe davis, nic barrow, Ray Reardon, Frank Callan and a whole lot of other experts believe the side transferred, if any, is so slight that it has no effect on the OB and is of no possible use.

Here's a question for the 'I believe in transfer' folks. Everyone knows and believes when you hit the cueball to the side it will eventually curl to that side which can be easily proven with masse or indeed any shot off-centre on the cueball. So if a spinning cueball will curve then obviously if side is transferred to the OB then it must curve somewhat too. (Is that not logical?)

Or is it that any side transferred to the OB is so slight as to be useless. Or did that transferred spin make Selby's red ball 'turn' or bend into the pocket. My opinion is Selby curved the CB to the spot on the red ball he needed to (BOB) in order to pot it and the red ball did not get 'thrown in' or did not 'bend in'.

Mr. B.S. feels he knows the physics of colliding spherical objects better than anyone else but I have yet to hear him say the transferred spin caused the OB to bend or curl (too lazy to read whole string) however some on here are now saying that. Sadly I only have an engineering degree and am not an expert like Mr. B.S. but I agree with what vmax said and I firmly believe players are actually doing a mini-swerve (yes Mr. B.S. it is possible to swerve a cueball while the cue is level just like Selby did) and are actually contacting the sweet spot on the OB and potting it.

Nic Barrow agrees with this and also does not agree with the idea of transferred side spin. But another question for the transfer people. When you use screw is top spin imparted on the OB? It would stand to reason using your transfer theory. Even better when you hit the CB with extreme top spin will that transfer screw to the OB? Gee, I just don't know but maybe the physics expert can tell us (without insulting us hopefully).

[throtts]

Wow, 50? You're amazing.

Sure am.

And what are you doing back on here. Go to one of those dusty pool forums please. Those small wee tables with buckets for pockets are a good place to start. You do not need to cue like :snooker:.

[Little Reggie]

OK, Mr. B.S. and Travis believe you can transfer side to the OB. vmax, throtts, myself, tedisbill, joe davis, nic barrow, Ray Reardon, Frank Callan and a whole lot of other experts believe the side transferred, if any, is so slight that it has no effect on the OB and is of no possible use.

Here's a question for the 'I believe in transfer' folks. Everyone knows and believes when you hit the cueball to the side it will eventually curl to that side which can be easily proven with masse or indeed any shot off-centre on the cueball. So if a spinning cueball will curve then obviously if side is transferred to the OB then it must curve somewhat too. (Is that not logical?)

Or is it that any side transferred to the OB is so slight as to be useless. Or did that transferred spin make Selby's red ball 'turn' or bend into the pocket. My opinion is Selby curved the CB to the spot on the red ball he needed to (BOB) in order to pot it and the red ball did not get 'thrown in' or did not 'bend in'.

Mr. B.S. feels he knows the physics of colliding spherical objects better than anyone else but I have yet to hear him say the transferred spin caused the OB to bend or curl (too lazy to read whole string) however some on here are now saying that. Sadly I only have an engineering degree and am not an expert like Mr. B.S. but I agree with what vmax said and I firmly believe players are actually doing a mini-swerve (yes Mr. B.S. it is possible to swerve a cueball while the cue is level just like Selby did) and are actually contacting the sweet spot on the OB and potting it.

Nic Barrow agrees with this and also does not agree with the idea of transferred side spin. But another question for the transfer people. When you use screw is top spin imparted on the OB? It would stand to reason using your transfer theory. Even better when you hit the CB with extreme top spin will that transfer screw to the OB? Gee, I just don't know but maybe the physics expert can tell us (without insulting us hopefully).

Sir, you seem to have ignored what Mr Stark, a coach of huge experience says in his video. If it is of use to Mr Stark, shown by Mr Wilson in the video of his match against Bingham, then why poo-poo the benefits of transferred side? Neither Mr Barrow or yourself have achieved the heights of Mr Wilson and I cannot avoid the feeling that jealousy pervades. Disappointing. That old chestnut, don't slate something until you have tried it, or perhaps here, developed the skills, to enjoy it. The fact remains, Mr Stark shows us how to pot the unpotable to keep a break going, that is a very useful skill indeed. You denigrate this skill and it does not reflect kindly on you.

[guernseygooner]

Sir, you seem to have ignored what Mr Stark, a coach of huge experience says in his video. If it is of use to Mr Stark, shown by Mr Wilson in the video of his match against Bingham, then why poo-poo the benefits of transferred side? Neither Mr Barrow or yourself have achieved the heights of Mr Wilson and I cannot avoid the feeling that jealousy pervades. Disappointing. That old chestnut, don't slate something until you have tried it, or perhaps here, developed the skills, to enjoy it. The fact remains, Mr Stark shows us how to pot the unpotable and to keep a break going, that is a very useful skill indeed. You denigrate this skill and it does not reflect kindly on you.

You love a vid Splasher. You or anyone else please set up the Wilson shot with same camera angle and repeat the cue ball hitting the red on the wrong side but still potting it.

[travisbickle]

Sir, you seem to have ignored what Mr Stark, a coach of huge experience says in his video. If it is of use to Mr Stark, shown by Mr Wilson in the video of his match against Bingham, then why poo-poo the benefits of transferred side? Neither Mr Barrow or yourself have achieved the heights of Mr Wilson and I cannot avoid the feeling that jealousy pervades. Disappointing. That old chestnut, don't slate something until you have tried it, or perhaps here, developed the skills, to enjoy it. The fact remains, Mr Stark shows us how to pot the unpotable to keep a break going, that is a very useful skill indeed. You denigrate this skill and it does not reflect kindly on you.

Hard to teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. I still find it hard to believe so many good players on here and they don't know/believe about this stuff.

[Little Reggie]

Hard to teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. I still find it hard to believe so many good players on here and they don't know/believe about this stuff.

Absolutely incredible. I could understand if it was just a pool skill; the cues/tips/balls/surface are different but we've seen it at work with Wilson and Mr Stark. There is no argument, spin xfer is a real thing. Their inability to makes these shots does not lessen the skills of those who can, by one iota. I take my hat off to those who can do this. I didn't have chance to work on this technique at practice yesterday but I sure will. It's got to be a pint winning trick no?

[travisbickle]

Absolutely incredible. I could understand if it was just a pool skill; the cues/tips/balls/surface are different but we've seen it at work with Wilson and Mr Stark. There is no argument, spin xfer is a real thing. Their inability to makes these shots does not lessen the skills of those who can, by one iota. I take my hat off to those who can do this. I didn't have chance to work on this technique at practice yesterday but I sure will. It's got to be a pint winning trick no?

You can definitely do some crazy s##t with it once you get the hang of it