Why would it be easier to draw with one cue over the other?

Siz said:

...For as long as there is contact, the tip can exert a force on the c.b. and increase its rotational speed.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it also increases its forward speed. When you hit the CB at a certain point, let's say at maximum tip offset (right at the edge of miscue territory), a fraction of the force goes into producing spin and a fraction of it goes into producing forward motion. This ratio of spin-to-speed is the same whenever you hit the CB at that point and for whatever length of time you push on that point. More pushing doesn't mean just more spin; it also means more speed.

If you could increase the contact time so that the cue "pushes" the CB instead of "striking" it, for every moment the tip remained in contact with that point it would transmit more force to the CB, but the same fraction of that added force would go into producing spin and the same fraction would go into producing forward motion. The spin-to-speed ratio would not change.

The only way the spin-to-speed ratio changes is if the tip rotates away from the CB's center while in contact, where a different ratio of spin-to-speed is produced. This happens during the brief moment (~1/1000 second) the tip is in contact with the CB, and would happen to a greater degree if we could increase contact time. The CB's final spin-to-speed ratio is the result of the greatest tip offset that was ultimately achieved by the tip rotating away from centerball.

OK, so we can increase the spin-to-speed ratio with longer contact time. Yes, but there's a hitch - we don't gain anything that we couldn't gain by simply hitting farther from center in the first place. The greatest possible spin-to-speed ratio is that produced when the tip is at the miscue limit - after that it begins to slip on the CB's surface. It doesn't matter whether we get to the miscue limit by hitting that point first or by keeping the tip on the CB while it rotates out to the miscue limit from a point closer to centerball. In the end both methods produce the same maximum spin-to-speed ratio. And this is also true of less-than-maximum spin-to-speed ratios: you can get the same amount of spin by hitting a little farther out in the first place.

In other words, even if we could increase tip contact time, we wouldn't be able to get more spin than we could get without increasing contact time.

However, there is a caveat to all this when we speak of draw or follow: although more speed doesn't change the effect of sidespin, it does change the effect of draw and follow. More speed means more draw and follow because no matter how fast the CB is moving its forward motion is stopped by the OB but its draw or follow spin is not. So if it's rotating faster before it hits the OB it will also be rotating faster after hitting the OB (and stopping), which produces more draw or follow.

So, unlike sidespin, the effects of draw and follow are increased by hitting harder (and also theoretically by increasing contact time, assuming that produces more speed). This means that, for instance, shaft stiffness, tip hardness and even cue weight might make it easier to get more draw and follow because they might transmit more of your stroke's force. However, they wouldn't change the effectiveness of sidespin.

pj
chgo

Impact Blue said:

Just throwing it out there.

Players, cuemakers, and theorists opinions welcomed. :smile:

Click to expand...

There are two parts to this answer, and usually what happens on these forums is that the thread digresses to focusing on just one part: the cue. That's fine, as I think it's important to discuss whether or not the cue in of itself adds more to the equation. And by and large, I agree with most everything Patrick Johnson says on this.

But the other part of the answer is to examine how the player and the cue interact. And it's not as simple as saying "if a player has a good stroke," blah blah. The best stroker in the world (Player E) will perform better with X cue vs. Y cue. And here's the important part: Another great player (say, Player S) doesn't necessarily play better with the same cue. I think it's obvious if you examine other sports like baseball that the individual athlete has physical parameters that allow him/her to specifiy the parameters of their bat/stick/racket. Same with pool.

To draw the ball, it boils down to tip speed and tip position on the cueball (assuming using the same tip on all cues tested). Tip speed and tip position are functions sort of derived by the marriage between the cue and player. It's obvious if the cue was a tree trunk with it's branches that attempting to get any kind of consistent tip speed and position would be ludicrous. Likewise, if the cue was a piece of cooked spaghetti with a tip on it, you get nothing.

For the range of cuesticks that someone could actually use, weight, taper and balance seem to be the three major parameters that can affect the marriage between the player and cue, insofar as the player's ability to swing the cue tip to get it to speed and to a position. I think anyone who has played this game for any decent amount of time has found that they tend to gravitate towards a certain weight and a certain balance.

Personally, I can't play with a cue with balance point longer than 19 inches from the butt end. I can't stroke the shaft as well if the taper opens up my fingers too soon. A delayed taper (more delayed than a Rambow pro-taper) doesn't slow down my stroke as much as a constant taper. That's one reason a cue like a Meucci cue will draw better in my hands: because given the same amount of effort, the more cylindrical shaft doesn't get slowed down as much.

There's also a theory that says that since our stroke is a pendulum, that the more rearward the balance point is, then the higher the potential energy associated with the stick when it's at its rear position (the Pause position for SPF players). That means that if you "let the cue do the work," then a cue stick with a rearward balance point will require less energy added by the player to get the cue tip to the desired speed. In other words, more effort to bring it the rear Pause position, but less effort to deliver the cue in the final stroke. Some people want this. Some people hate this.

So, in other words, it's really a question of effort, where the effort is required during the stroke, and the synergy between the cue and a player. Though every good player can play well with any decent cue with a decent tip, there are going to be cues that fit better with players. And one type will fit some player, while other types will fit other players.

Fred <~~~ thinks it's a simple answer, but with a lot of words just to explain what's going on

JB Cases said:

Well Pat I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

Click to expand...

I can live with that.

...Maybe someday I will be able to show you all the shafts that have the exact same taper, same ferrule, same tip, same amount of pie splices, btu have different sized cores of phenolic rod. When all of these shafts are put on the same butt they all play differently.

Click to expand...

That would be great. Then I could show you how to test them for the spin they each can produce.

...here is another example I can give you that perfectly illustrates the point. Once at Mike Gulassy's booth I was trying to make a jump shot with one of his Sledgehammer cues.

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about jumping, John. And we're not talking about how much force can be transmitted to the CB. Like you, I believe that there are very real differences between cues in how well they jump and how much force they transmit*. But we're talking about how much spin they can produce, and that's apples and rutabagas.

pj
chgo

*P.S. How much force a cue transmits is one factor in how much draw or follow they can produce. These are special cases of "spin effect" that I cover in an earlier post - this effect is not the same as "how much spin can be produced".

almost convinced!

Patrick Johnson said:

Yes, but it also increases its forward speed. When you hit the CB at a certain point, let's say at maximum tip offset (right at the edge of miscue territory), a fraction of the force goes into producing spin and a fraction of it goes into producing forward motion. This ratio of spin-to-speed is the same whenever you hit the CB at that point and for whatever length of time you push on that point. More pushing doesn't mean just more spin; it also means more speed.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Well Patrick, I must say that I find your arguments very persuasive.

However there is still some niggling doubt in my mind which I cannot quite pin down at the moment. Perhaps something to do with how the tip is gripping / distorting / sliding ... probably nonsense, but I will have a think about it when I have a moment.

Cornerman said:

There are two parts to this answer, and usually what happens on these forums is that the thread digresses to focusing on just one part: the cue. That's fine, as I think it's important to discuss whether or not the cue in of itself adds more to the equation. And by and large, I agree with most everything Patrick Johnson says on this.

But the other part of the answer is to examine how the player and the cue interact. And it's not as simple as saying "if a player has a good stroke," blah blah. The best stroker in the world (Player E) will perform better with X cue vs. Y cue. And here's the important part: Another great player (say, Player S) doesn't necessarily play better with the same cue. I think it's obvious if you examine other sports like baseball that the individual athlete has physical parameters that allow him/her to specifiy the parameters of their bat/stick/racket. Same with pool.

To draw the ball, it boils down to tip speed and tip position on the cueball (assuming using the same tip on all cues tested). Tip speed and tip position are functions sort of derived by the marriage between the cue and player. It's obvious if the cue was a tree trunk with it's branches that attempting to get any kind of consistent tip speed and position would be ludicrous. Likewise, if the cue was a piece of cooked spaghetti with a tip on it, you get nothing.

For the range of cuesticks that someone could actually use, weight, taper and balance seem to be the three major parameters that can affect the marriage between the player and cue, insofar as the player's ability to swing the cue tip to get it to speed and to a position. I think anyone who has played this game for any decent amount of time has found that they tend to gravitate towards a certain weight and a certain balance.

Personally, I can't play with a cue with balance point longer than 19 inches from the butt end. I can't stroke the shaft as well if the taper opens up my fingers too soon. A delayed taper (more delayed than a Rambow pro-taper) doesn't slow down my stroke as much as a constant taper. That's one reason a cue like a Meucci cue will draw better in my hands: because given the same amount of effort, the more cylindrical shaft doesn't get slowed down as much.

There's also a theory that says that since our stroke is a pendulum, that the more rearward the balance point is, then the higher the potential energy associated with the stick when it's at its rear position (the Pause position for SPF players). That means that if you "let the cue do the work," then a cue stick with a rearward balance point will require less energy added by the player to get the cue tip to the desired speed. In other words, more effort to bring it the rear Pause position, but less effort to deliver the cue in the final stroke. Some people want this. Some people hate this.

So, in other words, it's really a question of effort, where the effort is required during the stroke, and the synergy between the cue and a player. Though every good player can play well with any decent cue with a decent tip, there are going to be cues that fit better with players. And one type will fit some player, while other types will fit other players.

Fred <~~~ thinks it's a simple answer, but with a lot of words just to explain what's going on

Click to expand...

Nice post. The successful marriage of cue and player is the crux of this question in my view, and highlights the fascinating importance of the mind, especially the subconscious, in successful performance.

pj
chgo

Siz said:

Well Patrick, I must say that I find your arguments very persuasive.

However there is still some niggling doubt in my mind which I cannot quite pin down at the moment. Perhaps something to do with how the tip is gripping / distorting / sliding ... probably nonsense, but I will have a think about it when I have a moment.

Click to expand...

I'll be interested in hearing what you come up with.

pj
chgo

Calling Dr Dave!

Patrick Johnson said:

I'll be interested in hearing what you come up with.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Patrick,

I have now got round to looking at this again. Having thought about it, I have concluded that my doubts definitely do center around what is actually happening at the moment of impact.

We know that a good player can do things with the c.b. that a ?banger? cannot. This is true both of the maximum amount of english that can be applied, and also of the amount of english that can be applied for a given c.b. speed.

The question is whether this is connected with keeping the tip in contact with the c.b, longer, as I have suggested; and if not, in terms of the underlying physics, then what is it that the good player doing differently from the banger?

Patrick, you have argued that the ratio of spin to forward speed depends only on how far from the central axis the ball is struck and that no other variables are involved (of course we are not interested here in the case where the tip slides on the surface of the ball ? ie a miscue).

If when striking the ball, the cue carried on in a straight line, did not flex and the tip did not compress, then I agree that the length of time that the tip is in contact with the ball would not be relevant and the spin/speed ratio would depend only on how far from the center the ball was struck.

However, we know that this idealized situation does not happen in practice. The cue is pushed off line, it flexes and the tip compresses. I suspect that these effects are key to explaining what most good players know from experience - which is that the 'quality' of the hit is extremely important.

We know that these departures from the simple, idealized, model must happen because of the forces at work during the short period of impact; and this is borne out by the high speed videos. I suggest that in this short interval, simple physical models, describing the strike in terms of an ?impulse?, break down. If this is the case, then such models are not useful for describing what actually happens during impact.

Unfortunately, simple physical models are all I have! When I try to start thinking quantitatively about the forces at work when the cue is flexing & being deflected, and the tip is compressing, I struggle. Clearly energy is absorbed by these distortions, and some of it will subsequently be released when the cue flexes back and when the tip recovers its original shape (although much of this will happen after the ball has left the tip, and so will not be relevant). But when it comes to putting numbers to the size and direction of the forces, and how they change over time, I don?t really know where to start.

So, I am left with this: Something is happening to make the good player hit better. And there are complex things going on during the impact period that may (or may not) be connected with the quality of the hit. The conjecture says that the physical basis of a good hit is all to do with maximizing the contact time; but I admit that this is an idea that I like because 'that's what it kind of feels like' - which is admittedly not very scientific!

So far, so unsatisfactory. But it seems to me that the theory should be quite easy to test. Take a good player and a banger and record them playing certain shots, using the same equipment, some involving spin and some just requiring the ball to be hit well. Analyze the recording of the impact period and see what is happening (before the analysis, disregard any shots that the good player feels he has not hit well).

Surely something well within the capabilities of the good Dr Dave?

So, I am left with this: Something is happening to make the good player hit better.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you've used a lot of words to say that you have nothing new to say.

pj
chgo

I also beleive that a contributing factor is the length of the ferrule and the material used.
Ron

Patrick Johnson said:

But we're not talking about jumping, John. And we're not talking about how much force can be transmitted to the CB. Like you, I believe that there are very real differences between cues in how well they jump and how much force they transmit*. But we're talking about how much spin they can produce, and that's apples and rutabagas.

Click to expand...

We are however talking about whether cues "perform" differently, or to put it another way, if cues will produce a different result if they strike the cue ball with the same velocity and in the same spot. I gave you an example of one in which a pair of jump cues, each having the same construction but different tapers, performed differently.

I find it very hard to believe that two radically different cues which both have exactly the same tip type, hardness, and shape, will affect the cue ball in exactly the same way. Experience tell me different.

Why don't you publish your testing methods here and I will video tape myself and a top player testing my plethora of differently constructed shafts using your methods?

I will label each shaft and describe it's construction method. Each shaft will have a Tiger Sniper tip on it shaped to a nickel roundness. Each tip will have the exact same amount of shots taken with it as on all the other shafts. Each shaft can vary in every aspect with the exception of the tip.

If you are right then the evidence should be clearly shown on video.

Then at least you would have some kind of video evidence that hopefully proves or disproves your contentions. As for myself I am just interested in knowing the facts of it. It would make my job a LOT easier if I could provide incontrovertible proof that any cue is as good as any other one if it has the right tip on it.

So, you publish the instructions and I will follow them to the letter. I have hundreds of cues at my disposal in addition to the aforementioned shafts to do this test with. I have ash snooker cues, carom cues, russian pyramid cues, pool cues, pool-carom hybrids, pool-snooker hybrids, fiberglass cues, fiberglass over wood cues, graphite-carbon fiber cues and more. Kao Kao's showroom has cues made with almost every conceivable way to build cues that has ever been tried. If you can name it I am sure that they already have built it and if not then they can build it.

Are you up to this challenge?

Too many words

Patrick Johnson said:

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you've used a lot of words to say that you have nothing new to say.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Yes I was aware that my post was running on a bit! Apologies for that.

Let me precis: I think that the claim that the spin speed ratio depends only on the distance of the hit from the center is wrong; that it is based on overly simplistic physics and (crucially) it does not tie in with experience.

Furthermore, it is simply not believable that the only thing that separates the skilled player from the banger is that the skilled player hits further out from the center.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but I would like to see the evidence.

JB Cases said:

We are however talking about whether cues "perform" differently, or to put it another way, if cues will produce a different result if they strike the cue ball with the same velocity and in the same spot. I gave you an example of one in which a pair of jump cues, each having the same construction but different tapers, performed differently.

I find it very hard to believe that two radically different cues which both have exactly the same tip type, hardness, and shape, will affect the cue ball in exactly the same way. Experience tell me different.

Why don't you publish your testing methods here and I will video tape myself and a top player testing my plethora of differently constructed shafts using your methods?

I will label each shaft and describe it's construction method. Each shaft will have a Tiger Sniper tip on it shaped to a nickel roundness. Each tip will have the exact same amount of shots taken with it as on all the other shafts. Each shaft can vary in every aspect with the exception of the tip.

If you are right then the evidence should be clearly shown on video.

Then at least you would have some kind of video evidence that hopefully proves or disproves your contentions. As for myself I am just interested in knowing the facts of it. It would make my job a LOT easier if I could provide incontrovertible proof that any cue is as good as any other one if it has the right tip on it.

So, you publish the instructions and I will follow them to the letter. I have hundreds of cues at my disposal in addition to the aforementioned shafts to do this test with. I have ash snooker cues, carom cues, russian pyramid cues, pool cues, pool-carom hybrids, pool-snooker hybrids, fiberglass cues, fiberglass over wood cues, graphite-carbon fiber cues and more. Kao Kao's showroom has cues made with almost every conceivable way to build cues that has ever been tried. If you can name it I am sure that they already have built it and if not then they can build it.

Are you up to this challenge?

Click to expand...

I don't consider it a "challenge" - we're both just trying to figure things out, right?

Here's the test I've described a number of times both here and on RSB:

My Spin Test Described

pj
chgo

anyone watch tennis on TV?

Anyone watch tennis on TV? Notice the very slow motion replays to check line calls. The dwell time of a tennis ball as it distorts is amazing. Wonder if the balls would come off the racquets and playing surface the same if they used a ball as hard as a pool ball?

We all seem to agree that the dwell time that a tip and cue ball are in contact is very short. I think that we will all agree that multiple forces can be transferred to the cue ball during that period of contact. Ignoring factors that are the same for everyone, it is how well these forces are transferred that controls the spin, including draw, that we can get on a cue ball. I have drawn the cue ball with a mop handle, it can be done. I have drawn the cue ball with pool and snooker cues and a wide variety of tips from very hard to very soft also.

Some are far easier to use than others because they transfer forces to the cue ball better. This might be because of a higher coefficient of friction or it might be because of increased dwell time. Once we grant that something happens during dwell time, I think it does matter. Taken to extremes, if one tip has 1/750 of a second dwell time and the other has 1/1500 of a second dwell time, if both tips strike the cue ball at the same mean contact point the one staying on the cue ball twice as long will have the same effect as the other one if it has only half the coefficient of friction.

I strongly believe that dismissing dwell time as unimportant is a major error simply because dwell time and coefficient of friction control the transfer of force. Even 10% more dwell time can be huge even if 10% only equals 1/10,000 of a second. If there is slippage between the tip and cue ball that 10% more dwell time translates to roughly 10% more energy transfer and roughly 10% more draw.

Increased dwell time can come from the stroke, tip, ferule, shaft, joint, and forearm in roughly that order, and chalk can increase the effective dwell time. Some shaft designs and construction might increase the coefficient of friction, some might increase the dwell time. The same is true of tips. That is why the seeming contradiction of tips and shafts seemingly the opposite of each other can both yield better results than a more typical stick. Which one works best for an individual depends a lot on their stroke and playing style.

Hu

Siz said:

Yes I was aware that my post was running on a bit! Apologies for that.

Let me precis: I think that the claim that the spin speed ratio depends only on the distance of the hit from the center is wrong; that it is based on overly simplistic physics

Click to expand...

Yet you offer no "more sophisticated" physics in support of your belief.

and (crucially) it does not tie in with experience.

Click to expand...

Whose experience? Verified how? I think "experience" is the least reliable measure - I call it "impression".

Furthermore, it is simply not believable that the only thing that separates the skilled player from the banger is that the skilled player hits further out from the center.

Click to expand...

That's not what separates the skilled player from the banger. That's what separates more spin from less.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but I would like to see the evidence.

Click to expand...

I posted a spin test two posts above this one (#72). It includes ways to verify that the same spot is hit and at the same speed - and if you video your tests as John Barton says he'll do, it can verify these things to the satisfaction of objective observers (like me). The test can show whether different sticks produce different amounts of spin and whether different strokes produce different amounts of spin.

Have a "skilled player" and a "banger" do it. If you want, have each player use different sticks too. I predict no meaningful differences in the amount of spin produced by any player using any stick.

pj
chgo

Pat's Spin Test:

I appreciate you putting this so clearly ("hitting the cue ball in the same spot") - it gives us something definite to chew on. I have a simple test to propose for you (it's how I test shafts for spin):

Place a striped ball (your "cue ball") on the spot with the stripe vertical and aligned straight across the table (pointed at the second diamond on the side rail).

Shoot the ball directly at the second diamond on the far side rail (so it will bounce straight back at the spot if you hit it without side spin). Put a piece of chalk on the rail turned so its corner is facing you to give you a definite, pinpoint target.

Hit the ball on its equator (not high or low) and right on the edge of the stripe (maximum sidespin) with just enough speed to bounce off the far side rail and barely reach the near side rail. Wipe the ball clean before each shot and check the chalkmark after each shot to see where you're actually hitting the ball. Be sure the tip is all well groomed and well chalked for each test shot.

Mark where the ball hits the near rail (put a coin or a piece of chalk there).

Only count shots that you hit just right. If any of the following things doesn't happen, don't count the shot:

- You don't hit the second diamond on the far side rail exactly.
- The ball stops more than an inch or two short or long of the near side rail.
- You don't hit the "cue ball" exactly on the edge of the stripe at the equator.

Even being really careful you can't replicate these things exactly every time, so hit enough "good" shots so that you can use the average result - say ten "good" shots with each shaft you're testing. To be reliable your results for any one shaft should be very closely grouped.

Test different shafts this way and compare the results (where the ball ends up).

If you want to try more forceful shots, then aim to stop the ball after it rebounds from the near side rail, say at the middle "long string" or at the far side rail again. Again, reject any shot that doesn't stop within an inch or two of the target distance.

I hope you'll try this and let us know your results. I've done it enough times with enough different shafts to know what I expect (I bet you know what I expect too).

pj
chgo

Ok. I will set this up and videotape it sometime in the next month. I have deveoped a training ball that I believe will be perfect for this test as it has a circle on it to indicate the farthest out that the cueball can be struck without a miscue and it has half-tip 1mm circles to indicate contact patch size and position. So we should be able to show that the ball can be struck in nearly the same position each time. I am not so sure about how to indicate velocity but maybe I can locate a speed gun - this should be fun.

For what it's worth Pat you shouldn't assume that I haven't done something similar already. In fact I have and have a chart of my conclusions. They are however subjective but were recorded under controlled conditions. Here is one of them where I had four butts made with different joints and nine shafts of differing construction characteristics made. All of the cues were tested with the ball placement being the same. I have omitted the brand and the date of the testing (last year) as we may carry this brand in the future and this data is being used to refine the cues.

JB Cases said:

Pat's Spin Test:

I appreciate you putting this so clearly ("hitting the cue ball in the same spot") - it gives us something definite to chew on. I have a simple test to propose for you (it's how I test shafts for spin):

Place a striped ball (your "cue ball") on the spot with the stripe vertical and aligned straight across the table (pointed at the second diamond on the side rail).

Shoot the ball directly at the second diamond on the far side rail (so it will bounce straight back at the spot if you hit it without side spin). Put a piece of chalk on the rail turned so its corner is facing you to give you a definite, pinpoint target.

Hit the ball on its equator (not high or low) and right on the edge of the stripe (maximum sidespin) with just enough speed to bounce off the far side rail and barely reach the near side rail. Wipe the ball clean before each shot and check the chalkmark after each shot to see where you're actually hitting the ball. Be sure the tip is all well groomed and well chalked for each test shot.

Mark where the ball hits the near rail (put a coin or a piece of chalk there).

Only count shots that you hit just right. If any of the following things doesn't happen, don't count the shot:

- You don't hit the second diamond on the far side rail exactly.
- The ball stops more than an inch or two short or long of the near side rail.
- You don't hit the "cue ball" exactly on the edge of the stripe at the equator.

Even being really careful you can't replicate these things exactly every time, so hit enough "good" shots so that you can use the average result - say ten "good" shots with each shaft you're testing. To be reliable your results for any one shaft should be very closely grouped.

Test different shafts this way and compare the results (where the ball ends up).

If you want to try more forceful shots, then aim to stop the ball after it rebounds from the near side rail, say at the middle "long string" or at the far side rail again. Again, reject any shot that doesn't stop within an inch or two of the target distance.

I hope you'll try this and let us know your results. I've done it enough times with enough different shafts to know what I expect (I bet you know what I expect too).

pj
chgo

Ok. I will set this up and videotape it sometime in the next month. I have deveoped a training ball that I believe will be perfect for this test as it has a circle on it to indicate the farthest out that the cueball can be struck without a miscue and it has half-tip 1mm circles to indicate contact patch size and position. So we should be able to show that the ball can be struck in nearly the same position each time. I am not so sure about how to indicate velocity but maybe I can locate a speed gun - this should be fun.

Click to expand...

The velocity check is built into my test instructions: try to hit each shot so that it just reaches the second rail, and reject any shot that's more than an inch off that distance.

The key to objectivity in my test is that you only count test shots that satisfy the three test controls:

1) have chalk marks in exactly the right place
2) hit the exact spot on the first rail
3) just reach the second rail

(For #2 you might put a couple of blocking balls on either side of the target spot on the first rail.)

One potential flaw in my test setup is that I include no way to verify that the "CB" is hit on the equator (not high or low, which could change the results). If you think of something to confirm this, please include it.

pj
chgo

The one thing I have noticed, is that I have a different stroke timing when I use a stiffer shaft, than when I use a whippier shaft. I accelerate my stroke much more quickly with a stiffer cue and my wrist breaks earlier (as contact is made) on a draw shot. With a whippy cue my stroke is less hurried and my wrist breaks marginally later (after contact is made) on a draw shot.

It takes a couple of hours for me to adjust my timing when going from cue to cue, and I think that this is why a pro can pick up any cue and play well, they adjust their timing to the cue much more quickly than the average person.

I also think that this is why players play better when they play with the same cue all the time for long periods, the longer you play with a cue the more dialed in your timing gets and the more accurate you become and your speed control goes way up.

Just my thoughts.

Bern

ShootingArts said:

Anyone watch tennis on TV? Notice the very slow motion replays to check line calls. The dwell time of a tennis ball as it distorts is amazing. Wonder if the balls would come off the racquets and playing surface the same if they used a ball as hard as a pool ball?

We all seem to agree that the dwell time that a tip and cue ball are in contact is very short. I think that we will all agree that multiple forces can be transferred to the cue ball during that period of contact. Ignoring factors that are the same for everyone, it is how well these forces are transferred that controls the spin, including draw, that we can get on a cue ball. I have drawn the cue ball with a mop handle, it can be done. I have drawn the cue ball with pool and snooker cues and a wide variety of tips from very hard to very soft also.

Some are far easier to use than others because they transfer forces to the cue ball better. This might be because of a higher coefficient of friction or it might be because of increased dwell time. Once we grant that something happens during dwell time, I think it does matter. Taken to extremes, if one tip has 1/750 of a second dwell time and the other has 1/1500 of a second dwell time, if both tips strike the cue ball at the same mean contact point the one staying on the cue ball twice as long will have the same effect as the other one if it has only half the coefficient of friction.

I strongly believe that dismissing dwell time as unimportant is a major error simply because dwell time and coefficient of friction control the transfer of force. Even 10% more dwell time can be huge even if 10% only equals 1/10,000 of a second. If there is slippage between the tip and cue ball that 10% more dwell time translates to roughly 10% more energy transfer and roughly 10% more draw.

Increased dwell time can come from the stroke, tip, ferule, shaft, joint, and forearm in roughly that order, and chalk can increase the effective dwell time. Some shaft designs and construction might increase the coefficient of friction, some might increase the dwell time. The same is true of tips. That is why the seeming contradiction of tips and shafts seemingly the opposite of each other can both yield better results than a more typical stick. Which one works best for an individual depends a lot on their stroke and playing style.

Hu

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody has disagreed with the idea that the stick/tip can increase the transmission of power generated by your stroke. But your contention is that the stroke itself (the movement of your arm) can continue to apply force through the stick to the CB during contact. This ignores the weak link in the chain of force transmission: the connection between your grip hand and the stick.

The soft skin of your hand deforms when the stick hits the CB, allowing the stick to slow down dramatically (to about 50% of its impact speed). By the time the stick regains much of its impact speed (it never fully regains it), the CB is gone. This soft connection between hand and stick is the same as if the stick is swung like a pendulum on a string (you might as well let go of the stick just before impact), and it means that there's no such thing as "accelerating through the CB" and that your stroke can have no additional effect during contact. All the effect is from the momentum of the stick itself at the speed attained just prior to impact.

pj
chgo

same ol' PJ

PJ,

My post stands as written. I won't waste my time with your theories that things work differently within the pool world than anywhere else or you seeking argument disputing things I never said. Some of your post is wildest BS, some things you seek to enlighten me about I have known far longer than I have been on AZB.

I suggest those interested read my original post and judge the merit for themselves. It is based on sound engineering and physics, the same that exist in the rest of the known universe.


Hu

It's science vs. 'knowledge'

The scientist likes to think that his ideas are the correct ones, and that quantatative analysis with the variables that he identifies surely are the correct ones. The fact is...we all are limited in our thoughts and we don't know ....what we don't know. There are variables here that just aren't being identified and put into the equation.

Sometimes you just have to accept what 'IS' and not have it proven. Different cues play differently for different people. Why does someone have to prove anything?

For all the brainiacks (no offense intended...meant in an amusing way) out there....here is one to chew on.....how does a mother on this side of the planet "know" the exact moment that a son or daughter on the other side of the planet dies in a war or some other way? It's real, it does happen....just because the physics can't be proven doesn't change it. Sometimes it is 'smarter' to believe what you know...w/out having to prove it!!!!!!!!!!!

td