PDA

View Full Version : Timing?



Sid_Vicious
12-09-2006, 02:52 PM
I'd like to hear reviews for stroke timing. I have watched many ball sports, golf for one, and the flubs seem to be in the timing of contact with the ball(club, or in pool, cue.) What is the advice for an effortless, effective pool stroke in perfect time???sid

cushioncrawler
12-10-2006, 03:25 PM
No one else iz saying anything here, so it iz up to me.

Its like this -- time, and timing, will never be the same again. Nyet, no more, its all over.

Recently, Peter Lynds, from New Zealand, has put forward hiz theory that time duz not exist, at least not in the way that we all thunk. He iznt saying much more about it at prezent koz he iz writing a book about it. But u can google some of hiz stuff & see what he means. In essence, time iz a by-product of motion -- in essence, there iz no such thing az a frozen moment in time -- ie even the theoretical notion of some sort of universal repeatable rewindable identical snapshot sort of frozen moment in time iz a nonsense. This sinks allmost everyone -- Hawking, Einstein etc etc. The stupid notions of rewinding time, or of sidewayz-time, or of the existance of another dimension in time -- theze are all bullkrap.

Then there iz your own Joseph Rybczyk, who haz put forward hiz Millenium Theory of Time. This too showz Einsteins stuff to be bullkrap. Joe explains that time is affected by motion, or more specifically by acceleration, or force (i think). So, the Special Theory of Relativity iz now dead, in fact it died a long long time ago, but science wouldnt acknowledge its passing. Anyhow, there are now piles of Nobel Prizes out there that are now worthless rusting junk -- and mountains of stupid (theoretical) particles that dont really exist.


Anyhow, they are both wrong, at least partly, koz neither Lynds nor Rybczyk theorys account for the known "aether effect" on the speed of light -- but i havnt got time to explain here now.

So, how duz this all affect the timing of a billiards or pool shot????
I have a feeling that some pool players might improov if they treat the whole thing like a golf shot -- i mean, stand back a bit (but allready aligned in some sort of way), moov in, etc etc. Allmost every pro golfer goes throo their same routine for every shot -- if something interferes, they will allmost all go back to their start -- for some their start meant giving the club back to their caddy to give again.

And, golfers like to stick to their standard pace -- ie they walk, talk, etc at the same pace between shots. If, under pressure, they find themselves rushing, walking faster etc, they tell their caddys to get them to slow down.

And, on the praktis range, before hitting off, the pros are not praktising hitting the golf ball (like we would be), they are checking their timing -- mainly the timing of the actual swing. Books often mention the usefullness of counting, ie one-two-three-four, during the swings.

Ben Hogan mentioned that he uzed hiz preliminary waggle to help judge the timing and strength of the shot in front of him. Pool playerz could do the same -- a quicker (and longer) feathering, might be uzed for a more forcefull shot -- all part of the "timing" thing here.

One of my mad mates had a theory that the superior performance of some players was wholly due to their superior timing of the feathering and stroke. He made an accelerometer that fitted on a cue, and he recorded the timing of all manner of players on computer -- and could produce lots of graphs showing the rezults. I am not sure where this all ended -- i might bump into him again one day.

So, in short, it looks like pro pool players shood get a caddy. madMac.

pooltchr
12-10-2006, 03:32 PM
Sid.
I think rather than thinking in terms of timing, think in terms of rhythm and tempo. If you approach every shot the same way, go through the same routine every time, you will develop a natural tempo that is right for you. When your rhythm and tempo are right, your timing is going to be right.
Steve

dr_dave
12-10-2006, 03:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I'd like to hear reviews for stroke timing. I have watched many ball sports, golf for one, and the flubs seem to be in the timing of contact with the ball(club, or in pool, cue.) What is the advice for an effortless, effective pool stroke in perfect time???sid<hr /></blockquote>
FYI, my May '06 instructional article (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/2006/may06.pdf) gives fairly detailed recommendations for a good stroke. Timing is suggested indirectly in the list of "best practices."

Regards,
Dave

Jal
12-10-2006, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>...Recently, Peter Lynds, from New Zealand, has put forward hiz theory that time duz not exist, at least not in the way that we all thunk. He iznt saying much more about it at prezent koz he iz writing a book about it. But u can google some of hiz stuff &amp; see what he means. In essence, time iz a by-product of motion -- in essence, there iz no such thing az a frozen moment in time -- ie even the theoretical notion of some sort of universal repeatable rewindable identical snapshot sort of frozen moment in time iz a nonsense. This sinks allmost everyone -- Hawking, Einstein etc etc. The stupid notions of rewinding time, or of sidewayz-time, or of the existance of another dimension in time -- theze are all bullkrap.

Then there iz your own Joseph Rybczyk, who haz put forward hiz Millenium Theory of Time. This too showz Einsteins stuff to be bullkrap. Joe explains that time is affected by motion, or more specifically by acceleration, or force (i think). So, the Special Theory of Relativity iz now dead, in fact it died a long long time ago, but science wouldnt acknowledge its passing. Anyhow, there are now piles of Nobel Prizes out there that are now worthless rusting junk -- and mountains of stupid (theoretical) particles that dont really exist.


Anyhow, they are both wrong, at least partly, koz neither Lynds nor Rybczyk theorys account for the known "aether effect" on the speed of light -- but i havnt got time to explain here now.<hr /></blockquote>Mac, I always find your ideas interesting and insightful. I've learned a number of things from them. But I have to say here "And they chide me for being too technical?" That's quite a preliminary buildup! Without getting into it, I believe that much of what you've described is and always has been supported by Special and General Relativity (and quantum mechanics as far as the 'frozen instant' goes), or at least been interpreted as such by some serious physicists. But this is way over my head now (most of it always was), and this isn't the time or place to pursue it. I'll look up your references with interest.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>... He made an accelerometer that fitted on a cue, and he recorded the timing of all manner of players on computer -- and could produce lots of graphs showing the rezults.<hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave has a few of these types of recordings at his website. Is there any chance you have some available too?

Jim

cushioncrawler
12-10-2006, 05:18 PM
Hi Jim -- there is tons of stuff out there re aether tests and the speed of light tests and debunking einstein -- it is worth googling -- u will be entrapped for days there.

My mad mates graphs were the usual up&amp;down sinusoidal wave with vertical jumps etc -- possibly still on my old computer, which i might dig out one day -- but of course of zero value, except that it might show some natural cue vibration perhaps that might help some thinking re that bizness. madmac.

dr_dave
12-10-2006, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>... He made an accelerometer that fitted on a cue, and he recorded the timing of all manner of players on computer -- and could produce lots of graphs showing the rezults.<hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave has a few of these types of recordings at his website. Is there any chance you have some available too?<hr /></blockquote>

FYI, it can be found in TP A.9 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-9.pdf).

Dave

JohnnyP
12-10-2006, 11:20 PM
The stroke in the photo below lasts for about 250 msec, from when the cue starts accelerating, to the point of impact. For comparison, a quick google check shows an eyeblink lasts 300 to 400 msec.

The time between divisions is 100 msec, so it looks like I hit the ball about 30 msec late, as the cue was decelerating. Better fundamentals might correct this. I doubt if it can be done consciously (thinking, hit the ball earlier).

Also, the shape of the acceleration trace shows that it was more of a quick jab than a stroke.

One consolation, I made the ball, executing a centerball hit. With an off axis hit, the green trace will show large oscillations after contact (second photo).

http://www.jandssafeguard.com/Pool/StrokeDetector/StrokeTiming.jpg
http://www.jandssafeguard.com/Pool/StrokeDetector/badstroke.jpg

Cornerman
12-11-2006, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnnyP:</font><hr>
The time between divisions is 100 msec, so it looks like I hit the ball about 30 msec late, as the cue was decelerating. Better fundamentals might correct this. I doubt if it can be done consciously (thinking, hit the ball earlier). <hr /></blockquote>Let's consider this. If you address the ball with the tip near but not touching the cueball, and your forearm is perpendicular to the ground, this is what is taught as proper. However, when you actually the ball, you forearm must be forward/past perpendicular. The closeness of address to the cueball I think determines just how far past perpendicular you will be at contact. And past perpendicular is the start of deceleration.

I think duringthe Jacksonville experiments, hitting the cueball when the cuestick was just decelerating wasn't an anomaly. Given the above paragraph, I think it would be expected from most shooters. But, I'd definitely like to hear Bob's, Dave's, and Jim's take, as well as Scott's, Fran's and Randy's.

Fred

dr_dave
12-11-2006, 09:36 AM
Fred,

Bob's June '99 article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-06.pdf) shows an example stroke where the acceleration is close to 0 (i.e., the speed is close to maximum) at contact. The acceleration plots in TP A.9 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-9.pdf) seem to show positive acceleration (increasing speed) at impact. I'm not sure if the shooters had pendulum strokes or not, or if the forearms were vertical at impact or not, but I don't think it is necessarily relevant to the discussion. The speed of the cue increases as long as the acceleration is positive. This will be the case as long as forward force is applied to the cue. I think forward force can continue to be applied all of the way up to impact, regardless of the angle of the elbow. For example, I would bet that a well-executed power draw shot would show significant acceleration into impact. I would think this might be the case with any shot with significant follow-through, but I don't have data to prove it.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnnyP:</font><hr>
The time between divisions is 100 msec, so it looks like I hit the ball about 30 msec late, as the cue was decelerating. Better fundamentals might correct this. I doubt if it can be done consciously (thinking, hit the ball earlier). <hr /></blockquote>Let's consider this. If you address the ball with the tip near but not touching the cueball, and your forearm is perpendicular to the ground, this is what is taught as proper. However, when you actually the ball, you forearm must be forward/past perpendicular. The closeness of address to the cueball I think determines just how far past perpendicular you will be at contact. And past perpendicular is the start of deceleration.

I think duringthe Jacksonville experiments, hitting the cueball when the cuestick was just decelerating wasn't an anomaly. Given the above paragraph, I think it would be expected from most shooters. But, I'd definitely like to hear Bob's, Dave's, and Jim's take, as well as Scott's, Fran's and Randy's.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
12-11-2006, 09:36 AM
One of the things that interests me is the warm-up strokes. Similar to the practice swings in golf, you are actually preparing yourself to stop on each of these strokes rather than follow through as in a normal stroke.

While I would not devalue the warm-up strokes, I still question a concept that says we are to take many practice strokes at coming up short, then execute a smooth timed shot on the last one of these.

A couple of us know a very good player that actually takes no practice strokes but places his tip almost on the ball, stays there perhaps 7 seconds then launches his stroke. Looks pretty smooth to me but I am still a practice stroke type of guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It would seem, like putting practice strokes, that somehow stroking through the ball would be better. Of course, you then lose your alignment before the "real" stroke.

Jusy my vagrant thoughts....

DeeMan

JohnnyP
12-11-2006, 09:42 AM
Fred: I don't have any recordings of other people's strokes, but from the few I've seen, they were hitting the ball as the acceleration trace crossed 0g.

It could be that I just wasn't commited to the shot. Just guessing, but I'll bet there was little or no follow through.

These shots were taken about two years ago. I'm hitting them better, now, but I need to fix a flaky connection in the thing before I can take it out for more readings.

Jal
12-11-2006, 04:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>Let's consider this. If you address the ball with the tip near but not touching the cueball, and your forearm is perpendicular to the ground, this is what is taught as proper. However, when you actually the ball, you forearm must be forward/past perpendicular. The closeness of address to the cueball I think determines just how far past perpendicular you will be at contact. And past perpendicular is the start of deceleration.<hr /></blockquote>That's exactly what I would like to know Fred, although you would need to correlate the acceleration traces with the position of the shooter's arm to find out. I think it would be nice to also know the following:

-Does the position of zero force (acceleration) really occur when the arm is perpendicular, or at some other angle during its pendular swing?

-Does this vary from individual to individual, or from shot to shot for a particular individual? Or does it stay essentially fixed for normal, non-power type strokes?

-Does it require a conscious or semi-conscious decision to change it?

-If you move your grip hand forward or back, or alter your bridge length, does it change?

The old pros, at least the ones I've seen, had their grips forward of vertical at impact. A program that I have kicks out the errors in cue speed as the result of errors in various stroke parameters, and the more the grip is moved forward, the worse these speed errors get. The more it's moved back, up to a point, the smaller the errors. Yet the old guys did pretty well at 14.1, which requires a fair amount of speed control!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>...I think duringthe Jacksonville experiments, hitting the cueball when the cuestick was just decelerating wasn't an anomaly. Given the above paragraph, I think it would be expected from most shooters<hr /></blockquote>Your explanation makes sense to me. But as per Dr. Dave's comments, you do have some control over where the zero acceleration position occurs. But just how much a shooter exercises this, at different bridge lengths and/or other things varied, would be good to know.

Jim

Jal
12-11-2006, 05:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnnyP:</font><hr> The stroke in the photo below lasts for about 250 msec, from when the cue starts accelerating, to the point of impact. ...<hr /></blockquote>Thanks for posting these again. Dr. Dave also includes them in the document he linked to earlier. If anyone can make use of it, a fair approximation to your stroke can be made by representing it as the sine series:

F = a0[(a1)sin(wt) + (a2)sin(2wt) + (a3)sin(3wt) + ....]

where a0 varies and the rest of the a's are:

a1 = 1
a2 = -0.5
a3 = -0.04
a4 = 0.1
a5 = 0.02
a6 = -0.05
a7 = 0.005
a8 = 0.005
a9 - a11 = 0
a12 = -0.005

It looks like this:

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

I really appreciated your graphs in that they provided more of a realistic stroke profile than a pure sine function. The smallish coefficients (.005) can be varied somewhat without any significant change in the shape of the curve. Perhaps someone up on their Fourier analysis can do better.

Jim

Fran Crimi
12-11-2006, 08:31 PM
I think that as long as the player's arm is hanging straight down (give or take a degree or two) at address, there is potential for a well-timed shot. I think the difference in effect would be minimal as to whether the acceleration rate at impact has reached zero, or if the cue stick has minutely begun to decelerate, or even if it is still accelerating and just about to approach zero. Thank goodness, too, because I think it's impossible for a player to feel the differences in something so miniscule.

However, change the back hand position by a few more degrees off of perpendicular at address, and then there's potential for problems. For example: I've noticed a direct correlation between overcutting shots and the back hand being forward of perpindicular at address. And yes, it happens shooting shots in either direction by the same player. Very strange. I haven't figured out yet whether forward at address is the cause or only part of the problem, but it's there, and I've seen it with a lot of players.

But I think the timing of the final backstroke is key. Even with a perfect back hand placement, if you take the cue back too quickly, the tendencey is to jerk the cue forward with maximum acceleration occuring way before impact. Players who take long pauses at the end of their backstrokes may get away with it but even for them, jerky backstrokes are hard to overcome. From what I've seen, I suspect that some players may even reach maximum acceleration on the way back! Hard to believe but I wouldn't be surprised, considering some of the strokes I've seen.

Fran

Rod
12-11-2006, 10:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I think that as long as the player's arm is hanging straight down (give or take a degree or two) at address, there is potential for a well-timed shot. I think the difference in effect would be minimal as to whether the acceleration rate at impact has reached zero, or if the cue stick has minutely begun to decelerate, or even if it is still accelerating and just about to approach zero. Thank goodness, too, because I think it's impossible for a player to feel the differences in something so miniscule.

Fran <hr /></blockquote> My thinking is pretty much the same. However I think impact (on well timed strokes) is a gradual increase to very near or at 0 acceleration on most shots. The CB can be hit with a fair amount of authority and still retain a flat plane. Consistency is the name of the game. For my two bits worth I think this timing /tempo is ideal for consistency. Not on power shots of course (with acceleration) where accuracy/consistency starts falling off at a rapid pace.



However, change the back hand position by a few more degrees off of perpendicular at address, and then there's potential for problems. For example: I've noticed a direct correlation between overcutting shots and the back hand being forward of perpindicular at address. And yes, it happens shooting shots in either direction by the same player. Very strange. I haven't figured out yet whether forward at address is the cause or only part of the problem, but it's there, and I've seen it with a lot of players.

If I had one thought, and I do, if outside english is used it can cause more swerve because the tip can dip more using a pendulum stroke. Just a thought.



But I think the timing of the final backstroke is key. Even with a perfect back hand placement, if you take the cue back too quickly, the tendencey is to jerk the cue forward with maximum acceleration occuring way before impact. Players who take long pauses at the end of their backstrokes may get away with it but even for them, jerky backstrokes are hard to overcome. From what I've seen, I suspect that some players may even reach maximum acceleration on the way back! Hard to believe but I wouldn't be surprised, considering some of the strokes I've seen.

Yes that is a huge problem, I think their swatting flies!

Rod

Fran Crimi
12-12-2006, 01:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If I had one thought, and I do, if outside english is used it can cause more swerve because the tip can dip more using a pendulum stroke. Just a thought.
<hr /></blockquote>

I bet you're right about that, Rod. Also, players who tend to twist their wrists will twist towards the outside, creating additional swerve in the overcut direction. I think you nailed it.

Fran

JohnnyP
12-13-2006, 02:04 PM
As I said earlier, I probably was't commited to the shot. This is why following through is so important. It improves your chance of hitting the ball with maximum efficiency.

Oh, cripes. I just thought of this. At the time, I was still shooting with my old 57" cue with 11.4 mm shaft. The guys at DannyK's had been razzing me to get a real cue, so I went to Triangle Billiards to look at some. Woody watched me hit a few with my stick. He recommended a longer cue, saying that my arm was into the follow through at contact (past vertical).

To get vertical, I needed to grip the cue at the butt, so we ordered up a 62" Viking.

Wayne Norcross is TD at DannyK's, and he sometimes uses a slip stroke. I asked him to show me the details of it. Light grip, the backhand slides back farther than the cue travels, just from the weight of the cue overcoming the low friction grip. The forward stroke, firmer grip then releasing at contact, and again the cue travels farther forward than the stroke hand, giving a full follow through. He turned his hand over, and showed the butt of the cue now resting in the palm of the hand. Full stroke, little movement of the arm.

When I asked him to illustrate, he placed the CB farther away than comfortable, saying "if I'm here", as if to say it was too far to reach to make a full stroke.

I need to hook him up to see if there is a timing difference. He's old school, though. Frowns on gadgets.

He walked by the table where I was testing the thing, and he saw me studying the traces. He shook his head as he walked by, saying "as long as it looks good on the computer...".

He says all he needs to do is look at the cueball when someone hits a stop shot. If it's spinning, bad stroke, whether you made the ball or not.

I really look up to Wayne, and long for his approval. I got it a few weeks ago, practicing after losing my tournament match. I usually stand in one place for hours, hitting long straight in shots. I was starting to get in stroke when he started watching. He had me use a stripe as the cueball, placing it in the kitchen, and an object ball past the side pocket, shooting kitty corner. I was getting decent draw, and on the third try, the "striped cueball" came running back with zero wobble, bouncing off the head rail. I looked up to see him turning his body, throwing his arms up, and saying "I'd go on the road if I had that shot". I still dream of that moment. That's why we are addicts.

av84fun
12-14-2006, 10:56 AM
JohnnyP....Interesting data but I'm not sure it is correct.

Assuming a 10 mph stroke speed, the cue tip would travel 14.66 feet in one second or 3.67 feet in the 1/4 second time your graph depicts.
(1 mile/hour (mph) = 1.466 foot/second x 10 mph = 14.66 ft)

Even at 5 mph which is a fairly medium speed shot equals a tip travel distance of 1.83 FEET which, of course, is not realistic.

To get the chart to make sense, the stroke speed would have to be reduced to about 1.6 mph which is a very soft shot.

Did you shoot that softly...or am I messing up the numbers somehow...a DISTINCT possiblilty! (-:

But back to the posters question, the best way I know of to be sure of acceleration through the CB is to follow through so that the top of the grip hand...just below the thumb...comes to rest just under the pectoral muscle. It is just about impossible to reach that position unless the cue is accelerating throught the CB.


And that acceleration is a HUGE issue. Some argue that the CB doesn't know whether it is struck at an accelerating speed...and doesn't care and that is both true and beside the point.

The POINT is that since an object in motion tends to stay in motion, it takes physical force to slow the cue down once the acceleration force is applied...you actually have to WORK to slow the cue down over that 6 inches or so of travel distance in everything but an ultra slow stroke.

And the application of the FORCE required to decelerate the cue is virtually certain to pull the cue off line causing an aim error or the application of unintended english or both.

Regards,
Jim

JohnnyP
12-14-2006, 11:56 AM
m1v1=m2v2 ?

m1=6
m2=18

Then, Vcueball should be 3 times Vcue.

Let's say that I pulled up on the shot, as I'm guessing, producing a 12mph speed of CB, then speed of cue at the hit equals about 4mph.

But VcueNaught=0, VcueFinal=4, so the cue undergoes some acceleration, perhaps described by the graph.

Plus, we don't really know when I pulled the trigger. You can see the acceleration actually ramping up a little earlier.


Oh, heck, IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?

Jal
12-14-2006, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>...Assuming a 10 mph stroke speed, the cue tip would travel 14.66 feet in one second or 3.67 feet in the 1/4 second time your graph depicts.
(1 mile/hour (mph) = 1.466 foot/second x 10 mph = 14.66 ft)

Even at 5 mph which is a fairly medium speed shot equals a tip travel distance of 1.83 FEET which, of course, is not realistic.

To get the chart to make sense, the stroke speed would have to be reduced to about 1.6 mph which is a very soft shot...<hr /></blockquote>Jim,

The cue's speed at any particular moment on the chart is the area under the curve built up until that moment. Since it accumulates gradually, so does the cue's speed. It doesn't start out at 10 mph or whatever his final speed happened to be. If we knew the vertical scale (acceleration) units, this could be figured out, but without bothering, the time scale appears to be okay.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>...And the application of the FORCE required to decelerate the cue is virtually certain to pull the cue off line causing an aim error or the application of unintended english or both.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure that this is true. The magnitude of the force is undergoing a continuous change during a stroke, as JohnnyP's graph clearly shows. The transistion from positive to negative (deceleration) doesn't necessarily involve any abrupt or jerky movements. Those that have their hand well forward of vertical at impact are always decelerating if the zero-force point happens at about the vertical position.

There are arguments in favor of both "accelerating through" and having the cue coasting (neither accelerating or decelerating much) at impact. Against "accelerating through" is that you're wasting energy, and uncompensated variations in bridge length produce larger errors in cue speed. In favor of it is that less peak force is required for the same cue speed, and smaller cue speed errors are produced from variations in several stroke parameters, including bridge length if you compensate by adjusting stroke length.

There are some assumptions in the above paragraph, which is why seeing how the shape of the force vs time curve varies under different circumstances would be useful.

Jim

slim
12-14-2006, 05:51 PM
Allot of these explanations confuse me and I'd hate to think about all that during a shot. I try and think more simply thus being able to concentrate on the collision of the cue ball hitting the object ball.
When you approach the shot and place your bridge hand on the table your "done".
Your warm up strokes are confirming you like the shot and are pretty close to the speed of the cue ball.
Once you confirm you like your aim due to proper approach your tip will stop/pause at the cue ball
Pull back to the top of your swing, pause
The finish is hitting through whitey, acceleration and its a "throwing motion" same as a base ball pitcher.
Warm up- once you proceed too the below 3 items your eyes should be looking forward
Set
Pause

Accelerate towards the Finish

Your timing starts once your in the set mode.

Rhythm is the total package, and if you do it the same from shot to shot its much easier to spot and correct your errors. Sometimes you can't figure it out, a good sleep and going over the shot in you mind surfaces the problem.

Hope this helps.

Bob_Jewett
12-14-2006, 07:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnnyP:</font><hr> m1v1=m2v2 ?

m1=6
m2=18

Then, Vcueball should be 3 times Vcue.

Let's say that I pulled up on the shot, as I'm guessing, producing a 12mph speed of CB, then speed of cue at the hit equals about 4mph.
... <hr /></blockquote>
The equation above is not correct. The equation you want says that the sum of all the momenta of all the objects involved stays constant during the collision assuming negligible external force.

The correct equation is in Byrne's "Advanced" book, but for the case you give the answer is that the cue ball should leave the tip at 150% of the stick speed. What has been measured is about 130% of the stick speed due to losses in the tip, mostly.

DickLeonard
12-15-2006, 07:55 AM
Deeman as a Golfer I always thought that stopping before the cueball was the wrong thing. Your practice strokes should be along side of the cueball and thru the cueball.

Louie Butera ran 150 and out against Irving Crane in 22 minutes counting racking the balls. How many practice strokes did he take?

My favorite Troy story, Ralph Greenleaf played an exhibition in Troy. He ran 125 and out and put on trick shots and was gone in less than an hour. Here is the Kicker he was so drunk that he had to hold onto the table to keep from falling down.####

Deeman3
12-18-2006, 07:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman as a Golfer I always thought that stopping before the cueball was the wrong thing. Your practice strokes should be along side of the cueball and thru the cueball. <font color="blue"> I always wondered about that myself. It seems silly to stop any stroke short, just practicing to hold up you motion. </font color>

Louie Butera ran 150 and out against Irving Crane in 22 minutes counting racking the balls. How many practice strokes did he take? <font color="blue"> Wow, i knew Lou was quick. Would he have been an even better player if he slowed down, I don't know. Maybe it's just an internal pace thing.</font color>

My favorite Troy story, Ralph Greenleaf played an exhibition in Troy. He ran 125 and out and put on trick shots and was gone in less than an hour. Here is the Kicker he was so drunk that he had to hold onto the table to keep from falling down.#### <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I guess I'm one of the few players who "knows" he can't play better on alcohol. I hear Greenleaf was really better drunk. It's hard to believe. </font color>

DeeMan