PDA

View Full Version : is this wierd?



bigjake
04-20-2006, 08:22 AM
okay, i play with a 21oz cue, however i find that i have a better and much more consistent break using a light[15-17oz]cue, so is that backwards or not /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Deeman3
04-20-2006, 08:56 AM
No, this is perfectly normal for all but the most misshapen of human beings.

Deeman

bsmutz
04-20-2006, 09:13 AM
Actually, your spelling of the word "weird" was weirder than your question. A lighter cue is easier to accelerate in a shorter amount of time. Therefore it should be better to break with.

bigjake
04-20-2006, 09:30 AM
thanks guys

Billy_Bob
04-20-2006, 09:39 AM
This is my experience. I break faster with a lighter cue. I use a 17.5 oz breaking cue.

The way to explain it is this: Try moving your heavy leg as as fast as you can. Now try moving your lighter weight arm as fast as you can.

Or get a heavy truck going 65 mph from a dead stop. Then do this with a light weight itty bitty teeny tiny car.

PoolSharkAllen
04-20-2006, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> A lighter cue is easier to accelerate in a shorter amount of time. Therefore it should be better to break with. <hr /></blockquote>

I break with a 19 oz. cue and break better than most. I've learned that the key to a good break is good cue stick follow-through and striking the one ball on it's (line-of-sight) center.

dr_dave
04-20-2006, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigjake:</font><hr> okay, i play with a 21oz cue, however i find that i have a better and much more consistent break using a light[15-17oz]cue, so is that backwards or not /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>
FYI, there was a past thread covering this topic in great detail. If you want to check it out, see "stick weight and break effectiveness" under "cue stick and tip" in the thread summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Happy breaking,
Dave

dr_dave
04-21-2006, 08:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>A lighter cue is easier to accelerate in a shorter amount of time.<hr /></blockquote>
Acceleration is not the whole story. What matters in cue stick "momentum" at impact. Momentum is the product of stick speed and stick mass (weight). Both factors contribute to break "power." See my posting from a previous thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=171855&amp;Foru m=ccb&amp;Words=dr_dave&amp;Match=Username&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Li mit=25&amp;Old=allposts&amp;Main=125575&amp;Search=true#Post17 1855) for more details.

Regards,
Dave

PoolSharkAllen
04-21-2006, 08:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>A lighter cue is easier to accelerate in a shorter amount of time.<hr /></blockquote>
Acceleration is not the whole story. What matters in cue stick "momentum" at impact. Momentum is the product of stick speed and stick mass (weight). Both factors contribute to break "power."

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dr. Dave or anyone else: I've noticed that when I have an extended cue stick follow-through on my break shot, I have more rack breaking power. And in watching the pros, they also have an extended follow-through on their breaks. Does an extended follow-through somehow add more power to the break shot?

dr_dave
04-21-2006, 09:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr>I've noticed that when I have an extended cue stick follow-through on my break shot, I have more rack breaking power. And in watching the pros, they also have an extended follow-through on their breaks. Does an extended follow-through somehow add more power to the break shot?<hr /></blockquote>
I think this is a question of cause and effect. A follow-through strictly has no influence on the cue ball because the cue tip is in contact with the cue ball for only a very short amount of time (approximately 0.001 seconds). The only things that significantly affect the breaking power for a given cue stick are cue stick speed at impact and tip offset (distance away from a center ball hit). However, if a powerful stroke does not exhibit a big follow-through, it is either not very powerful, or effort is being made to limit the follow-through. If one tries to constrain the follow-through, one will probably not achieve maximum speed at impact. Many authors and instructors recommend trying to "accelerate through the ball" for power shots. This thinking often helps one create good power, and it results in significant follow-through.

Follow-through can also be important in achieving good action on draw shots (although, not always for the reasons people think). For more info, see my May'06 instructional article (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/may06.pdf). In particular, see item "b" under "other advice" and item "5" under "stroke best practices." I think these points apply equally well to both a power break and a power draw.

Regards,
Dave

Snapshot9
04-21-2006, 09:29 AM
It depends on a few things. One thing overlooked is how you are physically, big, regular, or small. Are you strong for your size or not? Technique when breaking. These all play into what weight of breaking cue feels best for you.

All these things help determine what weight of cue you can really control when breaking. If I go to light with a cue
for breaking, it always makes me feel like I am using a
straw to break the balls, all noise and no splatter.

The old speed argument of using a lighter break cue is somewhat negelible because the speed differential between
using a cue 2 ozs heavier or lighter is minute in the overall
scheme of things.

Sid_Vicious
04-21-2006, 09:59 AM
"A follow-through strictly has no influence on the cue ball because the cue tip is in contact with the cue ball for only a very short amount of time"

I understand this but want to suggest that follow through DOES create unwanted CB misdirection. It may be that the mechanics go south with the anticipation factor, the tip throws in some backhand-swoop-swerve-screwball action within that brief period of contact. My personal experience has been that a restricted follow through distance of reasonable length rewards me much better than some peoples long follow throughs. I don't have the analytical ability to devise just what is happening, but the results(in my own game) is that lengthy follow throughs create more hell than heaven...sid

dr_dave
04-21-2006, 10:20 AM
Agreed.

The mechanics that create a good (accurate and/or powerful) hit on the cue ball also tend to create a good (long and straight) follow-through.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> "A follow-through strictly has no influence on the cue ball because the cue tip is in contact with the cue ball for only a very short amount of time"

I understand this but want to suggest that follow through DOES create unwanted CB misdirection. It may be that the mechanics go south with the anticipation factor, the tip throws in some backhand-swoop-swerve-screwball action within that brief period of contact. My personal experience has been that a restricted follow through distance of reasonable length rewards me much better than some peoples long follow throughs. I don't have the analytical ability to devise just what is happening, but the results(in my own game) is that lengthy follow throughs create more hell than heaven...sid <hr /></blockquote>

Jal
04-21-2006, 03:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr>... Does an extended follow-through somehow add more power to the break shot? <hr /></blockquote>I'm pretty sure it does but the reasons are subtle. It involves a shifting in time of the force cycle. For a graphical explanation of this see:

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/gtech/Fsins.jpg

You can ignore the math and just look at the curves. The area under each curve up to the impact line is equal to the cue's momentum (mass x speed) at impact. Accelerating at impact yields more area, but it's the shape of the entire curve that does the trick, not the fact that you're accelerating during the final millisecond. As a side benefit, you also get better resistance to various stroke errors that affect stick speed/ball speed (for non-break shots). In other words, better consistency.

The curves in the diagram represent pretty idealized strokes, but the same thing applies when there is more "harmonic" content. It would be nice though to see more accelerometer measurements so as to get more of a handle on exactly what happens when people, for instance, accelerate by moving their grip hands back versus just changing their muscle timing.

Jim

Bob_Jewett
04-21-2006, 05:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> ... For a graphical explanation of this see:

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/gtech/Fsins.jpg

... <hr /></blockquote>
I think that if you hold the impact distance rather than the impact time constant, the result will be different.

If you are still accelerating at impact, you would get more power by using a longer bridge and hitting the ball later in the cycle. For a given force profile versus time, the maximum velocity (and break power) is reached when the acceleration is zero. It might be less accurate, though, due to the longer stroke.

PoolSharkAllen
04-21-2006, 06:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
If you are still accelerating at impact, you would get more power by using a longer bridge and hitting the ball later in the cycle. For a given force profile versus time, the maximum velocity (and break power) is reached when the acceleration is zero. It might be less accurate, though, due to the longer stroke. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob, That's an interesting comment you made. I'll have to try using a slightly longer bridge and see how it impacts my rack breaking. THX.

Sid_Vicious
04-21-2006, 07:07 PM
How bout Hopkins and Grady Mathrews then? I have a very strong team mate, far better than I, who also never follows through much...sid

Btw, I'm talking about pocketing balls, not the break

Jal
04-21-2006, 10:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
I think that if you hold the impact distance rather than the impact time constant, the result will be different.<hr /></blockquote>In the diagram, the time to impact is drawn with a little bit of width to it, but not much, because it only changes moderately with varying amounts of acceleration, although more than is indicated there. The calculations indicate that the increase in speed is true for a fixed bridge length, although, as you say, increasing both your stroke length and your bridge length does produce even more.

There is a curious relationship between stroke length and bridge length: you can never determine the optimum value for both of them in regards to what will produce maximum speed.

This is easiest to demonstrate for pure sine function. If you first fix your stroke length, the optimum bridge length is half of that. Great. But if you fix your bridge length first, the optimum stroke length is not twice, but six times that. Following that logic, after you determine the second one, the first one is no longer at an optimum, and you find yourself in a vicious circle. The reason behind this is that the optimum phase angle is 113 degrees, as opposed to 180 degrees. This corresponds to that six times factor and is only true for a pure sine function, varying considerably when harmonics are added. It's been a couple of years since I've looked at this, but I think it yields about a 22% increase in speed. Although it's very unlikely you could expand your stroke that much, a more moderate and achievable expansion, ie, moving your grip hand back several inches, can get you around a 15% increase. The law of diminishing returns is at work here.

Although less "pure" mixtures follow the same trend, without actually knowing the content of real strokes, the numbers cited above are just for illustration. A fellow posted accelerometer pictures a while back, and I think I did come up with a mixture of harmonics that represented his stroke fairly well. The results of expanding it were along the lines as indicated, but the increases weren't quite as great.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> If you are still accelerating at impact, you would get more power by using a longer bridge and hitting the ball later in the cycle. For a given force profile versus time, the maximum velocity (and break power) is reached when the acceleration is zero....<hr /></blockquote>For what it's worth, I certainly agree. But as soon as you've settled on a bridge length, you can always get more power by expanding your stroke still more. There's no end to it, practical limits aside.

But once you have reached a limit for your stroke, you can increase your bridge length too much. Anything beyond half of your stroke length and you're now slowing the cue down before impact. An implicit assumption in that statement (half the stroke length) is that the decelerating distance is equal to the accelerating distance, which may not be true for real strokes.

Jim

dr_dave
04-24-2006, 08:06 AM
Good point. You don't need a long (or even straight) follow-through to be a great player. Even with power shots, a follow-through is not required because the ball has already left the cue tip. However, for most players, I think it is better to not constrain the follow-through, especially with power shots.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> How bout Hopkins and Grady Mathrews then? I have a very strong team mate, far better than I, who also never follows through much...sid

Btw, I'm talking about pocketing balls, not the break <hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
04-24-2006, 08:12 AM
I'm stuck in the middle these days...follow through inconsistent and botchy. I have to work that out, but the catch22 seems to be that certain shots require a constrained follow through and others work with the fundamentally correct stroke. This is one thing about the game I'm struggling over today...it really let's my brain get in the way far too many times under pressure...sid