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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No comment. Now I know why you see things that aren't there or ignore things that are there.

Just you keep peddling fake news, mr trump. You leave the science and technical know-how to the rest of us.

Lol at the thought of vmax and terry thinking they know something the rest of the cue sport playing world don't. Awww, it's kinda sweet.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I would never say he's clueless, I was just commenting on that particular example.

-

I have a genuine question to all you non believers out there. Dr dave explains about 750 shots and scenarios, many in excruciating detail, and meticulously set up and executed, often recorded with hi tech camera work.

Tell me which other shots you disagree with - screw? top? side? swerve? doubles? deflection? plants? cut induced throw?

Or is it just spin induced throw you disagree with? Out of 750, is it just this one thing, or is he wrong across the board, displaying ample evidence of a flawed methodology?

[throtts]

The thread running out of steam, buddy. Have a nice hot choc and a early night. :snooker:

[Terry Davidson]

Just you keep peddling fake news, mr trump. You leave the science and technical know-how to the rest of us.

Lol at the thought of vmax and terry thinking they know something the rest of the cue sport playing world don't. Awww, it's kinda sweet.

I'm still waiting on a video from you showing a top spin cueball putting bottom on an object ball. Also, there are quite a few others who believe the cueball is actually hitting the potting spot without that induced whatever. The photo posted of the 2 balls together and a single frame analysis of others does show the cueball directly behind the object ball at point of contact, even Wilson's shot with the small kick.

OK Byrom...was this answer disrespectful or insulting in any way? I'm trying to tone down my responses to Big Shot who I believe keeps trying to get a rise out of me.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'm still waiting on a video from you showing a top spin cueball putting bottom on an object ball. Also, there are quite a few others who believe the cueball is actually hitting the potting spot without that induced whatever. The photo posted of the 2 balls together and a single frame analysis of others does show the cueball directly behind the object ball at point of contact, even Wilson's shot with the small kick.

OK Byrom...was this answer disrespectful or insulting in any way? I'm trying to tone down my responses to Big Shot who I believe keeps trying to get a rise out of me.

To be fair, I've been pretty patient with you. You've done yourself no favours by going on about swerving object balls and the like, and constantly mangling concepts.

As for the video of back spin being the result of top spin on the white, someone has already linked a video that showed it. Don't get your hopes up, however, there's only a very small amount of back spin, presumably because the friction of the cloth is too great to allow much more. This is clearly visible in drag shot videos. That friction is far less for a cue ball spinning sideways, obviously, so it carries for much longer.

Now, how about you answer mine? Why did vmax and Wilson's cb finish to the right of the object ball? If it was swerving, it would have either followed straight or continued on its curving path to the left, surely?

[Terry Davidson]

To be fair, I've been pretty patient with you. You've done yourself no favours by going on about swerving object balls and the like, and constantly mangling concepts.

As for the video of back spin being the result of top spin on the white, someone has already linked a video that showed it. Don't get your hopes up, however, there's only a very small amount of back spin, presumably because the friction of the cloth is too great to allow much more. This is clearly visible in drag shot videos. That friction is far less for a cue ball spinning sideways, obviously, so it carries for much longer.

Now, how about you answer mine? Why did vmax and Wilson's cb finish to the right of the object ball? If it was swerving, it would have either followed straight or continued on its curving path to the left, surely?

Jeez, I would hate to see you impatient with someone. I haven't gone back to the vmax video to check but the Wilson shot was accomplished with a lot of right hand side and the cueball should have carried on to the right just a bit as it was almost straight in at contact but there was that little hiccup at contact which I suspect was a bad contact, or kick if you prefer which killed the cueball a bit. (I went back and checked and the cueball made contact directly opposite the left jaw (to Wilson) however it did look like a bad contact and the cueball continued straight towards the pocket in a straight line. I slowed it down to .25speed to get a good look at where the cueball made contact and the actual contact itself. I don't think he used too much side as it looked to me like he hit the red perfectly to pot if but the poor contact or mini-kick pushed the red towards the left jaw.)

I assume you're talking about from Wilson's perspective or left from our perspective. I would say the cueball finished just as it should have as far as I could see but I'll go back and look at the video again if it's still there

[Little Reggie]

To be fair, I've been pretty patient with you. You've done yourself no favours by going on about swerving object balls and the like, and constantly mangling concepts.

Surgical.
:biggrin-new: You crack me up. :biggrin-new:

[itsnoteasy]

Well here's a comment from our own Longbomber to certain Nic Barrow about spin transfer, quite interesting considering we keep getting told he holds the opposite view.

[Little Reggie]

Well here's a comment from our own Longbomber to certain Nic Barrow about spin transfer, quite interesting considering we keep getting told he holds the opposite view.

Oh dear, even Barrow boy knows the score. If throw results on every pot without spin as Barrow boy says, just imagine how much more throw will result with spin! Barrow boy saying that side does xfer to the OB here, as Mr Stark and Dr Dave said as well. Terry and VMax look total fools now. Shock.

[itsnoteasy]

Oh dear, even Barrow boy knows the score. If throw results on every pot without spin as Barrow boy says, just imagine how much more throw will result with spin! Barrow boy saying that side does xfer to the OB here, as Mr Stark and Dr Dave said as well. Terry and VMax look total fools now. Shock.

Or, Nics just another one that's got it wrong also not fools Reggie, we can all be wrong no harm in that. As Lawrence Krause is always saying , it's good to be wrong ,it's how we learn.

[Byrom]

Or, Nics just another one that's got it wrong also not fools Reggie, we can all be wrong no harm in that. As Lawrence Krause is always saying , it's good to be wrong ,it's how we learn.

OOOOooooooo look at you quoting Laurence Krause

[Terry Davidson]

How about ockham's razor? Nic must have changed his mind after he trained me then. I still believe the OB moves at 180* from the contact point but maybe Nic brainwashed me 8 years ago. I also have to say after looking at Dr. Dave's videos that I think these effects occur a lot more on a pool table than a snooker table and I haven't noticed them from snooker however I have never had to consciously think about any extra effect when potting an angled pot.

Now it could be there's a lot of spit on my set of snooker balls which nullifies this problem according to the good Doctor.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

How about ockham's razor? Nic must have changed his mind after he trained me then. I still believe the OB moves at 180* from the contact point but maybe Nic brainwashed me 8 years ago. I also have to say after looking at Dr. Dave's videos that I think these effects occur a lot more on a pool table than a snooker table and I haven't noticed them from snooker however I have never had to consciously think about any extra effect when potting an angled pot.

Now it could be there's a lot of spit on my set of snooker balls which nullifies this problem according to the good Doctor.

Not consciously thinking about it is key. Our muscle memory will take over after a certain amount of time at the table, which explains why many pro players really cannot describe what they are doing.

[alrocco]

Hi all, I would just like to say to all that every one of you play with side but do not know they are. It has been proved beyond all shadow of a doubt. So once you realise it you will become a better player by far. As for Terry,s thoughts of it being absolute rubbish astounds me, I would be pleased if he could visit me and learn the parts of Snooker he DOESNT understand, he would be a far better coach than he is now. All the best Roy.

[alrocco]

Terry, everyone players with side. End of story.