PDA

View Full Version : Stick Weight and Break Effectiveness



soupy
02-27-2004, 10:37 AM
I saw a thought in another thread on this forum, but tha thought was tangential to the thread, so here's a new thread.

Someone suggested that lighter sticks are better for breaking because the tip of the stick will be traveling faster at the moment that it impacts the cue ball. Therefore, the cue ball will travel faster towards the rack of unbroken balls.

Is this really true?

These are the assertions

1. That tip of a lighter stick will be traveling faster at the moment before impact with a cue ball. Why will a lighter stick be traveling faster? Sure, it's easier to accelerate a light object, but I would think that there's a maximum velocity that ANY stroke will have and that if you were to measure the stick speed of a *very* consistent player (a master pro) you will find that the tip of his cue is traveling at nearly the same speed at the moment it impacts the cue ball. The big difference will be in how long it takes him to accelerate his stick to that speed.

2. That a faster stick at impact will translate into higher cue ball velocity. All else equal, this is true. However, a lighter stick has lower momentum. Force imparted to an object on collision depends on the mass of the object times the speed of the object. To put it another way, someone can drop a penny on me from 80 floors above and it'll sting because it hit me at 70 miles per hour. But if a bus hits me at even 20 miles per hour, I'm dead. Therefore, even if a heavier stick were traveling slower, it may well send the cue ball flying off with more speed because the stick's mass is higher.

So does a light break stick really make for a faster cue ball on the break? I think that the mass of the break stick is undervalued. What's the heaviest break stick you can buy? What are your experiences with heavy vs. light sticks?

And ...

Does this discussion put too much emphasis on speed vs. spin and placement for the break shot?

Fred Agnir
02-27-2004, 10:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr> Someone suggested that lighter sticks are better for breaking because the tip of the stick will be traveling faster at the moment that it impacts the cue ball. Therefore, the cue ball will travel faster towards the rack of unbroken balls.

Is this really true? <hr /></blockquote>No, it's not really true.

What is true is that you shouldn't discount going lighter or heavier for your break stick. The "optimum" break stick weights probably cover a range of weights that for most of us would be plus or minus an ounce compared to our shooting cue.

Fred

Big_Jon
02-27-2004, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>
I saw a thought in another thread on this forum, but tha thought was tangential to the thread, so here's a new thread.

Someone suggested that lighter sticks are better for breaking because the tip of the stick will be traveling faster at the moment that it impacts the cue ball. Therefore, the cue ball will travel faster towards the rack of unbroken balls.

Is this really true?

These are the assertions

1. That tip of a lighter stick will be traveling faster at the moment before impact with a cue ball. Why will a lighter stick be traveling faster? Sure, it's easier to accelerate a light object, but I would think that there's a maximum velocity that ANY stroke will have and that if you were to measure the stick speed of a *very* consistent player (a master pro) you will find that the tip of his cue is traveling at nearly the same speed at the moment it impacts the cue ball. The big difference will be in how long it takes him to accelerate his stick to that speed.

2. That a faster stick at impact will translate into higher cue ball velocity. All else equal, this is true. However, a lighter stick has lower momentum. Force imparted to an object on collision depends on the mass of the object times the speed of the object. To put it another way, someone can drop a penny on me from 80 floors above and it'll sting because it hit me at 70 miles per hour. But if a bus hits me at even 20 miles per hour, I'm dead. Therefore, even if a heavier stick were traveling slower, it may well send the cue ball flying off with more speed because the stick's mass is higher.

So does a light break stick really make for a faster cue ball on the break? I think that the mass of the break stick is undervalued. What's the heaviest break stick you can buy? What are your experiences with heavy vs. light sticks?

And ...

Does this discussion put too much emphasis on speed vs. spin and placement for the break shot?
<hr /></blockquote>

Ok, here is my opinion, a guy i know breaks with a 20 oz, and i break with a 18-19 oz, our breaks are about the same in speed, but if we switched... they were still the same overall speed, but much slower, and the cue-ball control was plain out s#itty... So it's all what you are comfortable with, IMHO, the best break cue for me is, light (about 1 oz lighter than my playing cue), stiff (broomstick...) and a really hard tip (phenolic), but this other guy... breaks with his playing cue, which is heavier, flimsy (meucci), and has a med-hard tip (triangle or lepro... can't remember), and we get about the same results...

Thanks

Jon

In short... do what is comfortable, go get a few house cues with different weights, and see which one works best... then you will have an idea of what you are shooting for.

soupy
02-27-2004, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The "optimum" break stick weights probably cover a range of weights that for most of us would be plus or minus an ounce compared to our shooting cue.
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm actually surprised that the range is so narrow. What would breaking with a 30-ounce stick be like?

DoomCue
02-27-2004, 11:34 AM
I think the real limiting factor is distance. For instance, take the same engine and put it in a car that weights 1000 lbs. and another weighing 4000 lbs. Race those cars in the quarter-mile. The car weighing less will win the race because it will reach top speed quicker, and probably get to a higher top speed. Given enough time and distance, the heavier car may be able to reach the same top speed, but over short distances will lose every time.

I think you can apply the same thinking to the break shot. We're the engine, and the different cues are the cars. Since the distance is the same no matter the weight of the cue, we should be able to accelerate a lower weight cue quicker than a heavy cue, while reaching a higher velocity. Since different people have different strengths and physical characteristics (think different engines), this is not going to apply to everyone, therefore you have to experiment to find the proper cue weight. I think in one of Byrne's books he has plotted a graph of the results of CBs struck with different weighted cues, and in general, the lighter cues produced faster break shots.

Your 2nd assertion that a lower weight cue will have less momentum is only true if the lighter cue doesn't reach a higher velocity to make up for the difference in mass between it and a heavier cue. An extremely heavy cue won't reach near the top velocity of a lower weight cue, so it won't necessarily have more momentum (it will only if its mass makes up for its lack of velocity). Once again, personal experimentation is the only real way to find out.

I think what Byrne did (and I think Bob Jewett was in on it, too) was remove the end rail and shoot the CB with different weights (there were no racked balls to impede the CB's progress). They then measured how far the CB went. In general, the lighter cues allowed the CB to travel farther. I'm with Byrne on this one; I think lighter is better, but that's me. Your mileage may vary.

-djb

nhp
02-27-2004, 07:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr> Someone suggested that lighter sticks are better for breaking because the tip of the stick will be traveling faster at the moment that it impacts the cue ball. Therefore, the cue ball will travel faster towards the rack of unbroken balls.

Is this really true? <hr /></blockquote>No, it's not really true.

What is true is that you shouldn't discount going lighter or heavier for your break stick. The "optimum" break stick weights probably cover a range of weights that for most of us would be plus or minus an ounce compared to our shooting cue.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Most pros break with the same weight they play with.

BeanDiesel
02-27-2004, 09:27 PM
Let me put this in terms of physics. This should explain the relationship between the mass of the cue and the velocity of the cue ball on the break.

Let's say your arms can exert the maximum force of 600 Newtons (600 kg m/s^2) on a stroke.

You have two break cues, one heavy 20oz (approx. 0.6 kg) and one light 18oz (approx. 0.5kg).

For break shots, you put your bridge hand at a certain distance from the cue ball, which allows the tip of your cue to travel the distance d (let d=0.15 m). So on your final swing, the cue tip will travel that far, before hitting the cue ball.

Newtonís law states that F=ma, Force = mass x acceleration.
Let the mass be the mass of your arm (2kg for example) + mass of the cue.

This is the equation for the final velocity Vf.
(Vf)^2= (Vo)^2 + 2a d
where Vo is the initial velocity, in this case 0.
a = acceleration
And d is the distance traveled, in this case 0.15m

Letís calculate the velocity of the cues before collision with the cue ball, provided you apply the maximum force on the cue stick for each case.

Case 1) Light stick, 0.5kg

a = 600N /2.5kg, since 2.5kg is the mass of the light stick and your arm.
Acceleration is 240 m/s^2.

(Vf)^2 = 2 (240)(0.15),
so Vf = 8.5 m/s, approximately


Case 2) Heavy stick, 0.6kg

a = 600N/ 2.6kg
a = 231 m/s^2
Vf = 8.3 m/s, approx.

So here it is clear that the more the mass of the cue stick, the lower the velocity of it before contacting the cue ball, provided you apply the same amount of force on both stick, and the same length of swing. (F and d are constant)

However, the Kinetic energy of both are the same, since K= Fd. For a perfectly elastic collision, the Kinetic energy is conserved, meaning that the total kinetic energy of the system before and after the collision should be the same. Will the velocity of the cue ball be the same for both case?

Now, we assume that the collision between the cue and the cue ball is a perfectly elastic collision (the total energy of the system is the same before and after collision).
We take, V1= the velocity of the cue before collision (which is equal to Vf from the above calculation)
V2= the velocity of the cue after collision
V3=the velocity of the cue ball after collision
M1= the mass of the cue stick and your arm
M2= the mass of the cue ball

Conservation of kinetic energy says;
V3 = V1 2M1 / (M1 + M2)

Letís use the equation to calculate the velocity of the cue ball after colliding with the cue.
The mass of the cue ball is around 0.17 kg.

Case 1) Light cue, M1 = 2.5kg V1= 8.5 m/s

V3= (8.5) (2) (2.5) / (2.5 + 0.17)

V3= 15.9 m/s


Case 2) Heavy cue, M1 = 2.6 kg V1= 8.3m/s

V3= (8.3) (2) (2.6) / (2.6 + 0.17)

V3= 15.6 m/s

So, the heavier the cue stick is, the lower the speed of the cue ball (provided everything else is constant, i.e the force you apply, the length of your swing, the spot of impact between the tip and the cb etc).

I think the difference is very slight, as long as the range is not too wide. If you use a 30oz, the difference will be more obvious.

DoomCue is right. One of the factors that affects the speed is the distance (d), because it determines the speed that you can gain just before hitting the cue ball.

In conclusion, I think you should choose the weight of the cue youíre most comfortable with. It wonít affect the speed of the cue ball too much. What you have to consider is the speed of the stroke that you can handle, because if itís too fast, you might hit the cue ball wrong or something. So having a very light cue might not be helpful either.

If for some reason, you want break with a fixed stroke speed, but you want the cue ball to travel faster, then heavier cue is a better choice, as long as you are capable of swinging the heavier cue at that speed.
Momentum = MV, if V (velocity) is kept constant, and M (mass) is increased, so the momentum is higher. Thus the speed of the cue ball will be higher too.

Fred Agnir
02-28-2004, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr> Let me put this in terms of physics. <hr /></blockquote> Might be the best and worst thing to do.


[ QUOTE ]
You have two break cues, one heavy 20oz (approx. 0.6 kg) and one light 18oz (approx. 0.5kg).<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, 20 oz is approximately .57 kg and 18 oz is approximately .51. I know you're approximating to one decimal point, but they're closer than .1 kg, which becomes important in your calculations.



[ QUOTE ]
a = 600N /2.5kg, since 2.5kg is the mass of the light stick and your arm.<hr /></blockquote>

This is probably the most important sentence. If you haven't, get a copy of Ron Shepard's Amateur Physics for the Amateur Poolplayer.

[ QUOTE ]

Case 1)
Vf = 8.5 m/s, approximately


Case 2) Heavy stick, 0.6kg

Vf = 8.3 m/s, approx.<hr /></blockquote>Using the closer numbers for mass becomes very important here. 8.47 and 8.37 respectively. A difference of 1.1% which might be statistically negligible. As the arm weight increase (depending on how a person breaks), that number decreases further. So, your proof shows that 18-20oz is statistically equivalent and that other factors (as you have pointed out) that may increase the mass or increase the velocity are more important than just increasing or decreasing the mass of the cue.

[ QUOTE ]
So here it is clear that the more the mass of the cue stick, the lower the velocity of it before contacting the cue ball, provided you apply the same amount of force on both stick, and the same length of swing. <hr /></blockquote>This is unfortunate that you feel that this is a clear point. It looks like a statistical wash to me.

Consider inertial effects as well. The assumption of " provided everything else is constant, i.e the force you apply..." The higher inertia of the heavier cue will allow for less effort on the players side to keep the cue going at whatever velocity and acceleration it undergoes. It's a slim difference but yet another difference that brings that difference closer.

Fred

KGeeED
02-28-2004, 12:17 PM
One of the billiard books I read made it very plain and simple. If a train going 20 MPH hit a cueball the fastest the ball could go is 20 MPH. If a cue stick hit the cueball at 20 MPH the fastest the cueball could go is 20 MPH. It is easier for a player to get the cue stick to go 20 MPH than it is to get the train to go 20 MPH. With a lighter stick you can get better accelleration. Therefore you can break with a higher speed.

I use the same weight for my break cue as my playing cue.
That way I can also use it as a sneaky pete. When I get to be a world class player and need to break at 27 + MPH then I might worry more about the weight of the break cue. For most of us I don't think a few ounces will make a difference.

soupy
02-28-2004, 12:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One of the billiard books I read made it very plain and simple. If a train going 20 MPH hit a cueball the fastest the ball could go is 20 MPH. If a cue stick hit the cueball at 20 MPH the fastest the cueball could go is 20 MPH. <hr /></blockquote>

That's like saying, "If a feather hit a cue ball at 20 MPH, the fastest the cue ball could go is 20 MPH." The important thing that mass gives you is the ability to transfer that force to the cue ball.

You can't ignore the mass of the stick. It is an integral part of the equation.

The heavier the object that hits the que ball at 20MPH, the more of that object's energy that is transferred to the cue ball.

So a train that hits a cue ball at 20 MPH is going to send the cue ball off at 20 MPH. A VERY light stick (let's just say 10 ounces) will not and can not send the ball off at 20 MPH unless you've got an incredibly heavy arm behind it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is easier for a player to get the cue stick to go 20 MPH than it is to get the train to go 20 MPH. With a lighter stick you can get better accelleration. Therefore you can break with a higher speed.<hr /></blockquote>

The real test is to see if the break stroke is sufficiently long to allow the player to get his stick to max speed at moment of impact. Maybe I get my stick to 22 MPH at the moment of impact whether it's 20 oz. or 25 oz.

Example:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>

================================================== =====
Light Stick
================================================== =====
Time (seconds) ........ Tip Speed (meters per second)
0.1 ................... 2.00
0.2 ................... 5.00
0.3 ................... 7.00
0.4 ................... 8.25
0.5 ................... 8.94*
0.6 ................... 8.94*
0.7 ................... 8.94*
0.8 ................... 8.94*
0.9 ................... 8.94*

* = this player's max break speed (20 m/h or 8.94 m/s)

================================================== =====
Heavy Stick
================================================== =====
Time (seconds) ........ Tip Speed (meters per second)
0.1 ................... 1.00
0.2 ................... 2.00
0.3 ................... 3.00
0.4 ................... 4.00
0.5 ................... 5.00
0.6 ................... 6.00
0.7 ................... 7.00
0.8 ................... 8.25
0.9 ................... 8.94*

* = this player's max break speed (20 m/h or 8.94 m/s)

</pre><hr>


In this chart, it's clearly taking the player longer to accellerate the tip of the heavier cue to 8.94 meters per second, but by the time the stick strikes the ball, both cues are travelling the same speed. In short, it doesn't matter if the cue is heavier because the player is able to get it up to max speed by the time it collides with the cue.

In this scenario (numbers COMPLETELY made up) the cue ball will travel faster away from the heavier cue because the heavier cue will impart more force to the cue ball.

Again, the question is whether the accelleration differential is meaningful at the moment of impact. Maybe the difference is overcome earlier in the stroke.

Alex_Delodge
02-28-2004, 12:45 PM
The power in breaking is generated both by momentum of the cue through the ball, and by the speed generated with your arm to deliver that momentum at maximum speed. When you use an extremely light cue, speed is easily delivered, but there's no weight behind the break. When you use a very heavy cue, that weight prevents you from snapping your wrist forward with speed. What you need is a happy medium; heavy enough to provide good momentum, light enough so you can throw the cue's weight around

BeanDiesel
02-28-2004, 01:19 PM
i think you guys misread my meaning.
1)i didn't mean to ask you guys to calculate your breaking speed in termns of physics. yes, pool is the game of physics, but of course it's not fun to calculate everything.
soupy did talk about momentum. and it takes a little knowledge of physics to explain it. that's what i was doing. again, i'm not asking anybody to think too much about physics for pool. it's not fun.
2)Fred, the calculation that i did was just an example to show the relation of mass of the cue and the outcome speed. of course i approximate many numbers. but the point is to use two different masses. the number does not really matter. what matters is which one is heavier, and which one possibly generate more speed. that's all. i could have used variables. but it might not be friendly to everybody. please tell me if you prefer to see it in variables. i can always change it.

BeanDiesel
02-28-2004, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KGeeED:</font><hr> One of the billiard books I read made it very plain and simple. If a train going 20 MPH hit a cueball the fastest the ball could go is 20 MPH. If a cue stick hit the cueball at 20 MPH the fastest the cueball could go is 20 MPH. It is easier for a player to get the cue stick to go 20 MPH than it is to get the train to go 20 MPH.<hr /></blockquote>

that is so not true. for elastic collisions, the momentum is conserved. that means the momentum of the system before the collision is the same as the momentum of the system after the collision. M1V1= M2V2 + M3V3.

unless, the collison between the train and the ball is a perfectly inelastic collision, where the ball and the train stick together after collision. then only you can say that the ball will not travel faster than the initial speed of the train.

but yes, with lighter stick you can get higher acceleration. and i do believe that it gives you more speed, but the difference is slight.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KGeeED:</font><hr>For most of us I don't think a few ounces will make a difference. <hr /></blockquote>
exactly, that's what i was saying too. a few ounces do not make a lot of difference.

soupy
02-28-2004, 01:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
exactly, that's what i was saying too. a few ounces do not make a lot of difference.<hr /></blockquote>

But how about more than a few ounces? Does anybody make 30 oz or 40 oz cues? I think it would be really interesting to break with one. Maybe I'll put a few weight collars on a regular cue and try it out.

BeanDiesel
02-28-2004, 01:55 PM
i donno about 30 or 40oz cue. my calculation above shows that if u increase the mass of your break cue, most probably, your break speed is reduced. changing from 19oz to 20 oz is not a big deal. but with 30 or 40oz, you should work out to get the same speed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

unless if you want to keep a certain speed of stroke, but you want to increase the speed of the cueball. then only you need a heavier cue.

Ralph S.
02-28-2004, 02:36 PM
Between what Bendiesel and Fred Agnir are posting with the equations, I think I am going to have to attend a few basic classes at MIT just to read and understand the stuff. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

BeanDiesel
02-28-2004, 02:48 PM
please dont. again, it's not fun to learn physics just to play be good at pool. but pool makes it fun to learn physics. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
well, i think what i was doing was more like explaining if the mass of a cue actually affect the speed of the cueball with a proof. please, do yourself a favor. do not ever attempt to calculate everything in detail. just check my conclusion. it should give you the idea that you might want to consider.

tateuts
02-28-2004, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>
I'm actually surprised that the range is so narrow. What would breaking with a 30-ounce stick be like? <hr /></blockquote>

It would be like giving yourself a massive hernia.

Chris

tateuts
02-28-2004, 05:47 PM
I personally think you want an average amount of weight on a break cue. I used to break with a 23 ounce cue. I get better results with a 19 ounce cue with less wear and tear on my joints.

However, I did see remarkable improvement when I went to a 60" break cue. I play with a 60" cue, and with the long stroke and follow through of the break, I found a 58" cue didn't let me take advantage of the extra speed my long arms can generate (I wear a 35" - 36" sleeve).

The second change is I now use a Predator shaft on my break cue. I can't say enough how I feel the Predator makes it easier to control the cue ball on hard shots.

Anyway, I am finally happy with my break cue set-up now, and I've tried at least a dozen different break cues in the past. Hopefully the Predator ferrule can take the pounding.

Chris

Fred Agnir
02-28-2004, 06:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KGeeED:</font><hr> One of the billiard books I read made it very plain and simple. If a train going 20 MPH hit a cueball the fastest the ball could go is 20 MPH. If a cue stick hit the cueball at 20 MPH the fastest the cueball could go is 20 MPH. <hr /></blockquote> But this is wrong.

Fred

KGeeED
02-28-2004, 11:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote KGeeED:</font><hr> One of the billiard books I read made it very plain and simple. If a train going 20 MPH hit a cueball the fastest the ball could go is 20 MPH. If a cue stick hit the cueball at 20 MPH the fastest the cueball could go is 20 MPH. <hr /></blockquote> But this is wrong.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred;

I am right in the fact that I read it in a billiard book. The book is "The Science of Pocket Billiards" by Jack H. Koehler. page 155 1st column. But I am wrong about the speed because Jack uses 10 MPH in his example and also refers to a ball bat instead of a cue stick. LOL

heater451
02-29-2004, 12:08 AM
Since the--capital "P"--Physics, by the numbers, don't seem to show a difference, but the 'garage test' did (see below <font color="blue"> </font color> <font color="blue"> </font color> ), I think that much of the break is technique.

I would like to mention though, that people may tend to break better with lighter sticks, because the sticks feel lighter. My thinking being that they grip less tightly, and don't have any extra resistance in their stroke, due to tightened muscles. The same biomechanical issue arises in a baseball bat swing, a golf swing (driving), or a punch.

Bruce Lee put it someone to like this (extreme paraphrase): "You hit like an iron bar, very solid. But I hit like an iron ball on a chain. . . ."

(Pardon the really bad (mis-)quote support, it's late, and I'm tired.)

The point is, if you are loose, you are able to retain more speed/power in the stroke, than if you have to overcome your own muscle resistance. And, if you use a light stick, you may feel that you don't have to 'manhandle' it, and this allows you to stay loose and break with more speed. So, if this is the problem, then yes, a lighter stick is better for breaking--although, better form will probably yield better breaks, regardless of stick weight.

(Also, please forgive the writing in multiple 'person'--going from "people", to "you". I know I've done it before, but I just thought I'd mention it here.)


------
**I don't recall where I read it, or who wrote it, but the "test" that I read had to do with a partially assembled table inside a garage, with an open garage door. The testing consisted of hitting the ball off of the table, and out onto the driveway, which was covered with something to protect the ball. I don't really remember much of the details, but I seem to think there was a slim favor to a lighter cue.

However, the absolute longest distance hit (the criteria used to judge the break hit) was made by the table-owners friend, who happened to also be an experienced practitioner of Karate. The assumption was, that he had a better technique, of bringing his power to bear with the best timing. And, IIRC, the hit was made with a middle-weight cue.



===================

phil in sofla
03-02-2004, 05:33 PM
I think the answer can be deduced from a simple observation.

If a marginal decrease in the break cue weight gives a better result, that would be true still if the marginally less weight were further reduced.

That is, if a 19 oz. cue was better than a 21 oz. cue, the same calculations would show another marginal decrease in the weight, say, to 17 oz., would also yield a better result, and so on... a 15 oz. cue, better still, a 13 oz. cue, best yet, but wait, there's more!!!

Now, so far as I know, NOBODY prefers to break with a 13 oz. or under break cue, but why not, if the calculations support it?

It seems that the marginal benefits that some find in a lighter cue only go so far, and then end. That would require a different analysis to show why that is the case.

In reality, players down regulate the force of their break stroke to keep the cue ball on the table, and likely, would have to do what they always did, and a little more, to deal with the greater speed of tip they could generate with a lighter cue.

An additional variable is that the cue/arm 'system' continues through the hit, and has a residual momentum, not coming to a dead stop by transferring all its kinetic energy to the cue ball.

So I suggest the actual mechanisms involved in the break go a little beyond the modelling being used in these examples, explaining why we don't see anybody using XXtreme light break cues.

BeanDiesel
03-02-2004, 06:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote phil in sofla:</font><hr>
An additional variable is that the cue/arm 'system' continues through the hit, and has a residual momentum, not coming to a dead stop by transferring all its kinetic energy to the cue ball.

So I suggest the actual mechanisms involved in the break go a little beyond the modelling being used in these examples, explaining why we don't see anybody using XXtreme light break cues.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, the kinetic energy of the system before the collision is not completely transfered to the cueball, since the mass of the two bodies (cb, and the cue/arm) are not equal. should we want to calculate the speed of the final velocity of the cue/arm, yes, we need another variable, and a short equation for it. but i dont think we are concern about that.

If one uses an extremely light cue, and apply the maximum force of his ability to break, then the speed of his stroke will be extremely high as well. but can one handle such speed, without making a mistake? we all know that the harder the stroke, the more room there is for mistake.
if one uses the very light stick and reduce the speed so that one will be more comfortable, one will reduce the momentum of his stroke, thus the momentum (the speed particularly) of the cueball is reduced too.

so basically, besides the mass of the break cue, one has to think of the speed of stroke he can handle. again, dont calculate. try cues of several different weight, and see which one works best.

Bob_Jewett
03-03-2004, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KGeeED:</font><hr>I am right in the fact that I read it in a billiard book. The book is "The Science of Pocket Billiards" by Jack H. Koehler. page 155 1st column. But I am wrong about the speed because Jack uses 10 MPH in his example and also refers to a ball bat instead of a cue stick. LOL <hr /></blockquote>
Well, if that's what Jack says, he's wrong. For a typical situation (18-ounce stick, 6-ounce ball), simple physics predicts a ball speed of 150% of the stick speed. A Professor Moore actually made a measurement around 1940 and found that the actual ball speed is 130% due to the imperfect elasticity of the tip.

Here's something for you to think about: If you throw a tennis ball at 10MPH at a train that is stopped, how fast will the ball bounce back? If a moving train (10MPH) hits a stationary ball, will the ball move away from the train? The two questions are the same if you change the frame of reference from being with the ball to being with the train. The answer is that in either case, the velocity of the ball changes by 20MPH.

BeanDiesel
03-03-2004, 07:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
Here's something for you to think about: If you throw a tennis ball at 10MPH at a train that is stopped, how fast will the ball bounce back? If a moving train (10MPH) hits a stationary ball, will the ball move away from the train? The two questions are the same if you change the frame of reference from being with the ball to being with the train. The answer is that in either case, the velocity of the ball changes by 20MPH. <hr /></blockquote>

Case 1) ball hits train
Yes, the velocity of the ball changes by 20MPH(but the speed stays the same) if we assume that the collision is perfectly elastic, where no energy is transfered to heat or sound etc, and the train stays static after collision.

But for case 2) train hits ball,
in theory, the ball will move at 20Mph after collison, if, and only if the mass of the ball and the train is the same, and the ball is hit head on, and the train stops dead after collision. but, if it's a regular tennis ball, and the real train, the ball will certainly move faster than that, because the momentum of the train before collision is so high. by calculation you will see it.

now try this. take a basketball and a tennis ball.
hold the basketball on one hand, and the other hand holds the tennis ball, right on the top of the basketball. release both at the same time. see what happens to the tennis ball right after the basketball hits the floor. see it for yourself if the tennis ball moves faster than the basketball after hitting the floor. (beware, one of the ball is likely to move really fast). this will show u when two bodies of different masses collide with each other, the final velocity of each will be different from the initial one.

Popcorn
03-03-2004, 08:31 PM
Having said all that, try a few different weights and see what works best. Might be a good idea to have a break cue you could adjust the weight yourself.

Bob_Jewett
03-04-2004, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr> But for case 2) train hits ball,
in theory, the ball will move at 20Mph after collison, if, and only if the mass of the ball and the train is the same, and the ball is hit head on, and the train stops dead after collision. but, if it's a regular tennis ball, and the real train, the ball will certainly move faster than that, because the momentum of the train before collision is so high. by calculation you will see it.<hr /></blockquote>

Well, no. You have the physics completely sideways. The ball will move away from the train at nearly 20MPH and the train will slow down unnoticeably. If the train were the same mass as the ball -- which is a red herring example, and I find it bizarre that you would introduce it -- the result would be the same as when the cue ball hits an object ball full on: the incoming object stops dead and the outbound object has very nearly the speed of the other.

As for the calculation, the formula was previously given here and it is clear that you did not bother to try it.

BeanDiesel
03-04-2004, 01:59 PM
have you tried the basketball/tennis ball experiment? it should demonstrate to you what happens when an object of a higher mass collide with a static another object of a lesser mass, the lighter object will move faster than the the initial speed of the heavier object.
you're right that if the heavier object is so heavy as compared to the lighter object, the reduction of velocity is very slight.

this is the equation for the final velocity of the heavier object.
V1f= V1 (m1-m2)/(m1+m2) (remember, this only works when the object being hit is static)

where V1f is the final speed of the heavier object
V1 is its initial speed
m1 is its mass
and m2 is the mass of the lighter object.

remember, we assume that the collision is elastic.
otherwise, you'll need a completely different equation.

you might want to try this one as well.
move you cue with a constant velocity towards a cueball. do not stop the cue right after the collision. instead, follow though, but do not intentionally increase the speed of the cue either. see if the cueball moves faster than the initial velocity of the cue. i believe you'll see that the cueball will move faster than the initial velocity of the cue since the mass of the cue is higher.

this link excellently demonstrates what i've been saying
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/momentum/trece.html

if you like, you can use the equations that i gave to calculate the final velocity of the car or the truck.

JimS
03-04-2004, 03:31 PM
You guys are a hell of a lot smarter and better educated than I am.

I tried every combination I could come up with and I break better with an old Meucci with the bolt removed than anything I've ever tried and I mean a LOT better. It weighs 17oz now and I use a rock hard tip, the hardest leather tip I can find. I don't like the phenolic for breaking.

That's my truth and I ain't goin to argue 'bout it.

bigalerickson
03-04-2004, 05:29 PM
Ladies and Gents,

Is breaking a nineball or eightball rack simply about speed?
Obviously, there are other key determinants, such as cueball placement in the kitchen, point of contact on the one ball, and where the cb is struck, etc.

What I am wondering is do we really want to achieve the fastest shot possible on the break. I have had strong success in nineball as of late with a basic four rail speed break, and am consistently able to find good position from there.

Obviously the rack also has something to do with the overall success of the break? Seeing as the sardo rack has gotten the pros to be using a soft break.

Just some more questions to throw out there!

Peace,

Alex

BeanDiesel
03-04-2004, 08:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigalerickson:</font><hr> Ladies and Gents,

Is breaking a nineball or eightball rack simply about speed?
Obviously, there are other key determinants, such as cueball placement in the kitchen, point of contact on the one ball, and where the cb is struck, etc.

What I am wondering is do we really want to achieve the fastest shot possible on the break. I have had strong success in nineball as of late with a basic four rail speed break, and am consistently able to find good position from there.
<hr /></blockquote>
for nine ball, i dont think it's just about speed. it's about placement too.
for eight, i care more about speed, because i dont want to see any problematic clusters. in fact, you can make any ball (except 8 of course) after break.

ajrack
03-04-2004, 09:44 PM
Lotsa interesting theories....assuming that everyone hits the cue ball the same...at all times....
The speed that "I" use to strike the cue ball when breaking will be different with a lighter cue than a heavy cue...DUH...
I tested my cue ball speed using the laser and with a lighter cue..17.4 oz...my cue ball went 26 mph ...with a heavy cue...20.4 oz..my cue ball only went 22 mph...
obviously, my arm muscles move faster using a lighter cue...
My friend who was with me, had a speed of 21mph with the heavy cue ...and only 19mph with the light cue..
go figure...

USE THE CUE THAT WORKS THE BEST!!!FOR YOU........

BeanDiesel
03-04-2004, 09:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ajrack:</font><hr>
I tested my cue ball speed using the laser and with a lighter cue..17.4 oz...my cue ball went 26 mph ...with a heavy cue...20.4 oz..my cue ball only went 22 mph...
obviously, my arm muscles move faster using a lighter cue...
My friend who was with me, had a speed of 21mph with the heavy cue ...and only 19mph with the light cue..
go figure...
<hr /></blockquote>

let me simplify this for you.
if you apply the same strength (constant force) on cues of different weights, the cueball will move faster if you use the lighter cue.
however, if you keep your stroke speed constant, that means you'll have to apply different force on each cue. but the speed of the cueball hit by the heavier cue will be faster.

u might have got different readings because the applied force by your buddy and u might not be the same. you might need to use Meucci's Myth Destroyer to conduct such experiment.

Bob_Jewett
03-05-2004, 06:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr>this is the equation for the final velocity of the heavier object.
V1f= V1 (m1-m2)/(m1+m2) (remember, this only works when the object being hit is static)

where V1f is the final speed of the heavier object
V1 is its initial speed
m1 is its mass
and m2 is the mass of the lighter object.<hr /></blockquote>
In that equation, there is no restriction on the relative masses of the objects. It gets the correct result that if the moving object is lighter, it bounces back at up to its full initial speed if the stationary object is very heavy.

[ QUOTE ]

you might want to try this one as well.
move you cue with a constant velocity towards a cueball. do not stop the cue right after the collision. instead, follow though, but do not intentionally increase the speed of the cue either. see if the cueball moves faster than the initial velocity of the cue. i believe you'll see that the cueball will move faster than the initial velocity of the cue since the mass of the cue is higher.
<hr /></blockquote>
There was a very interesting article in the June 1995 issue of Billiards Digest that describes how in 1941 Professor Arthur Moore of the University of Michigan measured the ratio of stick speed to ball speed and found that the ball had 130% of the stick speed. He used a very simple apparatus that anyone could make at home. Lots of people believe that the ball can't go faster than the stick. That same BD article reports on measurements of collision-induced throw which later appeared in Capelle's "Play Your Best Pool."

BeanDiesel
03-05-2004, 08:06 PM
Let's see what these two equations can do:

v1f= v1 (m1-m2)/ (m1+m2) (equation 1)

v2f= 2v1m1 / (m1+m2) (equation 2)

Where v1= the initial velocity of the object m1
v1f=the final velocity of the object m1
v2f=the final velocity of the object m2

these equations works for collision like this
m1 ----&gt;hit m2(initially static)

please take note that this equation is only true if there's no friction, or friction is negligible.

Now let m1 be heavier than m2, m1=2kg, m2=1kg
Let v1=2m/s

Using equation 1, v1f= 2/3m/s

Since m1&gt;m2, this makes sense since the heavier object will move forward, at lower velocity as compared to its initial velocity

From equation 2, v2f = 8/3 m/s
Notice that v2f is higher than v1, this makes sense since m1&gt;m2

Now let m1 be lighter than m2, m1= 1kg, m2= 2kg
Let v1 be 2m/s

Using equation 1, v1f = -2/3 m/s ("-" means that the object m1 is moving to the opposite the initial direction)
This makes sense since the static object has higher mass.

Using equation 2, v2f = 4/3 m/s
This one makes sense as well, since the object m2 will not move faster than v1, because m1&lt;m2

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
In that equation, there is no restriction on the relative masses of the objects. It gets the correct result that if the moving object is lighter, it bounces back at up to its full initial speed if the stationary object is very heavy.
<hr /></blockquote>

Again, using this equation, we assume that friction is negligible. Let's say m1 is very light and m2 is very very heavy, m2 will still move forward, but at a very very low speed (probably unnoticeable, and if m2 lies on a very rough plane, it might not move at all), and m1 will move backward at nearly it's initial speed.
So, these equation does not require any relative mass restriction.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
There was a very interesting article in the June 1995 issue of Billiards Digest that describes how in 1941 Professor Arthur Moore of the University of Michigan measured the ratio of stick speed to ball speed and found that the ball had 130% of the stick speed. He used a very simple apparatus that anyone could make at home. Lots of people believe that the ball can't go faster than the stick. That same BD article reports on measurements of collision-induced throw which later appeared in Capelle's "Play Your Best Pool." <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I don't know the detail of his experiment, but for now, I think he's right.(not because he's a professor). But i think the 130% is just an estimation. there should be a slight difference if you change the mass of the cue. And i believe he must have taken into account other factors, like static and kinetic frictions etc.

Whatever it is, we all now should by know that the cue ball will definitely move faster than your stick upon vertical stroke.

heater451
03-06-2004, 06:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr>. . .there should be a slight difference if you change the mass of the cue. And i believe he must have taken into account other factors, like static and kinetic frictions etc. . . .<hr /></blockquote>Wouldn't the limited amount of time that the ball has to absorb energy be a factor? It seems that, if it is a factor, then the higher energy transfer would be favorable to the 'lighter stick/easier acceleration/higher speed' camp of thought, and therefore, the faster/more powerful breaks.



============================

BeanDiesel
03-07-2004, 09:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>
Wouldn't the limited amount of time that the ball has to absorb energy be a factor? <hr /></blockquote>

i dont think so. but if you were to calculate impulse, the time does matter.

phil in sofla
03-09-2004, 07:26 PM
I've used a few lighter weight house cues to break, and while I was surprised at how well they broke the balls, it wasn't better than the results I get with my break cue, a 21 oz. Adam, enough to consider changing.

Part of this comes, I think, from middle weight sorts of players, the 5'8" guys who weigh 145. Perhaps that kind of player gets more oomph from a lighter cue. However, I'm 6'2", and weigh 195. The 21 oz. cue accelerates enough for me to be more than satisfactory.

Anyone know if say, Buddy Hall, most decidedly NOT a middleweight (LOL!), uses an ounce or two lighter break cue from what he plays with?

JClark
04-19-2004, 07:21 AM
I used to think the same way but hen I found out when I was working with my students that it is far more important to get a good solid hit than it is to worry about speed, and weight. After you have mastered getting a good hit start to increase the speed a little at a time. Remember to evaluate every rack. 1. Did I make a ball? 2. Did I get A good spread? 3. Is my cueball in the center of the table?

superB
12-30-2004, 10:18 AM
My hat goes off to you guys for trying to figure out the answer to this question, especially those who are applying equations and/or conducting experiments.
I don't think that the answer will be light or heavy, but something in between. Consider the extreme cases. Even if you could lift a 10-ton cue and prevent it from crushing the table, you still probably wouldn't be able to swing it. Now imagine a cue that weighs next to nothing. Assume that both the 10-ton cue and the feather-weight cue are both identical in size and length to a normal cue and perfectly rigid. The infinitesimally light cue would still be able to break the balls due to the non-zero mass of the breaker's arm and the force that the arm can apply. Lets say this cue weighs 0.01 oz. Now compare that to a cue that weighs 1 oz. I think the 1 oz cue would break better than the 0.01 oz cue. The mass has increased significantly, while the acceleration and thus final velocity probably won't be effected much because your arm probably won't "notice" the increased mass. I think I can swing my arm just as fast with a penny in my hand as I can with nothing in my hand.
Sorry I realize that this explanation is very "hand-wavy", no pun intended. So, anyway, my point is that I think if you plotted cue ball break speed vs. cue weight then the graph would look like an upside down parabola. For those who hate math, that graph could be described as a frown. Low points at the light and heavy end with a peak somewhere in the middle. Who knows where this peak occurs? Maybe at 18 oz. Maybe at 22 oz. Maybe at 16.526 oz. I think it would be different for each person depending on their body size, arm muscles, pool skill, and what cue they are already used to. I say pool skill because I'm guessing that the optimum may be slightly lighter for the more advanced player. I hope I haven't offended anyone, and this claim is just a hunch, but consider this: A battering ram may work better for someone just taking a blind swing, but someone who could really snap their wrist and throw their weight into it, the Francisco Bustamante type, may find a slightly lighter cue to be their optimum.
I think there are a lot of other factors that go into all this. The most important thing is probably to grab a stiff cue no matter what the weight. However, I think this discussion was supposed to be based on all other factors being equal, what is the best weight? I think its great that everyone is brainstorming so much on this, but in the end some thorough research is required. Those experiments with a missing end rail seemed to show that the lighter cues break better. What was the lightest cue used in the experiment, does anyone know? Should the next experiment have, instead of no end rail, an end rail with a hole slightly larger than the cue ball? That way, you could also look at accuracy along with speed. You could track the percentage of breaks that make it through the hole as well as how fast the cue ball traveled.

dr_dave
12-30-2004, 11:28 AM
Wow! This was a very long thread for a simple bottom line:

The optimal cue stick weight for achieving maximum cue ball speed will be different for each individual. The only way to know is to experiment.

Here is a longer, physically-based, argument:
Assuming a consistent hit on the cue ball, the cue ball speed if a function of only cue stick "momentum" (the product of mass and speed) at impact. Cue stick momentum at cue ball impact is a function only of how much "impulse" (the sum of force over time) the grip hand delivers to the cue stick during the stroke. The shape of the impulse curve (i.e., how force changes with time during the stroke) depends on stroke mechanics and muscle physiology. Both of these things can vary significantly from one individual to the next. Even if two players have the same stroke technique, one person might have more fast-twitch than slow-twitch muscle fibers and be able to deliver more impulse with a different weight cue.

But again, all of this techno-babble is really unimportant if your only goal is to find out your optimal cue stick weight for the best break. The only way to find out is to experiment.

PS: This same question and answer also applies to baseball bat selection. Some people do better with a heavy bat (e.g., like Babe Ruth did), and others prefer a lighter bat. It all comes down to how much "impulse" you can deliver to achieve the most "momentum" at impact.

Rod
12-30-2004, 01:54 PM
This is an old thread but my hat doesn't come off for anyone. Rather it seemed like a waste of techie time. LOL The obvious answer is it varies for everyone. By the same qualifications a Francisco Bustamante type might find a heavier cue to his liking.

The optimum goal isn't speed anyway. All that means the c/b is going faster. Some may equate this as an advantage but it might give me a good laugh.

~~~rod, likes BIH

ras314
12-30-2004, 04:38 PM
As was pointed out in another thread, timing is probably the most important factor in break speed. I watched some of the small Asian gals break at the WPBA tournament in Albuquerque and it looked like they broke almost as hard as Bustamante.

So I thought if a 80 lb girl could break that well, at 200 lb I ought to be able to wack 'em a little harder. I've decided the way to get the cue speed up was to contact the cb at the instant the arm and body is vertical with the body starting to lean forward. Works too, if I actually hit the cb. With the cb flying approxamately 2 feet over the rack it will clear the back door sill at the bar by about 6 inches. Since this door is 6 paces beyond the foot rail I calculate a cb speed of 35 mph. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

nhp
12-30-2004, 05:56 PM
The break is mostly about timing, from what I've been told.

Bob_Jewett
12-30-2004, 06:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> ... Rather it seemed like a waste of techie time. LOL ... <hr /></blockquote>
Well, maybe, but this techie has a suggestion for how to find a good cue weight. Try lighter and lighter cues until you either lose an acceptable level of control or the speed drops below what you want or some other problem develops. Then try heavier and heavier cues until you again run into some problem (speed, control or other). Then use a cue half way between the two ends.

It would be interesting to see how ball speed actually changes with cue weight (apart from control issues). I don't think anyone has actually done a complete study of this, which would include cues both heavy enough and light enough to slow the cue ball down 20% from the maximum speed. A major problem is that the shooter would need time to adapt to each weight and balance for a fair test. I think balance is a major factor because I've found some wallabushkas that were the weight I like to break with but just didn't feel right.

I'd guess that the cues would have to range down to 12 and up to 35 ounces to cause a 20% decrease in ball speed.

DSAPOLIS
12-30-2004, 07:05 PM
When it comes to break, I have studied it and wrote about it alot. But.... let me quote that great pool philosopher of yesteryear, the late, great Luther Lassiter.
Wimpy:"The break? Ya' take the cue ball and whack the crap out of 'em."

Yep. Wimpy sorta summed it all up for me. That simple approach garnered him a lot of success. Keep it simple.

Rod
12-30-2004, 07:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe, but this techie has a suggestion for how to find a good cue weight. Try lighter and lighter cues until you either lose an acceptable level of control or the speed drops below what you want or some other problem develops. Then try heavier and heavier cues until you again run into some problem (speed, control or other). Then use a cue half way between the two ends.
<hr /></blockquote>

Well sure isn't that what we all do to some extent? Let me rephrase -- Except the ones that are adamant about using a heavy or light cue. Just to say one is better because of weight to ball mass etc doesn't make it right for each individual. The point about weight distribution is certainly a valid point.

All though some may find it interesting as a theory, that's all it can be, interesting to those people. If an individual bought a cue based on a theory where would they be? Well we don't know unless they did extensive testing with an accurate report. Then, where does that leave the other avg or experienced players?

You could say, buy a cue 1/2 OZ lighter than your playing cue for optimum results? I don't see there can be an answer. If your after a ball park answer then that's what you'll get. That will usually be about the same weight as your playing cue. That is for those that actually know what they like.

Personally I have a break cue for a bar box and it is appx 1/4 oz lighter. For a 9 footer I use my playing cue. Both cues have the weight somewhat forward. Weight/balance doesn't make any difference of course because everyone won't fall into this catagorie. OK, who wants to put together a team to conduct this experiment? LOL


Rod

superB
12-31-2004, 10:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> This is an old thread but my hat doesn't come off for anyone. Rather it seemed like a waste of techie time. LOL The obvious answer is it varies for everyone. <hr /></blockquote>

Fine, keep your hat on. With almost 5000 posts, I'm surprised you're pointing fingers about wasting time in a forum.

Experimentation is surely the best answer. However, the only problem is the selection of resources most people have available to them. Unless you are fortunate enough to have access to lots of nice two-piece break cues, you're most likely going to be testing with house cues. Hopefully, whatever weight works best in the house cue will also work best in the break cue you buy. It will probably be close enough. That said, you can't discount the value of discussing ideas with other people.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr>
By the same qualifications a Francisco Bustamante type might find a heavier cue to his liking.
<hr /></blockquote>

He might. However, I think that if he didn't have such good timing, he would prefer an even heavier cue. Since he is so good at throwing his own weight into the break, he probably doesn't benefit as much from weight in the cue as he might without his good timing. If anyone here knows Francisco, they should ask him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr>
The optimum goal isn't speed anyway. All that means the c/b is going faster. Some may equate this as an advantage but it might give me a good laugh.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree that accuracy is more important. (So is breaking with a cue with minimal deflection). Accuracy should not be sacrificed for speed. 100% break power will often put the cue ball on the floor, which is when you get your good laugh. Depending on how the balls are breaking a soft break may even pocket more balls. However, that is not always the case. Usually more power will be beneficial, assuming you do not sacrifice accuracy. Statistically, the more the balls roll, the more opportunities to fall in a hole. If you could make the balls roll forever, eventually they'd all go in. That is why people are interested in finding out which weight of cue will produce more cue ball speed for them.

JimS
01-01-2005, 08:06 AM
I doubt very much that a 1/2 oz or even an full oz of weight differnce in cues will make enough difference in break effectiveness to make a real differnce in win/lose percentages...especially since control of the cb is the real issue anyway.

I like D. Sapolis's viewpoint...i.e. knock the crap out of'm and move on to running the rack.

ceebee
01-01-2005, 10:01 AM
quote..&gt;&gt;I like D. Sapolis's viewpoint...i.e. knock the crap out of'm and move on to running the rack...&gt;unquote

D.Sapolis states that Cue Ball control is very important too. In his article "Breaking to Win", Blackjack says" During the break we should only use the amount of power we can control.

Players that have developed a high speed break shot, with cue ball control, are very few in number. Players that have developed a powerful, but controlled break shot are becoming numerous. You cannot develop this kind of break shot without disciplined practice.

Experiment. Take your Accustat videos of several matches and plot the location of the cueball, after impact. If the cueball gets whacked, show the location at the collision point. Look to see if the player, with the best break shot control, won the match. In some matches neither player has good cue ball control on the break.

Scott Lee
01-01-2005, 09:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ceebee:</font><hr>
D.Sapolis states that Cue Ball control is very important too. In his article "Breaking to Win", Blackjack says" During the break we should only use the amount of power we can control.

<font color="blue"> </font color> I agree with this statement 100%!
Scott Lee

Players that have developed a high speed break shot, with cue ball control, are very few in number. Players that have developed a powerful, but controlled break shot are becoming numerous. You cannot develop this kind of break shot without disciplined practice.

<font color="blue"> </font color> I agree with this also 100%!
Scott Lee

Experiment. Take your Accustat videos of several matches and plot the location of the cueball, after impact. If the cueball gets whacked, show the location at the collision point. Look to see if the player, with the best break shot control, won the match. In some matches neither player has good cue ball control on the break.<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> </font color> CeeBee...I think you hit the nail on the head here, in your last sentence. IMHO, many pros have a less efficient break than they might optimally get, due to excess body movement (i.e.: trying to put their full weight into the break shot; jumping up, putting too much emphasis on speed, etc.). As you have seen personally, and are putting into your book on breaking, my own technique of NO body movement whatsoever, with the exception of the pendulum swing from the elbow down, delivers an accurate, consistent, and appropriate speed break shot (15-20 mph). Using the weight of the cue, a dead centerball hit, and perfect timing create the best potential break...as far as consistency goes. AIR = ERROR!
However, the pros do certainly seem to overcome many inconsistencies, and produce prodigious results on occasion.
For most of us mortals, less movement is easier to control, and produce a more even, consistent result. For the record, I break with my playing cue (18 oz), but I see many pros breaking with a lighter cue (usually about an ounce less). BTW, the book is here, but I didn't get home in time to pick it up today. I'll be reading it on Monday!

Scott Lee

Qtec
01-02-2005, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote ceebee:</font><hr>
D.Sapolis states that Cue Ball control is very important too. In his article "Breaking to Win", Blackjack says" During the break we should only use the amount of power we can control.

<font color="blue"> </font color> I agree with this statement 100%!
Scott Lee

Players that have developed a high speed break shot, with cue ball control, are very few in number. Players that have developed a powerful, but controlled break shot are becoming numerous. You cannot develop this kind of break shot without disciplined practice.

<font color="blue"> </font color> I agree with this also 100%!
Scott Lee

Experiment. Take your Accustat videos of several matches and plot the location of the cueball, after impact. If the cueball gets whacked, show the location at the collision point. Look to see if the player, with the best break shot control, won the match. In some matches neither player has good cue ball control on the break.<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> </font color> CeeBee...I think you hit the nail on the head here, in your last sentence. IMHO, many pros have a less efficient break than they might optimally get, due to excess body movement (i.e.: trying to put their full weight into the break shot; jumping up, putting too much emphasis on speed, etc.). As you have seen personally, and are putting into your book on breaking, my own technique of NO body movement whatsoever, with the exception of the pendulum swing from the elbow down, delivers an accurate, consistent, and appropriate speed break shot (15-20 mph). Using the weight of the cue, a dead centerball hit, and perfect timing create the best potential break...as far as consistency goes. AIR = ERROR!
However, the pros do certainly seem to overcome many inconsistencies, and produce prodigious results on occasion. <font color="blue"> So they are basically doing everything they shouldnt do, according to your theory!
The facts are, the harder you hit the pack, the more movement you get in the balls, the more chance you have of making a ball on the break. If you make a ball, you have first shot, which gives you a big advantage. [ and we are talking about 9ball here.]</font color>
For most of us mortals, less movement is easier to control, and produce a more even, consistent result. For the record, I break with my playing cue (18 oz), but I see many pros breaking with a lighter cue (usually about an ounce less). BTW, the book is here, but I didn't get home in time to pick it up today. I'll be reading it on Monday!

Scott Lee <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec

Scott Lee
01-02-2005, 12:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
The facts are, the harder you hit the pack, the more movement you get in the balls, the more chance you have of making a ball on the break. If you make a ball, you have first shot, which gives you a big advantage. [ and we are talking about 9ball here.]</font color>

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec...You apparently did NOT read my post. I said the pros do overcome their inconsistencies sometimes, and get great results. They also come up dry a LOT! The "facts",
as you describe them, are YOUR facts. The TRUTH is that if you cannot control the CB, how hard you hit will be an inconsistent variable. Too hard, and the CB flies off the table, or scratches. Applying english and/or striking the rack anywhere but dead on the head ball MAY result in a less effective result. There is no scientific evidence that 'throwing' your weight into the break shot produces a better result (in fact the opposite is true)! The bottom line is this...I teach things that any ordinary person can learn, and MASTER, with dedicated, disciplined practice; not things that very few even professional level players can achieve with any consistentcy. To each their own, huh?

Scott Lee /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif