PDA

View Full Version : The optimal follow through



One
04-01-2004, 10:37 AM
Here is an interesting article I found on http://poollogics.port5.com/
This is very advanced stuff but after thinking about it for a while it does make sense! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

__________________

The optimal follow through

by Mr. X.
December 23 2003


Introduction

When I watch pro players I can always see problems with their stroke, they obviously don't know much about the contact between the tip and cueball. Pros all use different strokes because it works for them to make the ball in the pocket, even with the worst possible stroke where you can still hit the cueball you will make a ball in the pocket. Everyone knows that you can make the ball more accurately the more accurate your stroke is, but pros use different strokes because they don't see a difference. But those strokes are far from good and even further from optimal.

Pros stop developing their stroke when they can make all balls in the game they are playing, they make a conclusion that "if you can make unlimited racks in 9-ball then the stroke is working right?" Totally wrong!!! It all depends on the difficulty of the game and there is no reason why you shouldn't develop your stroke to its maximum potential.

The most important thing is the follow through, that is where the shot accuracy is decided and a difference between success and disaster. The stance and pre-strokes are just preparations for the follow through, they all work together towards the same common goal; a tiny contact between the tip and cueball that has to be very precise.



Follow through acceleration

The worst thing you can do is accelerate through the cueball, though everyone does it without realizing how bad it is. The reason for this is that it will be far from consistent because it will mostly depend on the accuracy of your follow through and the follow through has to be perfect for it not to have a negative impact.



Logical explanation

When you accelerate through the cueball you are touching the cueball a slightly longer time, and the longer time the tip is in contact with the cueball, the more accurate the stroke has to be. It is like you are pushing the cueball and always keep touching it because you are accelerating the cue. To be able to push the cueball like this, you need to shoot the shot at a low speed and accelerate the cue so the tip can reach the cueball another time and keep up with it, but if you don't decelerate the cue to make the tip move at the same speed as the cueball you will hit the cueball many times with the tip. Hitting the cueball many times with the tip will make the errors in the stroke bigger, for example when you are hitting downwards on the cueball using top spin, it will trap the cueball under the tip which will make it contact the cueball many times until you are pushing it, and hitting dead centre is almost impossible, because the cueball will choose a way out from the sides. Keep in mind that the contact between the tip and cueball in a normal shot is less than a fifth of an inch, and it is impossible to see the many hits with the human eye.

For being in contact with the cueball for a longer time depends on cue weight and acceleration/deceleration, for a lighter cue you need to start accelerating from a shorter distance (lower speed) to be in contact with the cueball a longer time. This is because the lighter the cue is, the more the cue slows down on the impact with the cueball, so you need to accelerate faster to hit the cueball another time. If the cueball doesn't weigh anything, then the cue will obviously not slow down at the cueball impact and you can keep pushing the cueball forever (only dead centre contact). Because the cueball has weight in it the cue will always slow down no matter how heavy the cue is, the cue will just slow down less with a heavier one. The only way you can push a cueball that has weight is to either start pushing it when already touching it, or, catch up with it when it is already moving and slow down less and less to avoid hitting it again and then accelerate again to keep up with it. If the cueball is slowing down (friction) then you need to decelerate the cue to match the cueball's deceleration.
The logical conclusion to this is that the heavier the cue is, the longer contact you can make with the cueball, which results in more spin, but you can't see a difference.
The longer contact you make with the cueball, the more it depends on a straight stroke because if you followed through the cueball slightly wrong, the error will multiply the longer contact you make with the cueball. So the less contact you make with the cueball the less it depends on stroke.




How to use the multiple hits to your advantage

The easiest way to double hit the cueball is when using spin on the vertical axis, for example massť shots, those shots pushes the cueball to the side. The tip stays on the cueball until it leaves the edge of it, so it adds up spin in that period while forcing the cueball to the side at the same time (to get spin the tip has to "grab" the cueball, if it slides you get no spin (miscue)).
Using top spin and shooting down on the cueball is the opposite of this. The tip will start contacting the cueball high on the vertical axis and because the cueball will try to move forwards the tip will slide towards the centre of the cueball, and this results in less spin and a lot of contacts.

There is another way to use the multiple hit, it is when using draw and using an upwards curve stroke when having the cue elevated. When hitting the cueball with draw the tip will be forced downwards from the cueball (if the cue bends, which is normal) and will eventually hit the cloth of the table. Because the cueball is round you are contacting it in a spot that is further than when contacting the middle of the ball. If you would move the cue up when using draw, then the end of the tip would be about an inch inside the cueball! When you follow through and the tip goes upwards you are hitting the cueball another time, and you don't need to accelerate the cue as much in order to catch up with it, because the contact point is an inch closer. The more elevation of the cue you have, the more contacts you can make with the cueball, because you shoot the cueball down at the table instead of forwards so it doesn't escape your tip as fast. Before the cueball jumps up from the table you will be contacting it again with the tip to add more spin to it. The higher it jumps the less times you can hit it because the cueball escapes upwards.

Only use this technique if you can handle it. Because it took me into a slump that lasted a year to get out of. I eventually used this upwards curve stroke on every shot which is very bad and much harder to control cueball tip position with. But when having the cue elevated when using top spin the curve stroke will avoid the many contacts which will make it depend less on stroke accuracy.




The optimal acceleration

So now you know that when accelerating the cue in a short distance results in more "pushing" the cueball because of the low speed at contact with the cueball. However, if you can accelerate the cue fast enough to your maximum speed, then you don't get pushing of the cueball. The more you are decelerating the cue, the less pushing you will get and the more consistent the hit will be, because the shorter contact with the cueball, the less the errors are multiplied. But decelerating the cue at impact will be very difficult and will be even harder to do consistently than accelerating through the cueball. The optimal and easiest follow through is when you do neither of those, you are not accelerating nor decelerating at impact with the cueball, the cue stays at a consistent speed when hitting the cueball. For example the cue is going at consistent 20 mph forever (for this you need a slight acceleration to keep it at that speed because of gravity and wind resistance) instead of 20 mph, 21, 22, 23...etc, or, 20 mph, 19, 18, 17...etc.

So in order to do this you need to decelerate the cue before impact with the cueball in order stop its acceleration that you gave to the cue with your arm. But you don't have to do that! The arm will slow down by itself if you don't accelerate it because of gravity and slight wind resistance. You are accelerating the cue only in the beginning of your stroke instead of continuing to accelerate it up to the impact with the cueball and beyond it. After the initiated acceleration period is completed, just let the arm move by itself and keep it relaxed and let it automatically complete the impact with the cueball, it is like you are throwing your arm at the cueball.
When you are accelerating the arm, it takes a while to shut off all muscle activity of your biceps, all the muscle fibers will not shut off exactly at the same time, they will shut off hopefully linearly which results in less and less acceleration until there eventually isn't any muscle activity left.
When you don't have any acceleration force to push the cue it will immediately slow down and start decelerating on its own. But this is just good because you will get less contact with the cueball. The bad thing you can do here is to use the triceps to decelerate the cue instead of letting it slow down by itself, there should only be biceps activity before and through the impact of the cueball.
The timing of the acceleration period and shutting off the muscle fibers should be timed good, it should be timed so that you have just enough biceps activity so you are still pushing the cue to keep it at a consistent speed at the impact with the cueball. For example if the cue is traveling at 20 mph you probably only need 1% biceps activity to keep the cue at the same 20 mph speed, it all depends on the weight of the cue, the weight of your arm, your maximum strength, and your muscle fiber type percentages.

The length of the acceleration period depends on the time it takes for your biceps to shut off all activity. This depends of your percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers (type IIb), the more of these fibers you have, the faster you can activate and de-active your muscle fibers. So the faster muscles, the later in your stroke you will attempt to shut off all your muscle fiber activity. The slower your muscles are, the sooner you will need to shut them off to get the right timing at the impact of the cueball. The length of your backstroke depends on this. If you can't accelerate the cue fast enough to reach the speed that you want, you will need a longer backstroke, and if you have fast muscles and can accelerate fast in a short distance, then you can use a shorter backstroke and have an advantage because you get less errors with a shorter stroke.




What to do after the impact is complete?

After the impact/impacts with the cueball are over and you let the cue slow down by itself, then you can activate the triceps muscle fibers to slow down the cue until it stops, it doesn't really matter what you do with the cue after, you can't change the shot anymore. It is only the impact period that has to be straight, but if it is straight then the cue will naturally follow through straight too, if the impact with the cueball is not straight then the follow through will obviously be much worse. So if the follow through looks straight, then the impact must have been straight also.

You always need to drop the shoulder in the follow through in order to keep the cue straight, but timing is very difficult to do it exactly while the impact is occuring. But you still have to do it because if you wouldn't drop the shoulder to keep the cue going straight, the cue would go in a curve downwards in the follow through, this doesn't matter if the curve begins after the impact is completed. But if you judge distances wrong or grip the cue wrong you will get disaster. You also have to drop the shoulder in your pre-strokes to keep the cue straight and level, but that is not as important as the follow through.




The optimal follow through length

The follow through length obviously doesn't matter, you only need a follow through length that is as long as the impact period. The extra distance is only used to slow down the cue. But still many use different length follow throughs, why?

It depends on cue weight, strength and stupidity. If you have a heavy cue you need to be stronger to decelerate the cue as fast as with a lighter cue, so you will need a longer follow through. The reason why it depends on stupidity is because many people seem to think the follow through length matters, like more spin etc. Well of course because they accelerate through the cueball with a short backstroke, but that doesn't depend on follow through length, only the length of impact.

The difference between accelerating through the cueball and not doing it will be impossible to see with the human eye, it could only be possible to tell the difference if you hit the cueball with an upwards curved draw stroke.

The optimal follow through length depends on the weight of the cue, the lighter cue the shorter follow through etc. The shorter follow through the easier speed control is. A lighter cue also slows down from the impact more and doesn't push the cueball sideways as much as a heavier cue, instead the cueball pushes the cue away more. So when using a heavier cue you need a straighter stroke. So the logical conclusion is to use as light cue as possible while still being able to shoot hard shots, because a lighter cue needs to travel faster than a heavier cue.

A 19 oz cue for pool balls is about the same as 17 oz for snooker balls, Stephen Hendry uses a 17 oz cue and he has almost optimal follow through, but I can still see problems with it. When practicing for optimal follow through you should imitate his follow through, he does it better than anyone else of the snooker pros. The follow through length that he uses is close to optimal, you can see that he follows through the ball with the arm relaxed instead of accelerating through the cueball a lot like pool players do, but he still does it a little. He uses a short stroke and accelerates the cue faster than others and that's why he has that good stroke accuracy. Others will need to accelerate through the cueball more if they use the same stroke length.

Obviously you need a longer follow through in pool compared to snooker because of a heavier cueball and cue. So about a 3 inch (7.7 cm) follow through would be optimal for pool when using a 19 oz cue, you will use this distance on all velocities except the break shot. Don't try to stop the cue before it has slowed down by itself after the cueball impact. If you can't decelerate the cue in that optimal distance, then use a longer follow through until you can. The reason to use the same follow through length is for consistency, you practice dropping the shoulder just the right amount so it gets as straight as possible instead of going upwards or downwards. The more you practice it, the more fine tuned it becomes.




Conclusion:

1. Accelerate the cue and attemp to shut off all biceps activity before impact with the cueball. Time it right so you will have enough activity to make the arm/cue travel at a consistent speed that is not accelerating nor decelerating when hitting the cueball.

2. Use a follow through length that is optimal for the cueball vs cue weight. Use a shorter follow through only if your triceps are fast enough.


by Mr. X.
__________________

Wally_in_Cincy
04-01-2004, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>
.....Only use this technique if you can handle it. Because it took me into a slump that lasted a year to get out of.....<hr /></blockquote>

that's encouraging /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Although I admit I didn't read it all due to my eyes glazing over, I give your article a big "whatever"

This is to follow-through what IMMSHARMA is to aiming /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

bluewolf
04-01-2004, 11:47 AM
No way I could read this. Just swing the cue straight, go straight thru where I am aiming on the cb and freeze.

Look at the shot, decide what ball speed you need and swing. I really think that this is practice and experience, no majic formula. I do pretty good at this, sometimes better than others, but then I do not have the experience as many here, so do not expect to be as good at this as someone like Chis, Popcorn and others.

Why all of this wordiness?GEEZ

Laura

Fred Agnir
04-01-2004, 11:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr> Logical explanation

When you accelerate through the cueball you are touching the cueball a slightly longer time, and the longer time the tip is in contact with the cueball, the more accurate the stroke has to be. It is like you are pushing the cueball and always keep touching it because you are accelerating the cue. <hr /></blockquote>This might seem logical, but with our very human hands, this description is an impossibility. We have neither the strength nor the rigidity to keep the cue from rapidly decelerating upon contact with the tip. Proven through the high-speed videography in the Jacksonville Project, the cueball is long gone before we start to re-accelerate the cue.

Fred

Qtec
04-01-2004, 03:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The arm will slow down by itself if you don't accelerate it because of gravity and slight wind resistance <hr /></blockquote>

HaHaHa.

So thats why I missed that 9b the other day.
Some guy on the bar must have let 'one'go.LOL

You gotta laugh.

Q

JohnnyP
04-02-2004, 01:49 AM
From the Myth Destroyer site:

http://www.meuccicues.com/myth-top.htm

Note that the tip of the cue has penetrated the area formerly occupied by the CB, which is now on its way to the target.

It's the preparation for follow through that delivers a clean hit. Follow through itself does nothing after the cueball is struck.

NH_Steve
04-02-2004, 04:52 AM
Anyone wondering where Patrick went, sure looks like he's here:
Patrick? (http://poollogics.port5.com/info/one.htm)

bluewolf
04-02-2004, 05:57 AM
Sure looks like him, although the ip on his previous posts is different. Maybe he got a different computer. LOL

Laura

catscradle
04-02-2004, 05:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> This might seem logical, but with our very human hands, this description is an impossibility. We have neither the strength nor the rigidity to keep the cue from rapidly decelerating upon contact with the tip. Proven through the high-speed videography in the Jacksonville Project, the cueball is long gone before we start to re-accelerate the cue.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, what he said. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The only time multiple hits are accomplished is when the cueball bounces back toward the cue tip as in a push through foul.

Eric.
04-02-2004, 12:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote NH_Steve:</font><hr> Anyone wondering where Patrick went, sure looks like he's here:
Patrick? (http://poollogics.port5.com/info/one.htm) <hr /></blockquote>

Now that FL has been relieved of his duty, is Patrick back to fill the void?


Eric &gt;"Pool gurus-it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure" /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

1Time
04-04-2004, 10:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr> Logical explanation

When you accelerate through the cueball you are touching the cueball a slightly longer time, and the longer time the tip is in contact with the cueball, the more accurate the stroke has to be. It is like you are pushing the cueball and always keep touching it because you are accelerating the cue. <hr /></blockquote>This might seem logical, but with our very human hands, this description is an impossibility. We have neither the strength nor the rigidity to keep the cue from rapidly decelerating upon contact with the tip. Proven through the high-speed videography in the Jacksonville Project, the cueball is long gone before we start to re-accelerate the cue. <hr /></blockquote>

For faster stroked shots and for many players with any kind of shot I can see how it would seem impossible to accelerate through the cue ball. However, for others like myself who "know how", with slower stroked shots the cue can easily be accelerated through the cue ball. The cue tip very briefly slows down a bit upon inital contact with the cue ball and then gradually accelerates (at an increasing rate) through the point the cue tip loses contact with the cue ball and continues to accelerate during the initial part of the follow through.

To some on-lookers this type of stroke will appear as though the cue is literally pushing the cue ball.

Thank you Fred for pointing out the cue briefly slows down upon initial contact with the cue ball; I forgot all about that in my previous post about accelerating through the cue found here (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=130281&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1).

Frank_Glenn
04-04-2004, 01:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
For faster stroked shots and for many players with any kind of shot I can see how it would seem impossible to accelerate through the cue ball. However, for others like myself who "know how", with slower stroked shots the cue can easily be accelerated through the cue ball. The cue tip very briefly slows down a bit upon inital contact with the cue ball and then gradually accelerates (at an increasing rate) through the point the cue tip loses contact with the cue ball and continues to accelerate during the initial part of the follow through.

To some on-lookers this type of stroke will appear as though the cue is literally pushing the cue ball.<hr /></blockquote>
This is a foul the way you describe it. If the tip slows down, the cueball leaves the tip, if you touch the ball again, it is a foul. If you don't touch the ball again, then what you are claiming does not happen. You can't have it both ways, IMO. I think the ball is long gone as soon as contact occurs. To place the tip on the ball and "push" the ball is also a foul. All follow through does is prevent you from stopping your stroke prematurely. The ball doesn't care, but if you try to "hold back" the cuestick instead of trying to accellerate throught the ball (which doesn't happen, but you should still try) then your stroke is not pure and you pull off of the shot. The muscles in your forearm should stay relaxed through the stoke as much as possible. Anyway, that's my spin on it.

BeanDiesel
04-04-2004, 06:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>For example the cue is going at consistent 20 mph forever (for this you need a slight acceleration to keep it at that speed because of gravity and wind resistance)<hr /></blockquote>

Gravity does not affect horizontal motions. But if you keep the tip higher than the butt (which is no longer a completely horizontal motion), yes, you'll need a slight acceleration (more force).

1Time
04-04-2004, 07:04 PM
Frank_Glenn, I've found that to be a fairly common misconception. It's based on the false premise that the cue, the cue tip, the cue ball and the grip hand on the cue are too rigid to flex throughout the duration of impact between the cue tip and cue ball. This simply isn't so.

Consider the jump shot. The cue ball jumps because first of all it's being compressed between the cue tip and the slate. And then when the cue ball decompresses, it's like a spring being sprung launching it off the table. Now imagine shooting a jump shot with a tennis ball, same principle.

1Time
04-04-2004, 07:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr> Gravity does not affect horizontal motions. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm no physics wiz but I'm fairly certain gravity is a downward force that affects horizontal motions. For example, balls come to a stop on a pool table after being struck primarily because of gravity.

Frank_Glenn
04-04-2004, 08:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> Frank_Glenn, I've found that to be a fairly common misconception. It's based on the false premise that the cue, the cue tip, the cue ball and the grip hand on the cue are too rigid to flex throughout the duration of impact between the cue tip and cue ball. This simply isn't so.
<hr /></blockquote>

So you are saying double hit is not a foul? Or are you saying you did not describe a double hit? If the cue slows down at impact (and it does), then the cueball leaves the tip much faster than the cue is traveling. This is a proven fact, not conjecture. The mass of the stick is larger than the mass of the ball and energy will be conserved. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

1Time
04-04-2004, 09:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Frank_Glenn:</font><hr> So you are saying double hit is not a foul? Or are you saying you did not describe a double hit? If the cue slows down at impact (and it does), then the cueball leaves the tip much faster than the cue is traveling. This is a proven fact, not conjecture. The mass of the stick is larger than the mass of the ball and energy will be conserved. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. <hr /></blockquote>

In a world where cue balls ricoche off cue tips in a fraction of a nanosecond (as though cues, cue tips and cue balls were made of titanium and the cue was propelled forward with unforgiving vice like control), it would be true that I couldn't have it both ways. Either the cue tip would strike the cue ball and the cue ball would instantaneously move forward and away from the cue tip, or, after intially striking the cue ball, the cue tip would chase and hit the cue ball again, which of course is a foul.

However, in a world where pool is played with cue tips that compress upon impact, cue balls that also are subject to compression, and human hands that propell cues, there is no such thing as an instantaneous richoche, in ANY pool shot. When the cue briefly slows upon impact with the cue ball, the cue is still moving forward, and for a brief period of time the cue tip and cue ball remain in contact with each other. I describe in greater detail this brief period of time when the cue is accelerated through the cue ball in this (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=130281&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) thread.

smfsrca
04-04-2004, 09:30 PM
Gravity keeps the ball from falling off the table onto the ceiling the same way it keeps us from falling off the earth.
The ball comes to a stop because of friction. If there was no friction between the ball and the table the ball would roll on forever, regardless of the pull of gravity.

1Time
04-04-2004, 09:41 PM
Friction exists between a pool ball and the pool table because of gravity. The ball slowing on a pool table is a function of gravity and friction, not just friction.

BeanDiesel
04-04-2004, 10:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BeanDiesel:</font><hr> Gravity does not affect horizontal motions. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm no physics wiz but I'm fairly certain gravity is a downward force that affects horizontal motions. For example, balls come to a stop on a pool table after being struck primarily because of gravity. <hr /></blockquote>

when i said that gravity does not affect horizontol motions, i assume that the author does not take into account the friction between the bridge hand and the shaft. if he does, then yes, gravity does matter. i'm sorry if i didn't make it clear before.

and it's the friction that decelerate a ball on a table, because frictional force is equal to the some constant (friction coefficient) multiplied by the weight of the ball, which is due to the gravity (and your assumption is right). so my point is, in horizontal motion, if you consider friction, then gravity does matter.
if you dont consider friction, then gravity doesn't matter, just like what smfsrca said.

1Time
04-05-2004, 02:34 AM
The following is a quote I copied from here (http://www.wcsscience.com/forces/page.html).
"Because gravity applies a downward force on the object, and there is always friction between two surfaces, there will be a frictional force. Frictional forces always act in the opposite direction, so friction will reduce the effect of the applied force. This means that the object will have a smaller acceleration than it would have had, if there had been no friction."

That's the most physics I've read in over 20 years and probably more than enough to last me another 20.

BeanDiesel
04-05-2004, 03:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> there is always friction between two surfaces<hr /></blockquote>
there will be no frictional force between two vertical surfaces, as long as no other forces are applied, since there are no normal forces (the force that one surface exerts on the other).
/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif dont worry, i'm just being too fussy.

Anonamus
04-05-2004, 05:43 AM
I don't know what the answer is, nor do I care. But, if the CB bounces off the tip at impact and follow-through has no effect on the CB then how do you explain how some very good players can make the CB do things others can only dream about? For example, how can some players achieve so much more side spin when other players can't even though the CB is hit in the same place with the same speed? Or, how come some players can get so much more draw on the CB without hitting the CB harder (you can only hit the CB so low)?

There is obviously something else going on or all players would be able to spin the CB the same. Think about it, if the CB bounces off the cue tip at the moment of impact and the cue slows down at impact then everybody's stroke would be the same and the only thing that would differ would be accuracy and speed.

BTW, the Jacksonville (sp?) tapes show someone hitting a ball in slow motion and I'm sure that's what happens with a regular stroke. But did anyone then say, "okay, now hit a shot with MAXIMUM spin, follow or draw and lets see what the difference is?"

Fred Agnir
04-05-2004, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Anonamus:</font><hr> BTW, the Jacksonville (sp?) tapes show someone hitting a ball in slow motion and I'm sure that's what happens with a regular stroke. But did anyone then say, "okay, now hit a shot with MAXIMUM spin, follow or draw and lets see what the difference is?" <hr /></blockquote>Yes, they did. And the one World 3-C Artistic Champion that was part of that study I'm sure puts a ton more spin than you or I will ever achieve.

Fred

Fred Agnir
04-05-2004, 07:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> Frank_Glenn, I've found that to be a fairly common misconception. It's based on the false premise that the cue, the cue tip, the cue ball and the grip hand on the cue are too rigid to flex throughout the duration of impact between the cue tip and cue ball. This simply isn't so.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure what you're saying. The hand is not rigid enough, therefore it does flex during the impact between the cue tip and the cue ball. That's what differentiates a real world shot vs. a rigidly held robot machine.

[ QUOTE ]

Consider the jump shot. The cue ball jumps because first of all it's being compressed between the cue tip and the slate. And then when the cue ball decompresses, it's like a spring being sprung launching it off the table. Now imagine shooting a jump shot with a tennis ball, same principle. <hr /></blockquote>The ball jumps because your applying a downward force to the cueball. The cuestick must deflect out of the way or else the cueball gets trapped between the tip and the slate. If it does get trapped, you'll get a massť effect. If it doesn't get trapped, you get a jump shot.

Instead of imagining a jump shot with a tennis ball, go ahead and try it. Report your results here.

Fred

Fred Agnir
04-05-2004, 08:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
For faster stroked shots and for many players with any kind of shot I can see how it would seem impossible to accelerate through the cue ball. However, for others like myself who "know how", with slower stroked shots the cue can easily be accelerated through the cue ball. The cue tip very briefly slows down a bit upon inital contact with the cue ball and then gradually accelerates (at an increasing rate) through the point the cue tip loses contact with the cue ball and continues to accelerate during the initial part of the follow through. <hr /></blockquote> There is enough video evidence that confirms that this idea is false.

Jacksonville, Jewett, Acceleration (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jewettF3GIvD.H8y%40netcom.com&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;output=gplain)

The European Champion mentioned is World Artistic Champion Hans de Jager from The Hague.

There are answers in this tape (Jacksonville Project), if people are looking for them.

Fred

SpiderMan
04-05-2004, 09:02 AM
One (or Mr X?),

Most of this is garbage, the author is clearly rambling in areas he doesn't even understand. Sort of like Patrick used to do.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
04-05-2004, 09:11 AM
"Weaknesses - Playing against opponents."

Hmmm ... I'd be a world champion, if not for those pesky opponents!

SpiderMan

Anonamus
04-05-2004, 09:16 AM
OK, so how does this 3-C champ apply all this spin that most people can't achieve if the cue tip is only staying on the CB for .001 -.002 seconds and (I'm assuming) it's the same for all levels of play? He must not be doing it with his cue since follow through has no effect and the CB contact time is negligible.

Fred Agnir
04-05-2004, 09:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Anonamus:</font><hr> OK, so how does this 3-C champ apply all this spin that most people can't achieve if the cue tip is only staying on the CB for .001 -.002 seconds and (I'm assuming) it's the same for all levels of play? He must not be doing it with his cue since follow through has no effect and the CB contact time is negligible. <hr /></blockquote>I'd say he's hitting the spot where he's aiming at the desired speed.

Fred

Anonamus
04-05-2004, 10:26 AM
Fred,

You're kidding, right?

If that were the case then horrible players could make the CB do what the world champions do by just accidently missing the spot and hitting the CB a little further out than intended.

pooltchr
04-05-2004, 10:26 AM
Could someone pass the asprin please???

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

nhp
04-05-2004, 09:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Anonamus:</font><hr> Fred,

You're kidding, right?

If that were the case then horrible players could make the CB do what the world champions do by just accidently missing the spot and hitting the CB a little further out than intended. <hr /></blockquote>

World champions do what they do because A. What Fred said, and B. They spend many years practicing and developing their champion strokes.

Pardon my language, but I believe Mr. X is full of [censored]. First of all, I'm almost positive that he can't play a lick, for the simple fact that he goes by 'Mr.X' instead of his real name. Second of all, he thinks he can say that all of these pro players are doing things wrong or have bad strokes. What a full-blown, pathetic, and ignorant idiot. Until this Mr. Know-it-all can do what Efren does, he needs to shut up. I hate people who scientifically analyze the game, but can't play a lick, but think they have the right to criticize the pros.

eg8r
04-06-2004, 06:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I'm almost positive that he can't play a lick, for the simple fact that he goes by 'Mr.X' instead of his real name. Second of all, he thinks he can say that all of these pro players are doing things wrong or have bad strokes. What a full-blown, pathetic, and ignorant idiot. Until this Mr. Know-it-all can do what Efren does, he needs to shut up. I hate people who scientifically analyze the game, but can't play a lick, but think they have the right to criticize the pros. <hr /></blockquote> You have decided he can't play a lick because YOU don't know his name? LOL. I have heard your argument for the last sentence on the other board before...

eg8r

Chris Cass
04-06-2004, 08:02 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA Was wondering where that alien went. LMAO

C.C.~~ /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

nhp
04-07-2004, 01:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
First of all, I'm almost positive that he can't play a lick, for the simple fact that he goes by 'Mr.X' instead of his real name. Second of all, he thinks he can say that all of these pro players are doing things wrong or have bad strokes. What a full-blown, pathetic, and ignorant idiot. Until this Mr. Know-it-all can do what Efren does, he needs to shut up. I hate people who scientifically analyze the game, but can't play a lick, but think they have the right to criticize the pros. <hr /></blockquote> You have decided he can't play a lick because YOU don't know his name? LOL. I have heard your argument for the last sentence on the other board before...

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Lets see, the guy criticizes the pros, and won't use his real name. That has chump written all over it. Half of these guys who make all this scientific analysis of pool can't play the game worth a crap. It's kind of like you arguing on the other site about jump cues, when you've already admitted you can't play worth a crap, and you don't even play much anymore at all. Well hey, nobody wants to hear your opinion then, especially if you've got little to do with the game.

Bob_Jewett
04-09-2004, 01:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr> Here is an interesting article I found ...

by Mr. X.
December 23 2003
...
by Mr. X.
__________________
<hr /></blockquote>

It's just my opinion of course, and I couldn't wade through all of the article because I wanted to throw up after a few paragraphs, but it seems to me that Mr. X, whoever he is, knows nothing about how balls, sticks and people work.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-10-2004, 07:22 AM
Mr. X is Patrick Laasko from Sweden. He is rarely coherent.

Sam
04-13-2004, 08:59 AM
On a different forum, FL said:

"When I follow the ball my cue goes through the ball and stays on target, it begins parallel with the table bed and still is even if my follow through is over a foot long and sometimes my follow through is to the joint. In fact, my tip even raises some, as did Hoppes and Mosconis on this shot. The BCA instructors are taught to hit and let the tip drop to the cloth and I am totally against this. In my method it produces more power and spin as on impact I am hitting the cue ball 2 or 3 times and they are hitting it just once."

I pointed out this sounds like a foul, his response included:

"Hitting the cue ball more than once increases the english. High speed photogrophy with the worlds most advanced and expensive can corder using frame by frame has proved this does occur in world class strokes. How can you call a foul on something you cannot see and no camera you own could catch it on ..."