Snooker The Fine Art © Method ISBN 0 9517089 0 2 A secret is wasted if not shared Dear Gary Moss How are you lad! Your article on the Carter V Fu final was correct on Carters medical history but rather pointless in the games technical detail. There has to be a technical reason why player A was better than player B or the reason why player B was inferior to player A? Your article lad is worthy of column space in Snooker Scene as there were so many thoughtless similarities like forgetting the reader is interested in Snooker Technique and hopes to acquire some snooker knowledge not the players address. Do you not find it strange Mr Moss that neither player showed anything so different in snooker technique that’s worth recording in detail? There ware probable only 8 or 9 different shots played geographically during the whole tournament but not worth recording. Snooker writers and commentators often talk of Stuns, The Stun run through. Screw, The screw back etc but don’t know them selves how to play any specific shot with words except with “Watch Me” and I’ll show you again; the Joe Davis method. The mentality of snooker students and viewers seem suspect. If Steve Davis said that having a double jointed thumb gave him an advantage or if Stephen Hendry said he found century breaks easier after Eggs and Chips these remarks would be considered a new branch of snooker technique. Please don’t take offence Gary but the first writer or commentator that can describe in words without infringing copyright will be unique and a boon to the 90 year old game. All the very best Gary and may the balls run kindly. Daniel Marner@mrheyyoutwitterfaxebookandyahoo. Garry: Snooker is a beautiful game but sadly corrupted by the sale of the great Joe Davis copyright. The player that can describe how to play the “Stun run through” without infringing copyright will be unique.

Snooker The Fine Art © Method

ISBN 0 9517089 0 2

A secret is wasted if not shared

Dear Gary Moss

How are you lad! Your article on the Carter V Fu final was correct on Carters medical history but rather pointless in the games technical detail.

There has to be a technical reason why player A was better than player B or the reason why player B was inferior to player A?

Your article lad is worthy of column space in Snooker Scene as there were so many thoughtless similarities like forgetting the reader is interested in Snooker Technique and hopes to acquire some snooker knowledge not the players address.

Do you not find it strange Mr Moss that neither player showed anything so different in snooker technique that’s worth recording in detail?

There ware probable only 8 or 9 different shots played geographically during the whole tournament but not worth recording.

Snooker writers and commentators often talk of Stuns, The Stun run through. Screw, The screw back etc but don’t know them selves how to play any specific shot with words except with “Watch Me” and I’ll show you again; the Joe Davis method.

The mentality of snooker students and viewers seem suspect. If Steve Davis said that having a double jointed thumb gave him an advantage or if Stephen Hendry said he found century breaks easier after Eggs and Chips these remarks would be considered a new branch of snooker technique.

Please don’t take offence Gary but the first writer or commentator that can describe in words without infringing copyright will be unique and a boon to the 90 year old game.

All the very best Gary and may the balls run kindly. Daniel Marner@mrheyyoutwitterfaxebookandyahoo.

Garry: Snooker is a beautiful game but sadly corrupted by the sale of the great Joe Davis copyright. The player that can describe how to play the “Stun run through” without infringing copyright will be unique.