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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

(I've just started playing again in Jan this year, after having a 6x3 with 1/4 sized balls in the late 70's, so don't shout at me :wink

I believe that there are 3 things in play here: the deflection of the CB on contact; the effect of the side on the CB; and then the kick of the OB due to the sidespin.

My guess is:
I'm not getting into the first, as I think this is more to do with the amount of side and how high\low the CB is struck; and quality of strike as anything.
The lack of pace should minimise the second?
I think my belief was wrong here as I thought pace reduced this kick*, but Roy says the opposite above.

*Slower means a longer contact period for the sidespin to take effect.

Can we stop saying kick? Jesus, it's taken 70 odd years for snooker to actually come up with a word for it and even then it's cack.

Everything anyone ever wanted to know about throw (and a great deal they didn't).

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

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

[QUOTE=travisbickle;934775]

Many people, Barry Stark included, see the outcome and come to the wrong conclusion. The cue ball swerves very slightly when played with side at a low pace, you will see this if you play the cue ball along the cushion. You can't play this shot with any kind of power, ask yourself why, and again I ask you to play the cue ball along the cushion at a slow pace with side and watch it leave the cushion about a 1/4 of an inch and come back onto it within twelve inches.

Every time I play a low black or a blue off their spots going into the pack of reds I always aim for the far jaw when using pace and that is without using any side whatsoever

Cut induced throw. This will happen regardless of side, and its effect will be different dependent on speed, angle, whether the shot is played with top, bottom, stun etc. The link above should explain, but CIT happens on every shot, and is what nic barrow calls 'impact throw'.

https://youtu.be/3fPb36wA-p0

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I remember having a session with Ronnie, I had to pack in as every time he had a cut shot on he whipped out a bit of paper and a pencil and started writing down equations on how balls react when they collide. Pack it in Ron I said it's only a practice session,Jim, he replied, Jim how on earth, apple and pears, do you fink I won five world titles, gawd blimey love a duck, me old China, it weren't through talent and practice, I done did a four year physics degree done I,he then ripped his tip off with his teeth and went off to buy another cue, he's a bit of a strange one, if truth be told.

You've won world titles, then? Bravo. The rest of us might need a little help. Some might need a lot. Others still, vmax springs to mind, need a bleeding miracle....

[Byrom]

Tell me what helping side actually is.

It’s running side, or as you might say it is outside english? Basically you hit the cue ball ever so slightly on the same side of the object ball you want to hit. for example If you want to hit the left side of the object ball you cue slightly to the left of the cue ball. We call it helping side - although it does not always help. I find it useful to use on a sort of cut shot where the cut induced throw might otherwise send the ball into the near jaw. I could play the shot thinner plain ball too but its just a preference really.

Edit - Like I said before - it is not necessary for snooker players to know or describe this - many cant but that does not mean to say they cant play the shot naturally - many can and do.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It’s running side, or as you might say it is outside english? Basically you hit the cue ball ever so slightly on the same side of the object ball you want to hit. for example If you want to hit the left side of the object ball you cue slightly to the left of the cue ball. We call it helping side - although it does not always help. I find it useful to use on a sort of cut shot where the cut induced throw might otherwise send the ball into the near jaw. I could play the shot thinner plain ball too but its just a preference really.

Edit - Like I said before - it is not necessary for snooker players to know or describe this - many cant but that does not mean to say they cant play the shot naturally - many can and do.

Lol. Yes, i know what it is - i was trying to see if someone could explain it from a physics point of view.

Helping side is merely SIT in action: the spin on the cue ball allows you to play the shot a bit thicker, making the white easier to control or hold. Right spin on the CB throws the OB to the left slightly. It was first mentioned in the first few pages of this thread, when someone was describing a shot a pro was playing on a baulk colour. SIT in action, at it's simplest. Used so often players don't even realise. Muscle memory can trick the best of em.

[throtts]

Edit - Like I said before - it is not necessary for snooker players to know or describe this - many cant but that does not mean to say they cant play the shot naturally - many can and do.[/QUOTE]

Exactly,

On a break if I finish very high on the black ( green ball side ) I play the shot with left hand side to hold the CB in and around the reds, its a delicate shot ( Yellow side of the table and its right hand side to hold ).

Also in practice I played a high black off the spot yesterday on the green side of the table using bags of right hand side because 3 reds were on the yellow side of the table between the blacks corner pocket and middle pocket. Its a tough shot, many players would go in and out of baulk from the black. I made it and disturb the reds to carry on but I would never call a shot like this ""helping side"", the CB should never have been as high as it was on the black but as i say it was practice.

Both scenarios above I practice with just reds and the black ball on its spot on the table - so no other colours to use.

[vmax4steve]

Ask him why the shot must be played very gently. According to his explanation the side kicks the red in so in theory you should be able to compensate your aiming to allow for the greater deflection, make an even thinner contact on the red so the faster spin kicks the red ball even more, yet you can't do this.

I understand that playing at a slow pace the cue ball is swerving into the OB, however as in my example putting right hand side and aiming thicker should hit the OB thick and therefore miss the pot . But it's the opposite what happens it goes in and the cue ball deflects off more due to the thicker contact

The cue ball deflects more as it's making a thinner contact not a thicker one because it's swerved around the intervening ball onto the correct contact point.

You are beyond clueless. No one is talking about 'transferring side', you ignoramus.

I'll try one more time, to make this very easy for you. A spinning cue ball has an effect on the object ball. Up, down, left, right...all spin has an effect. It's generally called physics. For some reason you think the laws of physics break down on a snooker table. I suspect you break down on a snooker table, usually after the first red.

A spinning cue ball has no effect on the object ball unless side is transfered, and side isn't transfered unless the object ball is frozen on the cushion and then it's a very, very tiny trace amount. This throw that you think you're seeing is simply the effect of the thinner or thicker contacts taking place due to the spinning cue ball approaching the object ball from a very slightly different angle than the one it would when carrying no spin.

Again, physics explains all. I suggest you educate yourself first before you become an even bigger laughing stock.

Why don't you enlighten us as to why this shot cannot be played with power, spinning cue ball having an effect on the object ball and all that.
I say it can't because the swerve on the cue ball is the only thing that's being used and to judge a small amount of swerve like this the shot must be played softly, any harder and the swerve happens too late to make the correct contact point.

You say the spin on the cue ball throws the object ball onto a different line therefore making the pot, so you should be able to do this with even thicker contacts and more spin and power in the cue ball, we see this all the time in other ball games, more spin more reaction.
Link to such a shot on a snooker table, don't bother with those Dr. Dave pool videos, that bloke doesn't understand the squeeze effect he's using with all those plants and sets he uses to 'prove' his theories, and has never experimented on a snooker table with a napped cloth, I know because I asked him.

If you simply give the same old physics rhetoric without showing any proof then we'll all know you're talking bollox.

[throtts]

Jeeps, you guys have been talking about this stuff for, what, 3 1/2 yr.....

Players see shots differently and with hours of play and their technique will adapt to what they believe is right..

Anyway, you two are not in agreement with the physics of the game. Bang on guys because understanding the physics is know sub for hours on the table.

[alabadi]

The cue ball deflects more as it's making a thinner contact not a thicker one because it's swerved around the intervening ball onto the correct contact point.

Steve, i am not swerving around any intervening ball. the shot i am playing is playing the black from the green side of the table from a low position in a line up with a red directly above it. but because i am too low to avoid catching the red i play it thicker with right hand side.

i have to catch the black thicker otherwise the cueball will collide with the red, the natural contact point will catch the red too so i can't be hitting even thinner.

i understand the shot you are talking about swerving around a ball that is blocking the natural contact point, i do this often.

but as in my example its different. i really can't explain scientifically (or in other words can't be bothered) how making contact thicker the ball goes in, all i know it does and thats good enough for me

[blahblah01]

I tried the Barry Stark Blue last night at pace and it didn't work: but did slowly. I can only assuming that there is more contact slowly so more spin transfers to the blue?

I hit CB in middle or just above height wise, so I'm not buying the Deflection line as I had the CB and OB in a straight line to nearly on the straight cushion, so quite a way off: and the pacier effort didn't really deviate from that line, with the slow one hitting the centre.

[vmax4steve]

Steve, i am not swerving around any intervening ball. the shot i am playing is playing the black from the green side of the table from a low position in a line up with a red directly above it. but because i am too low to avoid catching the red i play it thicker with right hand side.

i have to catch the black thicker otherwise the cueball will collide with the red, the natural contact point will catch the red too so i can't be hitting even thinner.

i understand the shot you are talking about swerving around a ball that is blocking the natural contact point, i do this often.

but as in my example its different. i really can't explain scientifically (or in other words can't be bothered) how making contact thicker the ball goes in, all i know it does and thats good enough for me

The cue ball always swerves with side on it and you're compensating for that by aiming the object ball thicker. This is what's happening with the intervening ball, this is what's happening even if there's no intervening ball. Whether it's running or check side the aiming point is thicker, I've explained why once before but I'll do it again.

High on a 3/4 ball black off its spot from the yellow side of the table.

running side (left hand) aim the black to the near jaw as the cue ball will initially deflect to the right but as it's spinning against the nap it doesn't swerve much to come back onto the line of aim to strike the correct contact point on the black to make the pot.

check side (right hand) aim the black to an or two inch before the near jaw as the spin on the cue ball is with the nap so the cue ball swerves more than it does when spinning against the nap.

No side is transfered to the black, the cue ball comes off at a different angle than it would with a centre cue ball strike as it has deflected off the line of aim very slightly, swerved a little and come back on, therefore it has contacted the black from a slightly different line. This is what's happening with the shot you're describing to me, nothing more, helping side is what it's known as but no ball is being turned over or thrown into the pocket.

Now all this differs with how much side, the state of the cloth and power used and one has to play the shot and experiment with how much compensation for the aiming is needed.

Now when playing an extreme swerve shot the butt of the cue is raised to accentuate the spin and swerve effect, the harder you hit it the later the swerve takes effect, so when playing any shot with side the spin makes the cue ball swerve, very slightly when hit gently and much more with extreme power.

You can use all these effects to good use, now in the case of the Selby shot that biggie linked, to he has to play that shot gently to make the cue ball swerve in time to contact the red at the correct spot to make the pot.
If the red was further away he would have to play the shot a little harder, the further away the harder he needs to play the shot.
Now if the red was very close he wouldn't be able to play the shot at all as the tip of the cue wouldn't be able to grip the cue ball at the very slow pace he would need to make it swerve to make the correct contact, and there are times when you can but the red wouldn't reach the pocket anyway.

All this is explained in Reardon's book Classic Snooker OK, so if I'm wrong then so is a six time world champion who also gave Ronnie a bit of advice.

[vmax4steve]

I tried the Barry Stark Blue last night at pace and it didn't work: but did slowly. I can only assuming that there is more contact slowly so more spin transfers to the blue?

I hit CB in middle or just above height wise, so I'm not buying the Deflection line as I had the CB and OB in a straight line to nearly on the straight cushion, so quite a way off: and the pacier effort didn't really deviate from that line, with the slow one hitting the centre.

If you strike the cue ball off the vertical centre then it always deflects opposite to the side applied whether you buy it or not. Play the same shot but with the red about a foot from the pocket instead of close to the blue. Played slowly you will overcut it, play it a little harder and you should pot it.
It's all about judging the swerve according to pace.

[throtts]

vmax,

I can relate totally to your post and agree. As stated with my post above about my practice sessions with just reds and the black on its spot, your example about the 3/4 black is correct and fits what I was exactly playing yesterday and many past practice sessions.. I sight and play the blacks the way you describe them. Of course though, the shot still has to be hit with the correct weight, but your observations are correct and 100% with my opinion..

[blahblah01]

If you strike the cue ball off the vertical centre then it always deflects opposite to the side applied whether you buy it or not. Play the same shot but with the red about a foot from the pocket instead of close to the blue. Played slowly you will overcut it, play it a little harder and you should pot it.
It's all about judging the swerve according to pace.

I think that you are missing the point?

I had the CB and OB in a line with just about the straight bit of the cushion ie to the left of angle of the middle pocket. I then used (quite a lot) left middle or just above side aiming centre of OB, ie straight: at pace the OB missed left; but slowly it took the spin went in the pocket.

Any Deflection would have sent the CB right, meaning missing more left then aimed.

[vmax4steve]

I think that you are missing the point?

I had the CB and OB in a line with just about the straight bit of the cushion ie to the left of angle of the middle pocket.

What the hell does that mean ! Did you play the shot Barry Stark played as you said you did or not ?