Some gems found in an old snooker book (aiming, etc.)

Vahmurka

Vahmurka

...and I get all da rolls
Silver Member
I happened to look through a book, kind of snooker instructional. Mind you, it's ca. 1950, and I was amazed by several very up-to-date statements from the author. I felt I should share at least some of them and highlighted the most interesting parts (though all the extracts I put here are worth reading).

Look what he says about approach to aiming. That sounds much what the majority of modern top pros give in reply to a question of late, how do you aim. Speaking of aiming systems, yes, they might help, but the real deal is what they say, and it is no different than 60+ years ago. Experiment and memory, trial and error.

sn_01.jpg

sn_02.jpg

Also the description of throw and swerve is very accurate.

sn_03.jpg

I didn't know jump shots were allowed in snooker not very long ago. Interesting that the author's point of view in regard with jumps is exactly the same the majority of pool players feel now.
sn_04.jpg

He says there should be a rule that would make jump shots in snooker illegal. Well, they have such a rule now. No wonder, as soon as you take a look at the way they used to make such shots. I would be feeling cheated right away. Being raised as a pool player I always imagined, when reading about "jumps not allowed" in snooker rules, the same jump shot we utilize in pool. But the way it was legal to play for them, it's actually a foul straight away, so it's funny it took them time to make jumping in such a fashion (and every other) illegal.
sn_05.jpg
 
You may or may not believe this. But back in the day I shot quite a few jump shots in that manner when either the rule did not exist in APA or they were not enforcing it.

Now, I did not scoop the ball & you could not discern any miscue when I shot this type of shot.

Keep in mind cue ball squirt/deflection. It works in the verticle direction as well. I never shot any when the balls were rather close, but getting enough 'squirt' to clear a ball far enough away or a part of ball was reasonable.

Naturally, when people saw me doing it, they started trying to do it & that's when the miscues & scoops started happening & the rule was either put in place or started being enforced.

Now, I'm not saying I did not miscue on occassion but very very many times I would say the shot was legal except for the specific rule.

I guess that's Rick's believe it or not.
 
Last edited:
It's funny, you can see the seeds of the same old arguments that rage to this day. And in 50 years someone will post on a forum asking if jump shots should be legal.

Pretty interesting read, it sounds like.
 
Vahmurka said:
I happened to look through a book, kind of snooker instructional. Mind you, it's ca. 1950, and I was amazed by several very up-to-date statements from the author. I felt I should share at least some of them and highlighted the most interesting parts (though all the extracts I put here are worth reading).

Look what he says about approach to aiming. That sounds much what the majority of modern top pros give in reply to a question of late, how do you aim. Speaking of aiming systems, yes, they might help, but the real deal is what they say, and it is no different than 60+ years ago. Experiment and memory, trial and error.

View attachment 275186

View attachment 275187

Also the description of throw and swerve is very accurate.

View attachment 275188

I didn't know jump shots were allowed in snooker not very long ago. Interesting that the author's point of view in regard with jumps is exactly the same the majority of pool players feel now.
View attachment 275189

He says there should be a rule that would make jump shots in snooker illegal. Well, they have such a rule now. No wonder, as soon as you take a look at the way they used to make such shots. I would be feeling cheated right away. Being raised as a pool player I always imagined, when reading about "jumps not allowed" in snooker rules, the same jump shot we utilize in pool. But the way it was legal to play for them, it's actually a foul straight away, so it's funny it took them time to make jumping in such a fashion (and every other) illegal.
View attachment 275190
Click to expand...

Hello Vahmurka,
I enjoyed reading this thread. It was interesting as well. back in the day. Wow! That was a long time ago. Thanks for sharing this with us. Play pool well! Thanks again.
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.
 
For those who are wondering, the author of the book is Joe Davis. He was the UK/world champion at both English billiards and snooker. There are many authors who still have not caught up to what Joe was saying.
 
Joe Davis knew his stuff. Thank you Joe, and thank the OP for posting it. Johnnyt
 
Vahmurka said:
I happened to look through a book, kind of snooker instructional. Mind you, it's ca. 1950, and I was amazed by several very up-to-date statements from the author. I felt I should share at least some of them and highlighted the most interesting parts (though all the extracts I put here are worth reading).

Look what he says about approach to aiming. That sounds much what the majority of modern top pros give in reply to a question of late, how do you aim. Speaking of aiming systems, yes, they might help, but the real deal is what they say, and it is no different than 60+ years ago. Experiment and memory, trial and error.

View attachment 275186

View attachment 275187

Also the description of throw and swerve is very accurate.

View attachment 275188

I didn't know jump shots were allowed in snooker not very long ago. Interesting that the author's point of view in regard with jumps is exactly the same the majority of pool players feel now.
View attachment 275189

He says there should be a rule that would make jump shots in snooker illegal. Well, they have such a rule now. No wonder, as soon as you take a look at the way they used to make such shots. I would be feeling cheated right away. Being raised as a pool player I always imagined, when reading about "jumps not allowed" in snooker rules, the same jump shot we utilize in pool. But the way it was legal to play for them, it's actually a foul straight away, so it's funny it took them time to make jumping in such a fashion (and every other) illegal.
View attachment 275190
Click to expand...


meh, Joe Davis, whaddahe know?

Lou Figueroa
I think *a lot*
 
Thanks, he subscribes to the hamb theory of aiming. On the topic of snooker the thing I find odd about it is after an unsuccessful kick shot the incoming player has the option of having the referee place the cue ball back where it was prior to the previous attempt which leads to some guesswork as to the exact spot.
 
Joe Davis, one of the most accurate ball pocketers in the history of cue sports, vs ______ selling DVDs on a bogus aiming system.

It is not even close.

Lou Figueroa
 
Pretty interesting , 50-60 plus years at least and yet the question has not changed.

Pretty curious why so many are trying so hard to change the answer.
 
every player uses a "connection system" in some way, shape or form.

stan shuffett said:
You know NOTHING about CTE.....nothing!!

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Don't let him bother you Stan, he can't run a rack with "ball in hand," we both know every accomplished player uses a "connection system" in some way, shape or form.
 
Not for nothing

Why not do an experiment? Take two people who have never played pool in their life and have one be the control and one be the variable. Let one person practice by themselves for say two hours a day and then teach one person one of the subscribed aiming systems. Do all the things that scientists do and after a certain amount of time have them match up lol and see what happens. No, seriously try and get some tangible results and then we all can argue as to what works and what doesn't. Obviously not 100% accurate but at least something to go on as opposed to opinions which is just what they are. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong. Just opinions and we all got one.
 
Socopool79 said:
Why not do an experiment? Take two people who have never played pool in their life and have one be the control and one be the variable. Let one person practice by themselves for say two hours a day and then teach one person one of the subscribed aiming systems. Do all the things that scientists do and after a certain amount of time have them match up lol and see what happens. No, seriously try and get some tangible results and then we all can argue as to what works and what doesn't. Obviously not 100% accurate but at least something to go on as opposed to opinions which is just what they are. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong. Just opinions and we all got one.
Click to expand...

Afraid it would have to be two large groups of people because to some the angles come naturally while others of us struggle for a long time.
 
Of course

pwd72s said:
Afraid it would have to be two large groups of people because to some the angles come naturally while others of us struggle for a long time.
Click to expand...

I was purely speaking hypothetically as we all know this would never happen. The real question with all of these aiming systems and the hamb method is can a teacher transform one player with one way faster than another. I'd like to see the results from this hypothetical experiment and then we would have a basis to argue.
 
I can understand the physics behind the modern day jump shot .. where the cue stick pushes down into the cue ball with such force that it rebounds off the table into the air.

That being said, I can not wrap my head around any shot that basically has a horizontal cue that hits low on the cue ball yet manages to lift it up into the air over another ball. I can not see how a 90%+ forward motion shot can somehow lift the ball into the air by a much larger percentage without having secondary contact with the tip/ferrule/shaft.

Anyone who thinks a horizontal cue style can deliver a legal jump shot is suspect in my book, but what the heck do I know. :)
 
lfigueroa said:
CTE is ca-ca.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

So you say. Many others who play much better than you say otherwise. So who is right?

No big deal there are those who believe the moon landing didn't happen either and still others still living in the 50s who think blacks are an inferior race.

What I do find interesting is that you made the statement that if Willie Mosconi were to come back from the grave and declare that CTE is the greatest way to aim ever then you would tell Willie he is wrong and that he should go back to being dead.

So to me you are ONLY looking for pros who agree with you and if they don't then they are "wrong" in your eyes.

That's a pretty close-minded approach to the whole thing.

I bet that if Joe Davis and Stan Shuffett had been able to spend some time together then Joe would have probably endorsed CTE. To my knowledge there isn't one professional player that has spent time with Stan that has not publicly said it's the real deal.

But thanks for the continuing attempts to denigrate the method and it's teachers. Any time you do it it just allows the conversation to continue and the proof is in the results. So far I think that CTE users have posted longer runs in 14.1 than you have ever made with your zillion years of HAMB. That's gotta hurt a little when they attribute their improved performance to a method you can't understand.

Lastly, on the subject of experts who say things that turn out differently than they thought. A nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, said of the internet in 1995 that by 2005 the impact of it on the economy would be no greater than the fax machine. And we all know how that turned out.

Just because Joe Davis imparted his idea of how to play in 1950 does not mean that in the 60 years since no one else has figured out anything new about how to approach the game. I think if Joe were to see your game he would tell you to stop trying to hold other people back and go work on your own skills, which are still severely lacking.
 
Socopool79 said:
Why not do an experiment? Take two people who have never played pool in their life and have one be the control and one be the variable. Let one person practice by themselves for say two hours a day and then teach one person one of the subscribed aiming systems. Do all the things that scientists do and after a certain amount of time have them match up lol and see what happens. No, seriously try and get some tangible results and then we all can argue as to what works and what doesn't. Obviously not 100% accurate but at least something to go on as opposed to opinions which is just what they are. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong. Just opinions and we all got one.
Click to expand...

I would like to see this as well and have presented many scenarios over the years that I would be willing to bet on.

The biggest thing is that the aiming system crowd relies on actual experience to form the basis of their assertions while the anti-system crowd relies on superstition.

The aiming system crowd does all the tests proposed, all on youtube, on video. The anti-system crowd never does them.

The aiming system crowd puts up videos of great performances and testifies that that they have improved since learning the methods, the opponents never.

In short everything that the anti-system crowd has put up as tests and blockers the pro-system crowd has answered with hard proof.

So yeah, I am ready to go out into the street and find two people who have never played pool in their whole life and give one of them to Lou for a month and one of them to Stan for a month and let them play for thousands at the end of the month.

Furthermore I am ready to do the same with any two C players, B, players and A players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top