PDA

View Full Version : From poke to stroke



02-21-2002, 06:34 AM
I confess, I'm a Poker. Does anyone have any advice on turning my poke into a stroke. I know I'm doing it, but can't seem to correct it. I find myself practicing my bad habit rather than correcting it. I'm sure that once I stop poking the cue ball my game will improve greatly. I would appreciate any insight you may have.

Chris Cass
02-21-2002, 08:00 AM
Hi Cami,
This is a great question. Most people who don't follow thru the cb, do poke. Coming from a women is also unusual. Most women I've seen play tend to hold their grip, further back on the cb than forward. It's hard to relate without seeing what's going on exactly.
I will say, when your at the practice table. Try lining up your cue tip close as you can to the cb, then check to see if your grip hand is far enough back on the wrap, to form a 90 degree angle at the elbow. This ensures that when you hit the cb that you'll follow thru to the cloth, when your shot is completed. Do this on a table length shot to get the feel down. I'm thinking the problem is in your mechanics. Try this and see if it helps. Don't be afraid to hit the shot. Let me know if this helps.
Good Luck,
C.C.

Ken
02-21-2002, 08:31 AM
Chris, If you are assuming that Cami is a woman, that is incorrect.
Ken

02-21-2002, 08:56 AM
Sorry, I'm not a woman, Cami is short for Camillo (Named after Italian Grandfather)

02-21-2002, 08:56 AM
Sorry, I'm not a woman, Cami is short for Camillo (Named after Italian Grandfather).
But thanks for the reply

SPetty
02-21-2002, 09:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I find myself practicing my bad habit rather than correcting it.

<hr></blockquote>

Cami, I think through great deducemanship, I've uncovered a great deal of your problem.

Stop practicing the bad habit. Practice the good habit. Hope that helps!

No, really. Learn how to do a good stroke. Go to school or watch some videos or read some books. Then practice that good stroke. Then practice that good stroke some more. Your shotmaking may go to pot for awhile, but keep practicing that good stroke.

02-21-2002, 09:57 AM
Hi, Cami,
Chris gave you some good info. I would like to suggest you line up a straight in shot, parallel to the long rail (when facing table left rail if right handed). Place the object ball approx 1/2"- 3/4" off the rail, on the first diamond. Then do the same with the cueball a little past the 3rd dianmond.
If you find it difficult to form a bridge then line the shot straight up in a corner pocket at the same distances.
Strike the cue ball STRAIGHT THROUGH with center ball with a dead level cue. The result you are looking for is the cue ball not to stop, but to replace the object ball. After contact with the OB, the CB should make a 1/4 roll replacing where the object ball was positioned.
What is happening is the CB is sliding across the felt.
The only way this shot can be done correctly is with a good solid, dependable stroke.
Practice this shot and warm up with this shot and the poke will disappear.

JimS
02-21-2002, 12:43 PM
Hi Cami...welcome to the ccb.

I just returned to playing pool three years ago after a 40 yr lay-off so I had, and have, a lot to learn.

I took some lessons and then got lucky and hooked up with a guy, who's become a very good friend, who can PLAY (gives gawd the 8 &amp; the break and knows the game!). He's become my Coach.

Whenever he wants me to learn something new or replace a bad habit he has me do the new behavior 1,000 times to "burn it in" as he puts it.

If you do a stroke exercise 1,000 times trying to do at least 100 a day for 10 days you'll have a new stroke "burned into" your brain.

Maybe set up straight in shots with a piece of chalk on the table about a foot in front of the cue ball, and off to one side, and follow through to a distance equal to the placement of the chalk. Do it 100 times a day for 10 days and...NEW STROKE! You could do this on your dining room table...don't have to have an object ball to shoot or even a cue ball. Just stroke to a target about 15" to 20" in front of your bridge hand.

This has worked for me. Repetition of desired behavior makes that behavior a habit.

Hope this helps.

Regards, JimS

heater451
02-21-2002, 01:12 PM
Cami, do you follow through on your break stroke, or do you 'stab' at it?

I think most 'poking' comes from 'punching' the cueball--trying to strike the cueball and pull back. And, this is probably exacerbated by the fact that most people hit too hard.

So, when you practice a shot like Scott mentions in his reply, below, don't feel like you have to "strike and clear". The cueball is going to move away from your cuetip, and that's why you can follow through the ball.

You might even try 'pushing' the cueball, with a soft to medium stroke.

Imagine hitting a balloon back and forth to someone. If you smack it hard, it will go shooting off on a (mostly) uncontrolled line. However, if you give it a kind of tapping-push, you are "following-through" with your hand, and can control the direction of the balloon better.

02-21-2002, 01:51 PM
Hi Cami, to leave the poke behind you need to know what a good stroke is and more important what happens with a good stroke but does not happen when you are using a poke.

One thing that happens with a poke is you will "stop" the cue at the cueball hit. In order for this to happen the cue must already be slowing down before the hit. This is not a good thing.

We all talk about follow-through but not why we do it. It would seem that once the cueball has been hit and is moving away from the cue why should continuing movement of the cue make any difference? Does the cueball look behind and see the cue coming? Of course not, yet follow-through does make a big difference.

When I was a boy my father, when talking about how to succeed in life used to say, "Ron, you must aim for the moon in order to hit the top of the fence!". It was many years before I really understood that I needed to put forth more effort than was required to make sure I succeeded.

This is the story of follow-through, it is very important not to let the cue slow down before it hits the cueball. By continuing the forward stroke past the cueball this will be prevented.

This was a long way of saying something very simple, a good stroke will cause the cue to accelerate throughout the stroke without any percived slowing down at contact.

One way to practice this is to pick a spot 4-6" past the cueball and make sure the tip reaches that point. When you can do this without flinching or jerking the cue you are almost there.

This is the last part, after your warmup strokes, stop at the cueball, check that the tip is pointing at the correct place on the cueball. Now start the backswing slowly, backswing slowly, backswing slowly. as you change to the forward stroke start increasing the pace until you reach the cueball. Continue increasing until you reach that spot 4-6" past the cueball. Welcome to the stroke!

Rod
02-21-2002, 01:55 PM
Cami lets define poke, To make thrusts or jabs, as with a stick or poker. A push, thrust, or jab.
My version is to hit at rather than thru.
I believe anxiety plays a part, even if it didn't the
Motion is uneven at c/b address. Then the cue is jerked
back without a finish or transition into the forward swing.
Then it is either a jab (rushed moiton) or a push (faked motion or steering) at but not thru the c/b.
The other big fault which ties in with anxiety, is a tight
grip on the cue. As a matter of fact I contribute this
to be a leading factor with any poor stroke.

Stroke, A single completed movement of the limbs and body, as in swimming or rowing.( close but not exact)
A single uninterrupted movement, especially when repeated or in a back-and-forth motion: the stroke of a pendulum.
(close again and best describes our function, pool stroke)

My description, short version, set and aim, slight pause
at the c/b, swing back the cue, allow the cue to have
that brief moment to change direction, (slight pause),
then a smooth transition forwards, (not rushed) here is
where the grip pressure can be a major factor.
Last of all let your hand ride the cue thru the c/b to
a smooth full finish.

Another way to describe, once the cue starts back it goes
to say 7.30 then changes direction and goes thru to 4.30.
Like a pendlum with no forced motion.

As a practice drill you can line up balls and shoot them
in with your cue, keeping that pendlum motion, and a light
grip. Line them up several times and increase the speed.
When you catch your self hitting at rather than back and thru, or gripping to tight, slow back down.
Then shoot balls in with the c/b, feeling that same motion.
If you want to draw or follow do it at a shorter distance.
Remember the purpose of the stroke is the quality of
the hit. If done in moderation and within your ability
then that quality is improved. As people improve there
able to do more with the c/b. When things go sour again,
look to the above for some answers. Lets not get the cart
before the horse, so to speak.
This can be defined to a great degree, but in the
beginning, keep it simple.

Good luck, Rod

Chris Cass
02-21-2002, 03:18 PM
Cami,
Please accept my humble apologies. I didn't mean any disrespect and I thought I was the only Italian on the board. I would like to know if and when you work out this poking thing. Again, sorry goom ba,
C.C.~~screwed up my first post on the new board, what's next?

Bob_in_Cincy
02-21-2002, 04:02 PM
I was recently given a very similar shot by an instructor from whom I'm taking some lessons. The differences are you set the shot up on the right long rail for a righty, and the ball positions are different. OB is at the middle diamond between the side pocket &amp; the far corner. The CB is at the middle diamond between the side pocket &amp; the near corner. Both balls are no more than 1/4" from the rail. It doesn't take a sledge-hammer stroke to stop the QB dead in it's tracks, either.

Regards,

Bob in Cincy

Bob_in_Cincy
02-21-2002, 04:13 PM
Cami,

Lots of good advice given here, but one thing I didn't see mentioned is something my instructor told me was fairly common in a poke stroke. On the final backstroke, the cue is not being drawn all the way back as far as the warm-up strokes. In your (possible) anxiety &amp; your (possible) fear of the shot, you just want to get it overwith, and you only backstroke part of the way. I was doing that every time I poked at the ball. One of his favorite sayings is "back to the knuckles". Go over to trickshooter.com &amp; watch one of the Buddy Hall matches &amp; look at where his cue is at the pause in his backstroke before the shot.

Regards,

Bob in Cincy

Chris Cass
02-21-2002, 05:55 PM
Hi Bob,
Just because you don't draw the back stroke all the way back doesn't neccessary mean you'll create a poke stroke. Some shots yes but there are times when you might consider only half the back stroke to control the cb in a close area.
I along with Jim S. had the pleasure of playing with Scott Lee recently and discussed the very shot. He put in these terms. The back stroke only control of the amount you follow thru. I thought about it and didn't realize I've done this also. It's not a poke but a less follow thru. He demonstrated this by pulling the cue only half way back and shot. The follow thru was there but the cb was limited to how far it went. I've always looked at it this way. The longer the cue extends thru the bridge the further the follow thru. Not thinking of it as the starting the grip at half way. I would adjust my grip further up the wrap rather than keeping my back hand in the same place every shot. Food for thought I guess. I tend to go with what you said about Cami maybe not hitting the shot firm rather than bouncing the cue off the cb creating this poke stroke.
Regards,
C.C.

Rod
02-22-2002, 10:56 AM
Chris, if the intention was to draw the cue all the way
back and a player stopped short of that, then it
could cause a poke, because of the timing needed to create
cue speed in a shorter distance. Yes if the back stroke
is short, then so will be the follow thru as Scott said.
I prefer the method of not only moving my back hand up on
the wrap, but also use a short bridge length to compliment
a shot that needs less follow thru, but may, or may not
need more force. The c/b is fairly close to the o/b and
you don't want to foul the shot. I would never use a
longer bridge combined with holding the handle in a normal
position to hit a shot with or without force when the
follow thru needed to be short.
I have a saying that I've used for many years, Long to long
and short to short. If the bridge is short, then the
handle is held short also, they compliment each other.
The same applies for long and every length in between
these distances. I know people do themselves an injustice
by limiting where they hold the cue, and do not get
the full potential c/b action and control.
Sorry to be wordy, but now I have the flu and my brain hurts. I think I need a better stroke on this keyboard!

Rod

cheesemouse
02-22-2002, 11:11 AM
Chris and Rod,
I've seen Allen Hopkins play in person and on video, he hardly take a backstroke at all. Is he the exception to the rule?

Rod
02-22-2002, 11:37 AM
He is an exception to some rule? Really I have a problem
with watching him play, only because of his stroke.
I'd never want that to wear off on me. I'm not taking
anything away from his talent, he obviously has been
one of the best for years. One thing about his stroke,
you'll notice his bridge is short and so is where he
holds the handle. They go together.

Rod

heater451
02-22-2002, 04:19 PM
Following through the cueball on the stroke also keeps the cue more in-line of the stroke. If you aim to the cb and start pulling the stroke, the cue will go out of line (unless, of course, you're God or a machine) and the tip will not strike where intended. Some golfers use this idea for putting: An imaginary line is drawn through the golf ball to the cup, the putter is then swung in line from the backswing, through the ball, towards the cup. The put swing/stroke does not terminate at the ball.

The second benefit is power. This is mostly for the break stroke. Again, if you 'pull' the stroke before contact, you lose power. The power-follow-through is also used when driving a golfball, swinging a bat, or punching/kicking. (I've also read where fighters aim to "hit the back of the head" of their opponent.--Note the exception would be a punching style that consists of a more 'whipping' motion, with a snap at the end, but now I digress. . . .)

Chris Cass
02-22-2002, 08:16 PM
Hi Rod,
Geez, I hope you feel better very soon. I still have the same 90% at the elbow but My intent is to lighten the cue. I still follow thru and also I shoot the way you describe too. I guess it all depends on the shot and my ability. I always have enjoyed what you have to say and remember what you say too. Thanks,
C.C.
Get well soon......

02-22-2002, 08:39 PM
Rod...Really sorry to hear you have the flu, you may remember me talking about it the week before Presidents Day. I was so bummed out, even after the fever was gone, I felt unwell and unhappy. It'll take some time to get the chest clear and the energy back, believe me! I blame it all on SpiderMan, he had it before me. It probably got you through one of his posts ;-)) sid

02-22-2002, 09:28 PM
The instant the tip hits the cue ball, the cue ball is gone. No amount of follow through will catch up to it. The cue ball is never aware of whether it is receiving a poke, or a swing, or a slow or fast stroke, and moreover, it does not give a hoot.It is not aware of anything. It is not a sentient being.

A stroke is nothing but the rate of speed and or type of spin desired on the cue ball, and applied. Nothing else.

02-22-2002, 09:36 PM
I am proneto disagree simply because it's way to easy so hit a ball decelerating at impact and then actually push the CB on follow through with
acceleration, even double hit intermittently as cue travel proceeds. It ain't impossible, depending on how you "celerate." sid

Rod
02-22-2002, 10:56 PM
Chris &amp; Sid thanks for the get well wishes. I got it
from my girlfriend. You know women, they like to share!
Um, well, most of the time they do, know what I mean? /ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif
I know what you mean Chris, sometimes I'm forward of 90%
but not all that often, it just depends on what the shot
requires, and as you said ability to pull it off.

Rod

Rod
02-22-2002, 11:41 PM
Granted Hal, but are you going to suggest that a person
who wants to improve their game poke at everything?
What everyone would like to do, whether they know it or not is have a consistant delivery into the cue ball. Were not
reinventing the wheel here. A poke causes head and body movement, and in turn to lose focus on the object ball.
I'm not telling you anything new here, and I'm sure you would agree that even if they used your aming systems, a
jab or stab at the c/b will not produce any kind of consistency. It takes all kinds of strokes to play this
game and the players that realize this advance.
A follow thru is the effect of the cue and arm weight
going thru the c/b in a free swinging motion. If its not
a free swing as in a stun shot or a punch type of stroke,
then the cue has little or less follow thru. And we do
need those type of control strokes. Most of the game is played with a free swing and we need a way to guage speed
not to mention where we hit whitey, and to this date I
can not think of a better way than length of stroke and
the follow thru, if I want to be consistant.
If I just want to hit balls then stopping at the c/b is ok.

Rod

02-22-2002, 11:42 PM
First, I want to thank everyone for replying to my post.
As to hitting hard:
I have always had a tendency to hit the ball too soft, barely getting the ball into the pocket. At home this wasn't much of a problem, but when I play league on bar tables I frequently feel short of my mark. Then I would compensate by hitting harder. This is not good!

There are some things I'm going to work on:

I'm going to look closer at my back stroke now that you pointed it out.
I'm going to work on my speed control.

I also believe some of my poking comes from not being sure of my skills. (Can I make this shot? - Can I get good shape?) No more. For now on when I lay the cue in my bridge hand I'm going to know I'm going to make the shot and get good shape.


Thanks again

02-22-2002, 11:45 PM
Rod,

Thanks for the advice. It's dead on.

Cami

02-23-2002, 07:39 PM
Apology accepted. With a name like Cami, I could have changed it (not acceptable to an Italian family or myself) or deal with it by expecting some confussion occasionally and not taking it personally. Not counting the hockey player who is female, there have been others with the name. Camillo Pascual was a baseball player with the twins, though he was Cuban and not Italian. And I hear that in Argentina Camillo or Cami is a very popular name, like John or Joe here in the USA.

Rod
02-24-2002, 06:41 PM
Cami, your welcome, glad I could help. But I still haven't
figured out how that post got so broken up. I must be
gripping my keyboard too tight!

02-24-2002, 08:08 PM
Whether I use a jab, a follow-through, or whatever, the ball goes in the pocket.

02-24-2002, 08:22 PM
If what you are saying is true, why does a shooter get a lot more draw by following thru than by simply poking the CB hard and low? I don't know the answer having never studied physics, but I know what works and what doesn't and I don't agree with your statement.

Wally Phillips

02-25-2002, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: SidVicious:</font><hr> I am proneto disagree simply because it's way to easy so hit a ball decelerating at impact and then actually push the CB on follow through with
acceleration, even double hit intermittently as cue travel proceeds. It ain't impossible, depending on how you "celerate." sid <hr></blockquote>

Sid, what the hell are you talking about? :-)

02-25-2002, 08:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Wally:</font><hr> If what you are saying is true, why does a shooter get a lot more draw by following thru than by simply poking the CB hard and low? I don't know the answer having never studied physics, but I know what works and what doesn't and I don't agree with your statement.

Wally Phillips
<hr></blockquote>

A poke stroke has no formal definition. To me it is a shot with a short follow through. Some people, but not all, have a short follow through because they are already decelerating the cue at contact. This is bad technique because in order to get the correct shot speed it is necessary to time the deceleration correctly. Others can begin to decelerate the cue after cue ball contact and yet have a short follow through. Mr. Houle is either in this second camp or else he is good at timing the deceleration. There are many proficient pokers out there (slowing well-timing pokers, that is), all with poor technique.

You could also argue follow through is better than a slowing well-timed poke in the sense of wasted energy, as in your example.

02-25-2002, 02:23 PM
I thought I made it clear that the idea of follow-through was to continue the acceleration through the cueball to make sure the cue does not slow down at the hit.

I made the comment in my previous post that the cueball does not know what the cuetip is doing once it has been hit. I said that to point out that the value of follow-through occured at the moment of impact not after impact. Because follow-through is thought of as something that happens after the cueball has been struck the real value of it is sometimes overlooked. It is still the best way to avoid a poke and/or hand or body movment that can cause a mis-cue. By mis-cue I mean hitting the cueball someplace other than where intended.

Best, Ron.

02-25-2002, 04:39 PM
&gt;The instant the tip hits the cue ball, the cue ball is &gt;gone. No amount of follow through will catch up to it.

You are not taking into account "dwell" time. As in golf, when the club (or cue) hits the ball, the ball and clubface (or tip) stay in contact for a moment, this is what they call dwell time. If one has a nice, smooth, and straight follow-through, then the whole time the tip is in contact with the CB, it will push it on the correct path. For best results, hit THROUGH the CB, not AT the CB. Just like in putting. A (very) High speed video camera (like the one they use over at Predator in their research, 10,000 fps) will show that there is indeed a dwell time, a very short one, but one nevertheless...

The pool industry can learn a lot from the golf industry, since folks have spent multi-millions$$$$ on R &amp; D for the golf world.

Tim - follows-through to the object ball mentally always.

02-26-2002, 08:37 PM
Carni. I haven't read all the reply messages to your question, so disreguard if what I post has already been said. If I had a "stab" stroke or not following through on my shots, I would try to overexaggerate my follow through. Without hitting any balls pretend to hit balls and watch your wrist to see if it is breaking or if you are keeping it stiff. A lot of your stroke comes from the wrist action you use. A fairly lose grip. Don't choke the cue like it is a snake. For instance; Have you ever seen a player do a 3/4 table or full table draw shot without his whole body doing the jig? This comes from staying down on the shot and a lot of wrist action. You don't necessarily have to smash the cue ball but good pace and a nice wrist snap. Make sure you get it into your head before every shot to pay attention to the stroke you use. Not so much as to take away from the ultimate goal of making the shot and playing position. Hope this helps. Remember this only my opinion and most of all you have to be comfortable in your game. Practice, practice, practice. It will become second nature in no time.

02-26-2002, 09:30 PM
Since I'm the engineer here I'll try to explain. Physics says that the amount of time a force is applied to a body, the greater the power transferred. If you are in contact longer with the bottom of the ball spinning it backwards, then the faster its going to spin. This holds true for any spin or power applied to the cue.

This principle is also holds true for direction. If you follow through on shots, then you are appling your force direction longer on the ball, causing it to have a greater chance of keeping in that direction.

That is just a quick explanation and I hope I made it clear enough. There are plenty of pool physics on don't know so I'm sure there are some fallacies in it but from studying and playing, thats what I've derived.

02-26-2002, 11:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Wally:</font><hr> If what you are saying is true, why does a shooter get a lot more draw by following thru than by simply poking the CB hard and low? ....
Wally Phillips
<hr></blockquote>

In fact there are techniques to draw the ball well with almost no follow through. If you ever get a chance to see Mike Massey do an exhibition, watch his close draw shots. They can't be made with normal follow through.

The real advantage in a good follow through is that it helps you hit where you intend, while a pokey stroke may be more crooked. Follow through is better for consistency.

Usually a pokey stroke won't get as much spin on the ball simply because the cue stick is not going as fast when it hits the ball -- the decelleration starts too early.

Bob Jewett

TonyM
02-27-2002, 03:10 PM
RMontgomery wrote:

"the idea of follow-through was to continue the acceleration through the cueball to make sure the cue does not slow down at the hit."

Not to belabor the point, but you should be aware that you cannot actually accelrate through the cueball at all! In fact, no matter what gyrations you might do with your hand or wrist, the cue will always (every time without fail) slow down at impact. It has to, it must, the physics say it will, and high speed video tape (ask Bob Jewett about the "Jacksonville experiment") shows that it does.

In fact, the cue slows down to about half it's original speed at impact, and then quickly speeds back up to something near (but still less than) it's original velocity.

So the advice "try to accelerate through the cueball" might be useful for developing a sound stroke, but it should be made clear that the reality is that you cannot actually do so.

Tony

TonyM
02-27-2002, 03:17 PM
This entire discussion regrding follow through and contact time has been discussed in great detail on RSB for years. Your statements regarding follow through and contact time are likely false!

There are several assumptions that might not hold true. First is that greater contact time will allways result in more spin (there are hand waving arguments that show the opposite to be true!). Second (and the real biggie) is that you can influence the contact time at all!

The fact is that the contact time is fixed by the conditions set right before the impact, namely the speed, and the eccentricity of the hit. Whether you follow through after that will not affect the contact time at all!

High speed video tape (see RSB for the Jacksonville experiment) have laid to rest many myths like this and others. I suggest that you check the RSB archives, and for those really ineterested order a copy of the video tape from Bob Jewett.

Tony

heater451
02-27-2002, 04:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>The fact is that the contact time is fixed by the conditions set right before the impact, namely the speed, and the eccentricity of the hit. Whether you follow through after that will not affect the contact time at all! <hr></blockquote>
I believe that you are correct, in an empirical Physics sort of way, since controlling the contact time is not humanly possible. If you consider that the amount of time necessary to impart spin is so miniscule that "follow-through" is only needed for a very small fraction of a second, then what we refer to as "follow-through" is actually "OVER-follow-though". It is this "over-follow" that is unnecessary, in order to achieve more drawspin.

I also think that "dwell" time, when the cuetip is in contact with the ball, is functionally affected by the friction between the ball and the table cloth. "Grippier" cloth is likely to necessitate a smoother 'follow-through', in order to overcome the greater friction, for the dwell will be longer in this case, and require a longer follow-through (even assuming that we are still talking about milliseconds here).

From the "Barking up the Wrong Tree Department", I think the issue is less how follow-through affects the cueball, and more of how it affects that player.

More to an actual point, a PERFECT poke would be just as effective as a smooth follow-through stroke, assuming that it maintained speed/acceleration up to and 'through' the necessary time, but it is much more difficult to achieve in execution.

TomBrooklyn
02-27-2002, 05:06 PM
In the most common form of stroke, should the cue stick be accelerating just prior to impact with the cue ball, or be at a steady velocity? Acceleration, by definition, is a change in velocity. Moving the cue from rest up to some speed requires acceleration; but I would think that on many strokes the desired velocity would be achieved prior to hitting the cueball and a steady velocity might be maintained for the last inch or two of the stroke.

02-27-2002, 06:43 PM
The total time that the cue tip stays on the cue ball is measured in milliseconds. Following through is not going to keep the tip any millisecond longer on the cue ball. The cue ball has already done left the scene, man!

02-27-2002, 07:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> I also think that "dwell" time, when the cuetip is in contact with the ball, is functionally affected by the friction between the ball and the table cloth. "Grippier" cloth is likely to necessitate a smoother 'follow-through', in order to overcome the greater friction, for the dwell will be longer in this case, and require a longer follow-through (even assuming that we are still talking about milliseconds here).<hr></blockquote>

I think this is false. The force from the tip is so much greater than any force from the friction of the cloth that the cloth is not seen. If the cloth did have significant effect, you would see follow on center ball shots, as the cloth pulled the bottom of the cue ball backwards. This is not seen. The total force on the bottom of the ball from the cloth is about an ounce, and the force from the tip goes up to about 100 pounds, depending on the force of the shot.

Bob Jewett

heater451
02-27-2002, 08:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Bob Jewett:</font><hr>
If the cloth did have significant effect, you would see follow on center ball shots, as the cloth pulled the bottom of the cue ball backwards. This is not seen.
Bob Jewett <hr></blockquote>

Supposedly, most 'level' shots, such a centerball, are actually jacked up a little, and I believe that the minimal amount of backspin imparted allows a stop/stun on centerball shots--if that's what you meant was happening, as opposed to follow. That is, on soft to medium speed shots. On hard/fast centerball stop/stun shots, the force of the hit overcomes the friction, and sends the ball skidding to the object ball, without spin, which allows it to hold its position after contact.

Regardless, your comment made me re-evaluate what I said, and technically, the stroke wouldn't have to overcome the initial friction of the sitting cueball and the cloth, as much as it would the friction during the skidding phase of the cueball movement (skid WITH the backspin).

I would be interested in the hard physics of it, but I doubt that I could comprehend the numbers and equations that would explain it!

Another question: If, striking the cueball low and 'level' actually lifts the cueball from the table, would this account for the lack of effect from the cloth, yet still allow a useable amount of dwell time on the ball? (The trajectory of the cueball being such a low arc as to be imperceptable to the naked eye.)

Was there any evidence of the cueball leaving the table in such a manner during the Jacksonville experiment?

TonyM
02-28-2002, 07:49 AM
Tom asks:

"In the most common form of stroke, should the cue stick be accelerating just prior to impact with the cue ball, or be at a steady velocity?"

This is an interesting question. Since the cueball does not care whether the stick is accelerating, decelerating or at constant speed at the moment of impact (only the actual speed at impact is important, not how it got there) it might at first seem that it doesn't matter.

But for reasons of consistency (with regards to speed control especially), it makes sense to hit the cueball when the cue is at a constant velocity, or "coasting". This is because this is the point in the stroke where you have the largest margin for error for speed control. If you hit the cueball a little before or after that point (on a velocity versus stroke distance graph, it is not actually a point, but a "flat" curve)you will still be very close to the same velocity.

However, if the cue is either accelerating or decelerating immediately before impact, a slight error in timing might significantly affect the velocity at impact. This would lead to an inconsistent technique.

One way to screw-up your timing is to hit the cueball when your arm is either well forward of vertical at address, or well behind. Both situations might put the impact in the acceleration (either positive or negative) zone and therefore lead to inconsistent speed control.

Tony

TonyM
02-28-2002, 07:54 AM
"I also think that "dwell" time, when the cuetip is in contact with the ball, is functionally affected by the friction between the ball and the table cloth."

No I don't believe that it is, at least not to any significant degree.

Dwell time has been more correctly called "contact time" and is in the order of 1.2 milliseconds or there abouts.

Soft tips produce slightly longer contact times, and hard tips slightly shorter.

Tony

TomBrooklyn
02-28-2002, 08:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TonyM:</font><hr> ..."contact time" is in the order of 1.2 milliseconds or there abouts. Soft tips produce slightly longer contact times, and hard tips slightly shorter. Tony<hr></blockquote>Tony, I believe the Jacksonville Experiment found the contact time to range from .8 ms to 1.2 ms, or put another way, 1 millisecond +/- 20 percent.

TonyM
02-28-2002, 09:03 AM
Tom wrote"

"Tony, I believe the Jacksonville Experiment found the contact time to range from .8 ms to 1.2 ms, or put another way, 1 millisecond +/- 20 percent."

Yes that is correct.

Tony

02-28-2002, 01:09 PM
Yes, I was taking what you call dwell time into account. When I said "a good stroke will cause the cue to accelerate throughout the stroke without any percived slowing down at contact". When teaching someone the basics of stroking what occurs in terms of milliseconds is of little value. I have tought a number of new players how to get a feel of a good stroke using the ideas I presented. For example, anyone that thinks follow-through is not important will not develop a consistant stroke.

02-28-2002, 01:26 PM
You are going off the wrong end of the ideas I presented regarding follow-through. What I am trying to teach by stressing follow-through are ideas that are can contribute to maintaining a straight stroke, avoiding mis-cues, being consistant when applying spin and developing more power. Not "look what I know stories" about milliseconds or imperceptible slowing of the cue at follow-through.

Rod
02-28-2002, 01:38 PM
Tim Wrote,
You are not taking into account "dwell" time. As in golf, when the club (or cue) hits the ball, the ball and clubface (or tip) stay in contact for a moment, this is what they call dwell time

Tim, do we really need to know this? The dwell time,( the amount of time it takes to compress a cue tip) once its
compressed its gone. In the case of cue tips, its
personal preference. Dwell time on a soft tip is longer and
some people like that feel. But they can't order a tip
by asking for a 1ms dwell time. Anyway "sometimes" I feel,
although interesting, that more information can be
confusing to the average player JMO.

But along those same lines, I watched videos of a golf
ball being compressed at 10,000 fps. They said the film
was going through the camera at 80 mph! The camera roars
at that speed. I found that more interesting than the
actual amount the ball was compressed. Of course this
was to show the twisting of the club etc on less than
perfect hits. But to add another factor, the light
needed to film at high speed was enough to melt the
cover on a ball. Of course it had to be done very fast
or the camera would run out of film or melt the ball.
But since some of use find this stuff interesting, I
wonder how much a "hot" golf ball effected the tests.
Well once again probably more than anyone needs to know.

02-28-2002, 01:42 PM
I have found it helpful for a student to try to maintain the acceleration at least 4" past where the cueball started. Its all a measure of velocity of course, but a higher degree of focus seems to result. "Letting up" on the stroke can cause the cue to wander off the straight line.

Fred Agnir
02-28-2002, 01:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tim in Atl:</font><hr> The instant the tip hits the cue ball, the cue ball is &gt;gone. No amount of follow through will catch up to it.

You are not taking into account "dwell" time. As in golf, when the club (or cue) hits the ball, the ball and clubface (or tip) stay in contact for a moment, this is what they call dwell time. <hr></blockquote>

I think the "dwell time" for cuetip/cueball contact for centerball is 0.001 sec, according to the Jacksonville Experiments. After that, although with the naked eye it seems that the tip and cueball are in contact throughtout the forward stroke, they really aren't. They separate, and no amount of follow through will change things. I don't think it's possible to re-accelerate the cue after it's initial deceleration (upon cueball contact) such that it "catches up" with the departed cue ball. That's not to say that following through isn't important, because it is. Just not for reasons of continuing contact.

Fred

Fred Agnir
02-28-2002, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: MrSecant:</font><hr> Since I'm the engineer here I'll try to explain. <hr></blockquote>

I hope you meant "an" instead of "the."

Fred &lt;~~~ just "an", not "the."

Rod
02-28-2002, 02:43 PM
Tony Wrote,
However, if the cue is either accelerating or decelerating immediately before impact, a slight error in timing might significantly affect the velocity at impact. This would lead to an inconsistent technique.

It might "be" an inconsistent technique, but I think its
what the shooter has in mind for the shot.
Lets just say this shooter is pro caliber.


One way to screw-up your timing is to hit the cueball when your arm is either well forward of vertical at address, or well behind. Both situations might put the impact in the acceleration (either positive or negative) zone and therefore lead to inconsistent speed control.

That is certainly possible, but some players address the
ball in either direction to a slight degree. I think most
of this is individual and can be done sucessful either
way. And I realize you probably take this into account.
The slip-stroke is an example that goes against this
theory completely. Some pros and others use this stroke.
The arm may start out vertical, but once the hand is
slid back on the wrap, impact comes well before the
original position. Most of the time this is acceleration,
but not always. The coasting factor can be used also.
I use this stroke and it promotes follow through, whether
acceleration or coasting is desired by the player.
Decelerating is a rare bird with this stroke, and I
think that's where most problems occur. I'm talking about
how most of the game is played. BTW I'm not trying to sell
anyone on this style of play, just adding my comments.

02-28-2002, 03:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr>Another question: If, striking the cueball low and 'level' actually lifts the cueball from the table, would this account for the lack of effect from the cloth, yet still allow a useable amount of dwell time on the ball? (The trajectory of the cueball being such a low arc as to be imperceptable to the naked eye.)

Was there any evidence of the cueball leaving the table in such a manner during the Jacksonville experiment? <hr></blockquote>

I think that all normal draw shots shoot the ball into the cloth. The ball will rise from the cloth after that by bouncing off the table. I think this concept of "dwell time" is not useful. You have no control over the contact time, and it is certainly not clear whether it is better to make it longer or shorter than the normal time on a normal shot with a normal tip. Nor is it clear that it would be useful to change the tip/ball contact time in any way.

There was no direct study on the Jacksonville tape of the cue ball leaving the cloth. There were some sequences with the cue ball bouncing on power shots.

Bob Jewett

heater451
02-28-2002, 06:30 PM
Were there any conclusive evidence as to exactly what did affect drawspin (the most)?

02-28-2002, 07:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: heater451:</font><hr> Were there any conclusive evidence as to exactly what did affect drawspin (the most)? <hr></blockquote>
There was nothing I've seen that contradicts the standard theory:

The spin/speed ratio is set by the offset of the tip.
The ball speed for a given offset is a related fraction of the stick speed.
The limit on spin/speed is set by the point of miscuing.

Given this, draw -- or any spin -- is pretty simple. Learn to chalk well, and hit the cue ball accurately off-center. Spin/speed means the ratio of spin to the speed of the cue ball. A sliding ball has zero spin/speed, while a smoothly rolling ball (without sidespin) has spin/speed of 1.0.

What sorts of effects do you feel should be checked for in a possible future investigation?

Bob Jewett

heater451
02-28-2002, 08:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Bob Jewett:</font><hr> There was nothing I've seen that contradicts the standard theory:

The spin/speed ratio is set by the offset of the tip.
The ball speed for a given offset is a related fraction of the stick speed.
The limit on spin/speed is set by the point of miscuing.

What sorts of effects do you feel should be checked for in a possible future investigation?<hr></blockquote>

Hmmmm. . .that I would have to think about, especially since I have never seen the experiment, to know what you've already found. Besides, I am not an engineer, physicist, or even someone who has taken a calculus class, but if I can think of any more variables, I will let you know for the sake of possibilities.

Now, regarding what you said, when you say "tip offset", are you referring to the amount of aim from dead center?

. . .Actually, now I'm wondering about differences between striking, say two tips below center-level cue, versus the same spot but jacked up (not to the point of miscue) and any equivalents. That, and what about differences in tip diameter and/or curvature of tip?

. . .How about testing on seriously different surfaces, just to test extremes, ranging from say, a laminate countertop or vinyl (like on an outdoor table), to a thin sheet of rubber (I know it seems preposterous to mention, but again, I'm interested in 'extending the curve' of the test, so to speak).

Now, I am assuming that tests were made with varying hardnesses of tips, since it has been mentioned that softer tips corellate with more spin. Were all of these tests made with an apparatus, to eliminate stroke variances?

I may have to buy that tape from you, after all. . . .

(Sorry, if this post appears scatter-brained, but it's been a long day, staring at the monitor.)

02-28-2002, 08:46 PM
&gt; Now, regarding what you said, when you say "tip offset",
&gt; are you referring to the amount of aim from dead center?

Yes. It can also be called eccentricity. The actual distance from center has to be measured to where the tip actually contacts the cue ball, which is neither the center nor the edge of the tip for spin shots.

&gt; . . .How about testing on seriously different surfaces, just to
&gt; test extremes, ranging from say, a laminate countertop or vinyl ...

As mentioned elsewhere, the surface the ball sits on is expected to have essentially no effect on the tip/ball interaction as long as the cue is more or less level.

&gt; varying hardnesses of tips, since it has been mentioned that softer
&gt; tips corellate with more spin. Were all of these tests made with an
&gt; apparatus, to eliminate stroke variances?

There was no indication of more spin with a softer tip. Contact time was observed to be longer with a softer tip, but as was mentioned before, more contact time does not increase spin, and in extreme cases will actually decrease spin.

Bob Jewett

TonyM
03-01-2002, 01:47 AM
I agree with what you are basically saying. My main point is that it is not a requirement to hit the cueball when the cue is coasting, but it is likely a more forgiving (and hence more consistent) way to do so.

This by no means implies that everyone does so, or should always do so under all circumstances!

Tony

03-01-2002, 11:35 AM
Quote: Fred Agnir:
"...I hope you meant "an" instead of "the."
Fred &lt;~~~ just "an", not "the."... "


I M an 'AN' as well!! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

JohnnyP
04-04-2002, 04:27 AM
Rod:

I stumbled onto the slip stroke one night back in '69. I was wore out after playing on bar tables most of the night, and went back to the "Y" about midnight just to bang balls around on a real table.

I don't know how it happened, but I started letting the stick slide in my hands. Maybe I was too tired to hold onto it.

Even though I could barely drag myself around the table, I was getting unbelievable draw on long straight-ins (and I was making all of them). All for the benefit of a bored looking attendant.

I have never been able to duplicate that stroke again.

I gave up pool for many years, and am just now getting back into it.

I started snooping around on the net, and came across some tips by Jim Meador. He was talking about deflection and squirt. All those years ago, I thought there was something wrong with my stroke, that I had to compensate the aim point so much when I used English. I had read a book on pool by Mosconni when I was a teenager, and didn't remember him saying anything about it. Just something about a "spring-like" wrist action. Oh. And a straight pool break shot where "cueball flights into rack". Never could do that one.

So I snooped around some more on the net and found some tips by another guy that says mostly no English punch the ball on 90% of shots 2-7-2 or something in his video I bought for sixty bucks not my style. E-mail me if you want his name.

I guess I like trying shots more than I like winning.

04-04-2002, 06:47 PM
Fred, I agree with you 100%. If you have ever watched what good 3-rail billiard players can do when the CB and the OB are less than 2" apart, it's amazing. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I think we agree, the trick is timing. If your cue is constsntly accelerating until it makes contact with the CB, how fast it decelerates doesn't matter. If however, the cue starts deccelerating before contact with the QB, you will not the the effect you are looking for, unless you are trying to slow-roll the CB. Follow-through just gives you a better chance of making contact will the cue is still accelerating. As usual, I enjoy most of your post, because they are informative. Jim R.

Scott Lee
04-04-2002, 07:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Bob Jewett:</font><hr>


The real advantage in a good follow through is that it helps you hit where you intend, while a pokey stroke may be more crooked. Follow through is better for consistency.

Usually a pokey stroke won't get as much spin on the ball simply because the cue stick is not going as fast when it hits the ball -- the decelleration starts too early.

Bob Jewett <hr></blockquote>

Bob...You described what I have been teaching for years, but in greater detail, and more eloquently! Thanks.

Scott Lee