PDA

View Full Version : A Slow Backstroke Improved My 9Ball Break



1Time
08-18-2008, 05:10 AM
For years I've broken 9ball racks fast and hard, but I never could get very consistent results. Lately, however, I've been breaking with a backstroke that slows down considerably right before the forward stroke, like a race car driver slowing down at a hair pin curve. And, I think I'm seeing benefits as if I had been breaking with a deliberate pause. This slow backstroke has given my breaks more accuracy, less scratches, and more predictable results, but less 9balls on the break (as with these breaks I'm not attempting to pocket the 9).

I've already used this technique with success in beating a better 9ball player. The break that I've been using most like this is similar to one used by Keith McCready back in the 80's. The cue ball is aligned about straight on, hit down on the cue ball with a slightly elevated cue, the cue ball pops up at contact with the one ball, the cue ball lands back down on the one which makes it hit the rack a second time, and the cue ball rolls back toward the center of the table. I don't have it mastered by any means, but it works better than my other breaks at obtaining the main objectives of a 9ball break. For my more agressive breaks, I have the cue ball lined up in one of 3 spots closer to either rail.

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 10:34 AM
Having the worst break in the northwest, I'll try that.
Slowing down might be like the idea in golf....complete your backswing before you start....

PRQL8R
08-18-2008, 10:57 AM
I also think the slow backstroke can lead to a more consistent controlled break when you let it loose. For me being a relatively small guy I have to work it to get more power into my break. What has proven the most effective for me is somewhat styled after Neils Feighin's (sp?) appproach. A relatively long stance... slow backswing... followed by throwing your backleg forward and behind your frontleg on delivery of the cue, thus transfering your full bodyweight behind your stroke. I try to stroke through with a relatively level cue hitting just a tip below centre on the cueball and aiming just very slightly to the left on the headball if breaking from the right side. I'm usually pretty consistent at sinking one of the wing balls, leaving whitey somewhere in the centre table area and getting a pretty good spread of the balls. ...Bob

1Time
08-18-2008, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having the worst break in the northwest, I'll try that.
Slowing down might be like the idea in golf....complete your backswing before you start.... </div></div>There is of course more to a break shot than control, but if that's a problem, then this should help.

I haven't ventured into using it with my more aggressive power breaks, but I have every reason to back off on the power a little because I scratch or lose control of the cue ball more often than I'd like.

Chopstick
08-18-2008, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having the worst break in the northwest, I'll try that.
Slowing down might be like the idea in golf....complete your backswing before you start.... </div></div>

Don't forget extension. Take the club/stick away low, slow and extend. It is length that improves your break shot/drive. Follow through with your tip past the side packets. Don't work on speed. Speed will come naturally from repetition. Accuracy, quality of contact and length are what makes a killer break shot.

The weight of the cue must be balanced down the driving line through the cue ball. If you have any side to side motion in the butt you will lose a lot of power. People who try to hit their break shots too hard come over the top the same way they do in golf with the same poor results. It's the same thing.

To his credit, it was Black Jack that showed me that trick. The extension/long follow through thing really works. Now days it is not unusual for me to break an 8 ball rack on a nine foot table and drive 14 balls past the side pockets to the head area of the table.

The flaw to watch for is the same in pool or golf. Do not swing from the shoulder. It's a lot easier to shank a cue ball thought most people don't realize they are doing it. The Filipinos actually line up their breaks outside the line. The cock the stick with the butt outside the line and the tip low left on the cue ball like back hand english. When they draw back they move the shoulder which brings them back to the line and blam! right down the center line. I saw Busta and Manolo both doing this one afternoon. The part of that trick they don't tell you about is they are lining up the center of the cue ball with the edge of the head ball in the rack. When you return the tip to the center of the cue ball you are lined up dead nuts with the center of the head ball. I know the description of this setup sounds odd but I can prove it with some graph paper and a ruler.

None of the above will work if you are not accurate in the first place. Accurate meaning, the stick balanced down the line and extended way through the cue ball. Too much speed = incorrect shoulder movement = death.

JJFSTAR
08-18-2008, 11:58 AM
I have used a slow last backswing for a number of years and when I did my accuracy took a jump also. Nearly all pro’s do a if only very slight pause or slow last backswing on their break as do some on their standard shot.

Janette Lee when she first started to become a big name used a “Hopping“CB that struck the rack twice but she has since abandoned that break. I am not a big fan of the CB leaving the table when it is not necessary. This is explained briefly by Johnny in this break tutorial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffkl-zp96N8

The best breakers I have ever seen are the power breakers that can consistently have the CB squirt back a foot or two to come to rest around the tables center. Some of these guy’s can do this with a side break. I find that to be simply amazing because I cannot hit the pack that hard from the side and control the CB much at all, heck 5% of the time it goes off the table when I use full power and am breaking from the side.

So I tune up the power and move to the center when my precision isn’t working, this happens a lot when our team is on the road. The tables that we visit are almost always very slow when compared to our Dee’s Café home.

“The Oyster” in his demonstration video uses a “Hopping” break and is apparently a very fine instructor although I don’t know first hand. I am a “minimalist” in my whole approach to the game but as you well know some very successful pool players aren’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7Phh7aliA&feature=related

Rail Rat
08-18-2008, 12:28 PM
Don't forget the "Set" also

-brad

PRQL8R
08-18-2008, 02:04 PM
Some time ago I saw a sol-mo video of Ralph souquet using just that type of bounce/break. With a slight elevation of his cue on the break stroke the cueball comes slightly off the table an impacts the headball while still in the air. the cueball then goes relatively straight up landing somewhere in the central table area. Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control. If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball... off the table she flies and it's ball-in-hand for your opponent. I played around with it for awhile but never was able to become comfortably consistent with it. Haven't really seen Souquet using it either lately. Far better I think to develop a break shot more suited to your own strengths and one where you can develop some sense of consistency. ...Bob

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 02:15 PM
thanks for that post !!!!
While I have been checking the pool side of the CCB for a few years now...there's only been a couple of dozen useful tips on playing the game...thanks again

SpiderMan
08-18-2008, 05:19 PM
I also started using an exaggerated "hang time" before the final forward motion on my break a year or so ago. There was no particular reason for making this change - I was just experimenting to see what would happen.

It seems to improve my accuracy as well as reduce the likelihood of getting the ball bouncing. I often use a second-ball break in 8-ball, so a bouncing cueball would be disastrous.

SpiderMan

Bambu
08-19-2008, 06:38 AM
After years of trying, I have abandoned the 9 ball power break as well. It looks real pretty when the cue ball jumps up off the 1, and spreads the balls well. Sometimes it even comes out perfect, but that break lacks consistency(for me anyway).

Almost worse than scratching, is the effect the wing balls have when you hit the 1 very hard. Many times I get what looks like a great break, but nothing goes in. (The wing balls just travel around table.) With the cue ball at mid table my opponents often run out from there, so thats bad news for me.

What makes the wing balls go in for me, is breaking from the side rail, and hitting the 1 square at the proper speed. For me, thats about 3/4's power. I also sink the 1 ball in the side more often by doing this, and the drop in power allows me to get a full hit on the 1 more consistently. Best thing is I dont scratch too often with that break.

Rich R.
08-19-2008, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The cue ball is aligned about straight on, hit down on the cue ball with a slightly elevated cue, the cue ball pops up at contact with the one ball, the cue ball lands back down on the one which makes it hit the rack a second time, and the cue ball rolls back toward the center of the table. </div></div>

When the cue ball pops up, you are losing energy and that energy is not being transferred to the rack.
I suggest you try leveling your cue as much as possible and don't hit down on the cue ball as much. This will help you hit the rack more solid and transfer more energy directly to the rack. It may not look as flashy, but it should be more effective.

BTW, IMHO, the slow back swing is a very good technique.

av84fun
08-19-2008, 01:38 PM
I completely agree. However, those very advanced players who have mastered the "up move"...i.e. a dramatic rise in the upper body just before or during the forward stroke can and should cue very low on the CB.

That is because the "up move" levels the cue.

Almost all top pros cue very low for all warm-up strokes but they neither draw the cb very far nor jump it off the table...because the up move levels their stroke.

The more obvious examples of the above include Thorsten, Johnny Archer, SVB, Django etc.

But the move requires TONS of physicaly coordination and practice. Most amateurs I see trying it are end up with highly erratic results and whould be better off using a fairly level stroke from start to finish.

Tony Robles showed me a VERY slow final backstroke...with the ferrule coming all the way back into the bridge grip.

I have had outstanding results with imagining a HOLE drilled through the CB about a tip below dead center (for my break speed...other tip contact positions will vary.)

Once I have "drilled that hole" pointed exactly at the visible center of the 1 ball, I take a final SLOW and FULL backstroke and then just imagine driving the cue tip through the whole.

If you have a highly repeatable stroke, this might work for you too.

Regards,
Jim

1Time
08-19-2008, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the cue ball pops up, you are losing energy and that energy is not being transferred to the rack. </div></div>
I first heard of this break after Keith McCready started using it in the 80's. Transferring maximum engergy to the rack is not the primary objective.

Here are my objectives with this break. Double hit on the 1 ball. Pocket a ball, probably a wing ball. Control the cue ball to the middle of the table. Minimize roll of the 1 ball leaving it about where it was when racked. Roll the 9ball. Get a minimal and somewhat predictable spread of the balls, leaving most at the foot of the table.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suggest you try leveling your cue as much as possible and don't hit down on the cue ball as much. This will help you hit the rack more solid and transfer more energy directly to the rack. It may not look as flashy, but it should be more effective.</div></div>This is one of the breaks that I use when breaking off of the head rail, where the object is to leverage as much energy transfer to the rack as possible. It works pretty good for 8ball, but I've come to prefer using a break that yields more predictable results with 9ball.

JJFSTAR
08-20-2008, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the cueball then goes relatively straight up landing somewhere in the central table area. Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the cue ball pops up, you are losing energy and that energy is not being transferred to the rack.
I suggest you try leveling your cue as much as possible and don't hit down on the cue ball as much. This will help you hit the rack more solid and transfer more energy directly to the rack.</div></div>

Hey Bob or Dr. Dave can you tell me/us what’s really happening?

PRQL8R
08-20-2008, 12:45 PM
I certainly wouldn't reccomend that bounce/break, the results are just too inconsistent. I'm much more in agreement with Rich R. in the importance of maintaining a level cue, following through with your stroke and relatively finishing on the cloth.

Far better to work for results you can begin to predict rather than flash. Rather like those guys whose break strokes look more like they're trying to pole vault over the rack with their cues... sometimes bending the cue almost double /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif I've got too much invested in mine for that sort of thing. (Anybody here break like that.. and can explain any advantage to it? It certainly does seem to be the ultimate in "finishing on the cloth" with your stroke.

As for the cueball flying straight up with that bounce/break the equal-opposite reaction of that is how much force it also drives the head ball more than usual down into the cloth... certainly not as productive as driving it back into the rest of the pack. Also a very good reason to never play without a proper headspot marker, unless you want to quickly end up with a hole in your cloth as the marker for the head spot. Also once saw a friend of mine... who can hit em much harder than me... actually bounce one up high enough that it shattered one of the lightbulbs over the table, which, along with the resultant mess, is a ball-in-hand foul. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif ...Bob

1Time
08-20-2008, 06:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I certainly wouldn't reccomend that bounce/break, the results are just too inconsistent. I'm much more in agreement with Rich R. in the importance of maintaining a level cue, following through with your stroke and relatively finishing on the cloth. </div></div>I agree. And I too don't recommend using a break that yields results that are too inconsistent.

This bounce/break takes a greater degree of skill to pull off with consistent results than it does breaking "normally" with a level stroke. It's kind of like a mini-jump shot. Speed of the stroke and the angle of cue during impact greatly factor into the consistency of the results and its success. I don't recommend its use to anyone, as I prefer reserving all consistent results from its use for myself... lol.

But did you know this? With all "normal" hard breaks, even when maintaing a level cue (as if that's perfectly possible), the cue ball meets the one ball or head ball at a slightly elevated level. In other words the cue ball gets launched off of the playing surfact during a hard break. This results in the cue popping up a little after impact. The more level the stroke, the less the cue ball pops up.

Rich R.
08-20-2008, 07:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But did you know this? With all "normal" hard breaks, even when maintaing a level cue (as if that's perfectly possible), the cue ball meets the one ball or head ball at a slightly elevated level. In other words the cue ball gets launched off of the playing surfact during a hard break. This results in the cue popping up a little after impact. The more level the stroke, the less the cue ball pops up. </div></div>

This is exactly correct.

Also, when you raise the butt end of your cue and drive down into the cue ball, the cue ball meets the one ball or head ball at an even higher level. That is why the cue ball pops up into the air. The energy that should be going into the rack is wasted in popping the cue ball upward.

By hitting the cue ball this way, you also increase the chances of popping the cue ball off of the table entirely.

I guess most of us normal players don't have the high degree of skill required to control this type of break. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

1Time
08-20-2008, 08:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess most of us normal players don't have the high degree of skill required to control this type of break. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>Right, most "normal" players don't have the skill set to make this bounce/break work to their advantage. It's a learned skill like shooting jump shots, kick shots, and bank shots. I don't consider it a particularly difficult shot to execute to my advantage. But then like with many "better" players, I don't consider a lot of jump shots, kick shots, and bank shots that difficult either. Those shots are even harder than this break shot because those shots change. This bounce/break is basically the same shot over and over again like a free throw in basketball.

But it's one thing to chat about a shot like this and an entirely another matter to see it executed in person and for that person to help another learn how to shoot it. Of course I would not consider showing it to another who wasn't ready to learn it, and I'd prefer showing a level stroke for a break like off the head rail. But if anyone shows enough interest and has the skill set, I'd help them learn this bounce/break at the drop of a hat.

And none of this is to suggest that this break is better than any other break. It's just one that's working well for me right now and with a slowed down backstroke.

PRQL8R
08-21-2008, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But did you know this? With all "normal" hard breaks, even when maintaing a level cue (as if that's perfectly possible), the cue ball meets the one ball or head ball at a slightly elevated level. In other words the cue ball gets launched off of the playing surfact during a hard break. This results in the cue popping up a little after impact. The more level the stroke, the less the cue ball pops up. </div></div>

Totally correct and all the more reason to take care to avoid putting any top spin on the cueball when breaking... a sure way to get airborn off the table. ...Bob

1Time
08-21-2008, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Totally correct and all the more reason to take care to avoid putting any top spin on the cueball when breaking... a sure way to get airborn off the table. ...Bob </div></div>Actually, with a fairly level stroke it's not hard at all to use a lot of top spin with a hard break and not fly the cue ball. A cue ball flying off the table is more a function of where it contacts the head ball and at what speed than the spin applied to it. That is not to say the spin applied is not a factor.

Cornerman
08-21-2008, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For years I've broken 9ball racks fast and hard, but I never could get very consistent results. Lately, however, I've been breaking with a backstroke that slows down considerably right before the forward stroke, like a race car driver slowing down at a hair pin curve. And, I think I'm seeing benefits as if I had been breaking with a deliberate pause. This slow backstroke has given my breaks more accuracy, less scratches, and more predictable results, but less 9balls on the break (as with these breaks I'm not attempting to pocket the 9).

I've already used this technique with success in beating a better 9ball player. The break that I've been using most like this is similar to one used by Keith McCready back in the 80's. The cue ball is aligned about straight on, hit down on the cue ball with a slightly elevated cue, the cue ball pops up at contact with the one ball, the cue ball lands back down on the one which makes it hit the rack a second time, and the cue ball rolls back toward the center of the table. I don't have it mastered by any means, but it works better than my other breaks at obtaining the main objectives of a 9ball break. For my more agressive breaks, I have the cue ball lined up in one of 3 spots closer to either rail. </div></div>With the slow backstroke, you are able to get good control on how far back you start from. Most top breakers will bring that tip all the way back to the loop if not farther. You can't bring the tip farther than the loop without slow control or else your stick will fall off your bridge.

Also, we've seen through the TAR matches that by concentrating on as level of a cue possible, that gets your maximum force. So, the combination of the tip all the way back, and the level stroke, you get the most bang for the buck. SVB drops his elbow which drops the cue level. Johnny ARcher pretty much starts off level. Different ways, with the same results. I like Shane's for the reason that by starting high, and dropping down, he's not working against the weight of the stick (which wants to drop).

The importance is control. You maximize your force with these two tips without having to try so hard. And controlled effort is a big key to success. STarting level (with the bridge elbow on the table) and going slowly paying attention to the tip going all the way to the loop will show immediate dividends.

The ball popping up is a side effect. Since you can't really get level, the cueball hitting 9 or 10 balls will naturally pop up and back. It should be a nice sounding/looking "pop." IMO, if it doesn't pop up, then something actually went wrong with the break. In other words, if the cueball doesn't pop, then you've actually hit a lower efficient break, not higher.

Fred

Cornerman
08-21-2008, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Totally correct and all the more reason to take care to avoid putting any top spin on the cueball when breaking... a sure way to get airborn off the table. ...Bob </div></div>Actually, with a fairly level stroke it's not hard at all to use a lot of top spin with a hard break and not fly the cue ball. A cue ball flying off the table is more a function of where it contacts the head ball and at what speed than the spin applied to it. That is not to say the spin applied is not a factor. </div></div>Watching the cueball and replaying slow motion video, almost every top breaker when "squatting" the cueball has hit the cueball a little above center.

There are those that argue that the forward spin you see on the cueball is a result of the cueball being airborn on its way to the rack and having the cueball hit the head ball below its (the cueball's) equator. I can't say how much of this is true, but I do know that with slow video and the measles ball, you can see the top spin on a lot of squat breaks before it hits the pack.

Fred

Cornerman
08-21-2008, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control. If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball </div></div>This really isnt' true. Here's a high speed video with plenty of follow and a slightly high hit on the headball. You'll notice the action on the cueball is really what people are striving for.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-3.htm <span style="color: #000099">{edited wrong link}</span>

I think that most top breakers, the action of the cueball looks more like this. Important to note is that even with follow, that cueball goes backwards off the pack, like physics would predict. The only way for the cueball to stop and squat is if that forward spin catches the cloth.

Watching the TAR matches over and over, Shane and Alex consistantly get this type of hit and motion.

Fred

Cornerman
08-21-2008, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not a big fan of the CB leaving the table when it is not necessary. This is explained briefly by Johnny in this break tutorial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffkl-zp96N8
</div></div>Yeah but Johnny Archer's ball hops when he breaks (as has been captured several times over) so what does that say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lYmiTjWHLE


Fred

Sid_Vicious
08-21-2008, 11:57 AM
"is breaking from the side rail, and hitting the 1 square at the proper speed. For me, thats about 3/4's power."

Bingo! give the poster his money. All this ultra hammer break stuff in 9-ball, is counter-productive overall. Back off, slow down, make a ball and keep CB control.

A deliberate and "understandable" backswing on all strokes makes sence. sid

JJFSTAR
08-21-2008, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not a big fan of the CB leaving the table when it is not necessary. This is explained briefly by Johnny in this break tutorial.</div></div>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffkl-zp96N8

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah but Johnny Archer's ball hops when he breaks (as has been captured several times over) so what does that say? </div></div>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lYmiTjWHLE

Interesting looks like my next practice session will be breaks.

av84fun
08-21-2008, 03:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control. If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball </div></div>This really isnt' true. Here's a high speed video with plenty of follow and a slightly high hit on the headball. You'll notice the action on the cueball is really what people are striving for.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-4.htm

I think that most top breakers, the action of the cueball looks more like this. Important to note is that even with follow, that cueball goes backwards off the pack, like physics would predict. The only way for the cueball to stop and squat is if that forward spin catches the cloth.

Watching the TAR matches over and over, Shane and Alex consistantly get this type of hit and motion.

Fred </div></div>

Fred...unless I misunderstand your post, you posted the wrong link. The video at the link is a "power break with draw."

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
08-21-2008, 04:55 PM
Details, details (thanks Jim).

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-3.htm


Fred

PRQL8R
08-22-2008, 07:22 AM
a lot [/b]</u>of top spin with a hard break and not fly the cue ball.

The "level as possible" stroke is of course the key... and I did use the sort of break back when I was younger. Hitting the headball hard with the cueball bouncing off and then jumping forward back into the pack. I thought it was flashy but really had no particular control of the break. The results were too inconsistent, too many fouls and too often with the cueball ending up who-knows-were on the table. I don't use that form of break anymore and don't recommend it. ...Bob

PRQL8R
08-22-2008, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yeah but Johnny Archer's ball hops when he breaks (as has been captured several times over) so what does that say?
</div></div>

I believe it says that Johnny Archer (like all the rest of us human beings) <u>also</u> doesn't break with a perfectly level cue. He just does it far more effectively than the rest of us mere mortals /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ...Bob

PRQL8R
08-22-2008, 07:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control. If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball </div></div>This really isnt' true. </div></div>

Not sure I follow your logic here Fred? I'm talking about a bounce/break where the cueball hits the headball on the fly. What besides "wind resistence" is there to slow it down? If you can bounce and hit the headball, consistently in the same spot, while on the fly... then you're my new pool God. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif ...Bob

PRQL8R
08-22-2008, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are those that argue that the forward spin you see on the cueball is a result of the cueball being airborn on its way to the rack and having the cueball hit the head ball below its (the cueball's) equator. I can't say how much of this is true, but I do know that with slow video and the measles ball, you can see the top spin on a lot of squat breaks before it hits the pack.Fred </div></div>

I think,"all things being equal" Sid probably has it <u>qualifiedly</u> correct. Due to individual consistent results we each get when breaking, I tend to aim slightly low on the cueball... you slightly high ... Sid trys for dead centre.

Although my focus is always lastly on the cueball when striking it... when striking the cueball with some degree of power it's always possible to hit it a little off from your aim point. Because the reaction a single ball striking into 9 or 15 balls is so greatly magnified... that's why IMO it's important to avoid an excessively high or low strike.

As for those slo-mo videos... with any near central equator hit on the cueball, once the cueball suddenly accelerates with the cue strike, it's going to pick up some forward momentum off the cloth. This can easily be seen in the burn marks on almost any well used table from the favored break locations ...Bob

Rich R.
08-22-2008, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "level as possible" stroke is of course the key... and I did use the sort of break back when I was younger. Hitting the headball hard with the cueball bouncing off and then jumping forward back into the pack. I thought it was flashy but really had no particular control of the break. The results were too inconsistent, too many fouls and too often with the cueball ending up who-knows-were on the table. I don't use that form of break anymore and don't recommend it. ...Bob </div></div>

This type of 9-ball break was quite common when I was younger (in the late 60's) and I knew players that were extremely consistent with it. The initial hit seemed to move most of the balls away from the 9-ball and after backing up slightly, the cue ball, with a lot of top spin, would cut back through the rack and hit the 9-ball, sending it toward the corner pocket. These skilled players would make the 9 on the break with a higher percentage than most other players.
After being away from pool for many years, I came back to find that this break was no longer considered a good break and the thought of the day was to squat the cue ball in the middle of the table.
Sometimes I wonder if the old way was better or not?

Bambu
08-23-2008, 09:55 AM
The old way is more risky, less cue ball control. To me it depends on who youre playing, and what your chances are for returning to the table in case of a scratch.

1Time
08-23-2008, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The old way is more risky, less cue ball control. To me it depends on who youre playing, and what your chances are for returning to the table in case of a scratch. </div></div>Also depends on how good you are at the top spin break as compared to other breaks.

I prefer not using the top spin break because I'm better at other breaks. One unusual break that I like is glancing off the one ball with inside spin so the cue ball banks off of a side rail and back into the rack. It rarely puts the 9ball in but it's a good show.

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of power as no speed is lost through friction on the cloth but very difficult to control. If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball </div></div>This really isnt' true. </div></div>

Not sure I follow your logic here Fred? I'm talking about a bounce/break where the cueball hits the headball on the fly. What besides "wind resistence" is there to slow it down? If you can bounce and hit the headball, consistently in the same spot, while on the fly... then you're my new pool God. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif ...Bob </div></div> I was responding to your quote:

"If the cueball contacts even slightly high on the headball... off the table she flies and it's ball-in-hand for your opponent."

This is clearly not true, as the video shows.

The best breakers in the world have the bounce back break. Even the best amateur breakers pop the cueball. I'd think if anyone would actually want to improve their break, they may want to find out what the good breakers are doing rather than come here and try to theorize why bouncing the ball back is doom and gloom.

Fred &lt;~~~ hates doom and gloom threads

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yeah but Johnny Archer's ball hops when he breaks (as has been captured several times over) so what does that say?
</div></div>

I believe it says that Johnny Archer (like all the rest of us human beings) <u>also</u> doesn't break with a perfectly level cue. He just does it far more effectively than the rest of us mere mortals /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ...Bob </div></div>It also says he wasn't following or listening to his own advice.

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are those that argue that the forward spin you see on the cueball is a result of the cueball being airborn on its way to the rack and having the cueball hit the head ball below its (the cueball's) equator. I can't say how much of this is true, but I do know that with slow video and the measles ball, you can see the top spin on a lot of squat breaks before it hits the pack.Fred </div></div>

I think,"all things being equal" Sid probably has it <u>qualifiedly</u> correct. Due to individual consistent results we each get when breaking, I tend to aim slightly low on the cueball... you slightly high ... Sid trys for dead centre.</div></div> Understand that I said nothing about aiming. I said that all jump squat breaks have follow on them. I like the multitude of breakers out there aim low, but I know that I hit a hair high to get that squat. Video evidence of most top breakers also show them hitting center or a hair higher, even if they've aimed much lower (like to the base of the ball.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although my focus is always lastly on the cueball when striking it... when striking the cueball with some degree of power it's always possible to hit it a little off from your aim point. </div></div> I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for those slo-mo videos... with any near central equator hit on the cueball, once the cueball suddenly accelerates with the cue strike, it's going to pick up some forward momentum off the cloth. This can easily be seen in the burn marks on almost any well used table from the favored break locations ...Bob</div></div> I dont' understand what you're saying. The burn marks are from friction. Even if you draw the ball (no follow spin) all the way to the rack, you'll get those burn marks. The burn marks don't create forward momentum. Your cuestick hitting the cueball does. Sum of the Masses time velocities, with conservation in a collision.

If you mean "forward roll," then, um,,,, no. Not on a power break. At the speeds typically seen on any break shot (even weak breaks), friction from the cloth would add an insignificant amount to the roll of the ball compared to even a small amount of tip offset. That's seen on simple firm stop shots.

Fred


[/quote]

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "level as possible" stroke is of course the key... and I did use the sort of break back when I was younger. Hitting the headball hard with the cueball bouncing off and then jumping forward back into the pack. I thought it was flashy but really had no particular control of the break. The results were too inconsistent, too many fouls and too often with the cueball ending up who-knows-were on the table. I don't use that form of break anymore and don't recommend it. ...Bob </div></div>

This type of 9-ball break was quite common when I was younger (in the late 60's) and I knew players that were extremely consistent with it. The initial hit seemed to move most of the balls away from the 9-ball and after backing up slightly, the cue ball, with a lot of top spin, would cut back through the rack and hit the 9-ball, sending it toward the corner pocket. These skilled players would make the 9 on the break with a higher percentage than most other players.
After being away from pool for many years, I came back to find that this break was no longer considered a good break and the thought of the day was to squat the cue ball in the middle of the table.
Sometimes I wonder if the old way was better or not?
</div></div>Rich, I can't believe in any lifetime that this break was actually favored by good players.

Bangers, maybe, when you and I couldn't play a lick. But top players? I just can't see it.

Fred

1Time
08-23-2008, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.</div></div>The secret is not necessrily to hit the cue ball where you're aiming, but to aim where the result is the cue ball goes where you want.

av84fun
08-23-2008, 03:37 PM
Cornerman <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.

</div></div>

I don't mean to split hairs but rather think this is an interesting and important issue.

I think you need to define what you mean by "nowhere near."

I am a B+/A- player and I just went to my table to test your remark.

On 5 hard breaks which for me is 18 mph +/- some portion of my chalk is on the vertical center and some part is on the triangle of the cb I used.

Certainly, pros' aim would be more accurate than that. So that seems to be pretty near to me...BUT...I readily concur that in the world of pool, a 1/4 tip radius is a meaningful variation.

Is that the range that you would consider to be "nowhere near?"

I'm not debating at all...just trying to define our terms.

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cornerman <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.

</div></div>

I don't mean to split hairs but rather think this is an interesting and important issue.

I think you need to define what you mean by "nowhere near."

I am a B+/A- player and I just went to my table to test your remark.

On 5 hard breaks which for me is 18 mph +/- some portion of my chalk is on the vertical center and some part is on the triangle of the cb I used.

Certainly, pros' aim would be more accurate than that. So that seems to be pretty near to me...BUT...I readily concur that in the world of pool, a 1/4 tip radius is a meaningful variation.

Is that the range that you would consider to be "nowhere near?"

I'm not debating at all...just trying to define our terms.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>Hi Jim. I'm talking the power break, where these guys are hitting 25+ mph without much effort (seemingly), and in the power break a lot normally goes on. I could point to pros like EArl and Shane, but that would imply this only applies to pros, but it doesn't. The top power breakers in anytown USA seem to be consistant with this. I don't know where you're aiming. Are you saying you aim centerball?

18 mph is pretty reachable with a normal firm stroke, so I assume you're doing something closer to a normal stroke?

Take a look at Shane's break, for example. He aims right to the base of the ball. So does Nick Varner. So do most power breakers in the game. The big exception is Johnny Archer who aims with a touch of follow. Check youtube to see what I'm saying.

But on Shane's break for example, you can see the follow on the cueball all the way. But, he squats his ball better than anyone of late. If he actually hit anywhere near where he's aiming, then he'd rocket that cueball straight back every time. But he doesn't. Do a stop video on any top breaker whether it's Hohmann or Pagulayan. They aim low, but hit center or a hair higher. That's more than 1". Bustamante actually aims off the ball completely. So, he's actually more 2-3" difference in where he aims as opposed to where he hits.

The Dr. Dave videos are proof of everything I'm discussing here.

Fred

Cornerman
08-23-2008, 03:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.</div></div>The secret is not necessrily to hit the cue ball where you're aiming, but to aim where the result is the cue ball goes where you want. </div></div>Yes, exactly.

Rich R.
08-23-2008, 07:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "level as possible" stroke is of course the key... and I did use the sort of break back when I was younger. Hitting the headball hard with the cueball bouncing off and then jumping forward back into the pack. I thought it was flashy but really had no particular control of the break. The results were too inconsistent, too many fouls and too often with the cueball ending up who-knows-were on the table. I don't use that form of break anymore and don't recommend it. ...Bob </div></div>

This type of 9-ball break was quite common when I was younger (in the late 60's) and I knew players that were extremely consistent with it. The initial hit seemed to move most of the balls away from the 9-ball and after backing up slightly, the cue ball, with a lot of top spin, would cut back through the rack and hit the 9-ball, sending it toward the corner pocket. These skilled players would make the 9 on the break with a higher percentage than most other players.
After being away from pool for many years, I came back to find that this break was no longer considered a good break and the thought of the day was to squat the cue ball in the middle of the table.
Sometimes I wonder if the old way was better or not?
</div></div>Rich, I can't believe in any lifetime that this break was actually favored by good players.

Bangers, maybe, when you and I couldn't play a lick. But top players? I just can't see it.</div></div>

Fred, I guess I am talking about a time well before you picked up a cue, probably 1968 or 1969, and I assure you that it was a world class player, among others, who favored this break. I'm sure he has changed his break since then, but that was then and this is now.

av84fun
08-23-2008, 10:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cornerman <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can't stress the point more, because it's not trivial. Most human beings will hit the ball nowhere near where they're aiming on the power break.

</div></div>

I don't mean to split hairs but rather think this is an interesting and important issue.

I think you need to define what you mean by "nowhere near."

I am a B+/A- player and I just went to my table to test your remark.

On 5 hard breaks which for me is 18 mph +/- some portion of my chalk is on the vertical center and some part is on the triangle of the cb I used.

Certainly, pros' aim would be more accurate than that. So that seems to be pretty near to me...BUT...I readily concur that in the world of pool, a 1/4 tip radius is a meaningful variation.

Is that the range that you would consider to be "nowhere near?"

I'm not debating at all...just trying to define our terms.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>Hi Jim. I'm talking the power break, where these guys are hitting 25+ mph without much effort (seemingly), and in the power break a lot normally goes on. I could point to pros like EArl and Shane, but that would imply this only applies to pros, but it doesn't. The top power breakers in anytown USA seem to be consistant with this. I don't know where you're aiming. Are you saying you aim centerball?

18 mph is pretty reachable with a normal firm stroke, so I assume you're doing something closer to a normal stroke?

Take a look at Shane's break, for example. He aims right to the base of the ball. So does Nick Varner. So do most power breakers in the game. The big exception is Johnny Archer who aims with a touch of follow. Check youtube to see what I'm saying.

But on Shane's break for example, you can see the follow on the cueball all the way. But, he squats his ball better than anyone of late. If he actually hit anywhere near where he's aiming, then he'd rocket that cueball straight back every time. But he doesn't. Do a stop video on any top breaker whether it's Hohmann or Pagulayan. They aim low, but hit center or a hair higher. That's more than 1". Bustamante actually aims off the ball completely. So, he's actually more 2-3" difference in where he aims as opposed to where he hits.

The Dr. Dave videos are proof of everything I'm discussing here.

Fred </div></div>

I would prefer to suggest that the players you mention ADDRESS the CB very low, as you point out but for the final stroke, they AIM at center ball or a touch high just exactly as you point out.

The low address on the warm up strokes is required for most power breakers who have perfected what I call the "up move."

Colin Colenso has one of the best instructionals on breaking in general and the up move in particular.

It was shot with a cell phone cam so is pretty crude visually but the INFORMATION is there in spades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1tsONEI_U

Anyone who has not seen him break a 15 ball rack like a bazooka...with an OPEN BRIDGE has got to check out the above link.

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
08-24-2008, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, he's actually more 2-3" difference in where he aims as opposed to where he hits.

The Dr. Dave videos are proof of everything I'm discussing here.

Fred </div></div>

I would prefer to suggest that the players you mention ADDRESS the CB very low, as you point out but for the final stroke, they AIM at center ball or a touch high just exactly as you point out.</div></div>Yes, you're right. Address is the correct word. The set position, if you will (for those that set). They address low, but HIT higher. I'm not sure the point at contact should be called the aim point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AV84Fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The low address on the warm up strokes is required for most power breakers who have perfected what I call the "up move."

Colin Colenso has one of the best instructionals on breaking in general and the up move in particular.
</div></div>In my study of breaks over the past few years, Colin's is actually the exception. Anyone attempting to do the break like Colin will be sadly disappointed in their result unless they have the physical tools that Colin has. Colin is a big guy. His break has to have strength in that relatively short motion. It's an "explosion break" or what I like to call "short, strong lever."

Charlie Bryant is the same way , as is Larry Nevel. Those that try their style better have big arms.

But, much of what the video shows and tells definitely can help a lot of people. The "up move" in particular is common with a lot of breakers.


Fred

JJFSTAR
08-24-2008, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my study of breaks over the past few years, Colin's is actually the exception. Anyone attempting to do the break like Colin will be sadly disappointed in their result unless they have the physical tools that Colin has. Colin is a big guy. His break has to have strength in that relatively short motion. It's an "explosion break" or what I like to call "short, strong lever."

Charlie Bryant is the same way , as is Larry Nevel. Those that try their style better have big arms.

But, much of what the video shows and tells definitely can help a lot of people. The "up move" in particular is common with a lot of breakers.


Fred </div></div>

Fred I just want to say that that video helped me my first day and I am not a big guy at all and I duplicated as best I could and BAM! Balls busted like crazy. The understanding and application of technique IMHO has far more to do with power breaking than any physical attributes.

Females who are quite obviously half my strength and height (figuratively) shatter racks at 22 and 23mph. So I tried to duplicate what they were doing as well; having that butt go up in the air and “screw” through and I cant keep the CB on the table so I abandoned it. So technique is 90% of it man.

av84fun
08-24-2008, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, he's actually more 2-3" difference in where he aims as opposed to where he hits.

The Dr. Dave videos are proof of everything I'm discussing here.

Fred </div></div>

I would prefer to suggest that the players you mention ADDRESS the CB very low, as you point out but for the final stroke, they AIM at center ball or a touch high just exactly as you point out.</div></div>Yes, you're right. Address is the correct word. The set position, if you will (for those that set). They address low, but HIT higher. I'm not sure the point at contact should be called the aim point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AV84Fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The low address on the warm up strokes is required for most power breakers who have perfected what I call the "up move."

Colin Colenso has one of the best instructionals on breaking in general and the up move in particular.
</div></div>In my study of breaks over the past few years, Colin's is actually the exception. Anyone attempting to do the break like Colin will be sadly disappointed in their result unless they have the physical tools that Colin has. Colin is a big guy. His break has to have strength in that relatively short motion. It's an "explosion break" or what I like to call "short, strong lever."

Charlie Bryant is the same way , as is Larry Nevel. Those that try their style better have big arms.

But, much of what the video shows and tells definitely can help a lot of people. The "up move" in particular is common with a lot of breakers.


Fred </div></div>

Fred, re: Colin...I just meant to emphasize the "up move" portion of what he teaches...not necessarily the rest of it. A huge majority of the best breakers now use a very decided up move which actually lengthens the lever.

Regards,
Jim

Edit: Ooops, sorry, I din't read your post carefully enough. I now see that you agree with the up move portion of Colin's break technique.

Jim

Rich R.
08-24-2008, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my study of breaks over the past few years, Colin's is actually the exception. Anyone attempting to do the break like Colin will be sadly disappointed in their result unless they have the physical tools that Colin has. Colin is a big guy. His break has to have strength in that relatively short motion. It's an "explosion break" or what I like to call "short, strong lever."

Charlie Bryant is the same way , as is Larry Nevel. Those that try their style better have big arms.

But, much of what the video shows and tells definitely can help a lot of people. The "up move" in particular is common with a lot of breakers. </div></div>
Fred, although I haven't seen her play in a while, from the best I can remember, Sarah Rousey generates a tremendous amount of power on her break. I believe she has the upward motion you are talking about, but she can not be considered a large person in any way. Is the upward motion enough to generate that power or is Sarah doing something else that I don't remember.

I stopped telling people that I break like a girl, because it was insulting to Sarah and other female players. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Cornerman
08-24-2008, 09:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fred, although I haven't seen her play in a while, from the best I can remember, Sarah Rousey generates a tremendous amount of power on her break. I believe she has the upward motion you are talking about, but she can not be considered a large person in any way. Is the upward motion enough to generate that power or is Sarah doing something else that I don't remember.
</div></div>Sarah has a lot of the things in her break that generate power from pause, to hips, to snap, to drop. I think she has something that could be considered the "up motion," but I don't think it's the main thing tha generates her power.

Fred

av84fun
08-24-2008, 09:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my study of breaks over the past few years, Colin's is actually the exception. Anyone attempting to do the break like Colin will be sadly disappointed in their result unless they have the physical tools that Colin has. Colin is a big guy. His break has to have strength in that relatively short motion. It's an "explosion break" or what I like to call "short, strong lever."

Charlie Bryant is the same way , as is Larry Nevel. Those that try their style better have big arms.

But, much of what the video shows and tells definitely can help a lot of people. The "up move" in particular is common with a lot of breakers. </div></div>
Fred, although I haven't seen her play in a while, from the best I can remember, Sarah Rousey generates a tremendous amount of power on her break. I believe she has the upward motion you are talking about, but she can not be considered a large person in any way. Is the upward motion enough to generate that power or is Sarah doing something else that I don't remember.

I stopped telling people that I break like a girl, because it was insulting to Sarah and other female players. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif
</div></div>

If I may jump in...IMHO the most effective breaks occur from a combination of cue speed at impact and a square hit with minimal "hop" of the cb.

Re: hop...it is a function of how high the CB has bounced off the table just before striking the 1 ball and MAYBE a small degree of "crawling up" the 1 ball due to the forward rotation of the cb at impact.

I'm not sure if that is a factor but I am sure that Dr. Dave or the other scientists here would know. But I would wager that if it exists, it is not significant.

Regarding cue speed, IMHO that is a function of optimum mechanics, (stance, grip, stroke arm configuration, the up move, wrist snap...a BIG DEAL... etc.) and to a meaningful degree...and I'm not kidding here, the extent to which the player muscles are composed of mostly "slow twitch muscle fiber" or fast twitch fiber and within the fast catagory, the amout of Type 1 vs. Type 2 fiber.

All other things being equal, a player with a large concentration of fast twitch fiber is simply more capable than other people of generating "burst acceleration."

Since the top pros are all pretty capable of optimizing their techniques, in my view it is fast twitch fiber that allows Alex. Django etc. and a few of the women of generating VERY fast CB speeds.

Regards,
Jim

wolfdancer
08-25-2008, 12:33 AM
in my view it is fast twitch fiber that allows Alex. Django etc. and a few of the women of generating VERY fast CB speeds.

If you don't mind me commenting here....
I recently bought a booklet on increasing driving distance in golf. According to Dr. Larry Van Such, the author...muscles are composed of all three types of fibers...and you can train the fast twitch fibers with isometric exercises, using resistance bands.
Does it work, and would it also help one's break????
I have no idea. But it only takes a few minutes to do the "static" exercises, and it cost just $27....
So far I think it's the new square headed driver, and not the rubber bands that's giving me a few more yards
There are programs on that site for other sports....
http://www.athleticquickness.com/
One final line from the book...lifting weights can actually slow down one's speed?????
I've always been amazed at the break speed of the guys that you mentioned....I thought they might have had an advantage due to the ratio of the length of their upper arm to the lower arm??? (just guessing)
The sure have none due to weight, or size.

Rich R.
08-25-2008, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fred, although I haven't seen her play in a while, from the best I can remember, Sarah Rousey generates a tremendous amount of power on her break. I believe she has the upward motion you are talking about, but she can not be considered a large person in any way. Is the upward motion enough to generate that power or is Sarah doing something else that I don't remember.
</div></div>Sarah has a lot of the things in her break that generate power from pause, to hips, to snap, to drop. I think she has something that could be considered the "up motion," but I don't think it's the main thing tha generates her power.

Fred </div></div>
Whatever Sarah is doing, I wish she could bottle it and sell it. I would be the first in line. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

av84fun
08-25-2008, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in my view it is fast twitch fiber that allows Alex. Django etc. and a few of the women of generating VERY fast CB speeds.

If you don't mind me commenting here....
I recently bought a booklet on increasing driving distance in golf. According to Dr. Larry Van Such, the author...muscles are composed of all three types of fibers...and you can train the fast twitch fibers with isometric exercises, using resistance bands.
Does it work, and would it also help one's break????
I have no idea. But it only takes a few minutes to do the "static" exercises, and it cost just $27....
So far I think it's the new square headed driver, and not the rubber bands that's giving me a few more yards
There are programs on that site for other sports....
http://www.athleticquickness.com/
One final line from the book...lifting weights can actually slow down one's speed?????
I've always been amazed at the break speed of the guys that you mentioned....I thought they might have had an advantage due to the ratio of the length of their upper arm to the lower arm??? (just guessing)
The sure have none due to weight, or size. </div></div>

Absolutely lifting weights CAN slow a stroke down if taken too far.

Break speed is a function of cue speed and muscle bulk has VERY little to do with generating speed. Yes, muscles are composed of a combination if fiber types. It is the BLEND of those types that differentiates one person from another.

Those blessed with greater amounts of fast twitch fiber can generate faster "speed bursts" than other people...even if they have never lifted a weight heavier than their cue stick.

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
08-25-2008, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Break speed is a function of cue speed and muscle bulk has VERY little to do with generating speed. Yes, muscles are composed of a combination if fiber types. </div></div>
There are two components to this equation that results in cueball speed. Stick speed and mass (sum of mass time velocity = momentum. Depending on the method of breaking, the mass involved in the equation is absolutely affected by the body mass. The speed of sound through the stick is sufficiently fast enough such that part of the breaker's body mass is "seen" by the cueball in the .001 second of contact.

So, while stick speed can be examined by fast muscle movements, the body mass in question can be affected by body mass that the breaker gets into the equation. I'm not sure what parts of the body are truly part of the equation, but my guess is that it's pretty limited to the arms and maybe part of the upper body.

This is part of why "technique" and "timing" have such an impact. This is also why the simple act of stepping forward while breaking can have such a positive effect on speed.

I think this concept is touched on in Ron Shepard's Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_apapp.pdf section 3. Cue Tip/Cue Ball Impact


Fred

wolfdancer
08-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Fred, thanks for the link...I'll check that out.

av84fun
08-26-2008, 12:09 AM
Fred...first Shephard's article is BADLY mistitled when it recommends itself to amateur pool players!

But in section 3. he discusses the mass of the <u>pool cue </u>in detail, as a meaningful contributor to the mass part of the equation.

Please also note that I commented on <u>cue speed</u> not "momentum" which I acknowledge is a separate factor in the equation solving for total force applied.

But I hold to my statement that muscle bulk, in and of itself, cannot be expected to contribute to cue speed and would be as likely as not to retard cue speed due to having to overcome greater inertia of rest.

Wrap a 10 lb. weight around your forearm and see what happens to your cue speed!! (-:

Maximizing cue speed is largely a function of a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fiber and probably the timing of the wrist snap. Momentum is certainly augmented by some portions of a player's body mass but is, by ovservation, a highly secondary factor in the creation of cue speed and/or momentum (if I defince that term correctly as "total force").

That must be true since some male and female players weighing only 2/3...if not 1/2 as much as larger players can generate speeds 90% or so of the bulkier players.

I guess my point, reduced to common terms, is that the key to being a more powerful breaker does not lie in supersizing your McDonald's orders, or pumping iron in the gym.

Rather, great breaking is largely (not entirely) a function of advanced technique and the blessing of being endowed with more fast than slow twich muscle fibers which are well known in science to contribute to fast burst speed capabilities...which are essential to the task of accellerating from 0 25 mph or so..in a single foot.

Regards,
Jim
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Break speed is a function of cue speed and muscle bulk has VERY little to do with generating speed. Yes, muscles are composed of a combination if fiber types. </div></div>
There are two components to this equation that results in cueball speed. Stick speed and mass (sum of mass time velocity = momentum. Depending on the method of breaking, the mass involved in the equation is absolutely affected by the body mass. The speed of sound through the stick is sufficiently fast enough such that part of the breaker's body mass is "seen" by the cueball in the .001 second of contact.

So, while stick speed can be examined by fast muscle movements, the body mass in question can be affected by body mass that the breaker gets into the equation. I'm not sure what parts of the body are truly part of the equation, but my guess is that it's pretty limited to the arms and maybe part of the upper body.

This is part of why "technique" and "timing" have such an impact. This is also why the simple act of stepping forward while breaking can have such a positive effect on speed.

I think this concept is touched on in Ron Shepard's Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_apapp.pdf section 3. Cue Tip/Cue Ball Impact


Fred

</div></div>