Drill to stop elbow drop

[ENGLISH!]

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps this is way off base, but simple physics should dictate that the contact time between the ball and the tip is very short and unaffected by stroke or follow through. The various experiments confirm this hypothetical understanding. Further proof of Newton's laws is not needed, IMO.

Put differently, we know the cue speed and the cue ball speed. Taking the physical characteristics into consideration, it should not be possible to affect cue ball/tip contact time through stroke dynamics.

Many great minds have been wrong over the centuries [e.g., geocentric model comes to mind]. Cuelemans may be a great player, but I don't believe he has a physics degree.

My $0.02.

-td

What's your opinion on the cue hitting the ball at the same speed etc. but with a firm locked wrist vs a very loose wrist & a death grip on the cue vs a very loose connection to the cue? By that I mean has the arm continues to swing through while the tip is in contact with the ball.

Mr. Muecci had an initial problem with his robot because the connection to the cue was way too firm & nothing like a human hand.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Dear Neil,
1. It's not possible to know about the length of another guy's homework just by guessing.
2. As before, I can't even comment on what you are saying about Ceulemans cause your comments are beyond the human boundaries of dealing with...
3. You are still not presenting any specific link, please allow me to bring something from the "common ground" sources:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#contact
As you see, variations on tip-CB contact time are INDEED mentioned, with the conclusion that they do not play a SIGNIFICANT role, and stating that follow through length does not alter anything.
4. Besides the semi-God Ceulemans, the concept of follow through length affecting CB behaviour is stated by most of the champions, which do use an elbow drop when they need to. The practical application is of no doubt, the science behind it is questioned as analyzed in the relative articles.
5. Most of the instructors have covered the subject, still a specific experiment on this one is missing, a robot stroking the CB with the same speed and different follow through length.
Petros

 

[Mikjary]

And, to Mike, since when is science "outdated" because it's 15 yrs old? Go ahead and redo the tests, it will only cost about $100K to do so. It was $62K then, if I remember right.

I guess you won't be interested in any new findings. Old school or what? :grin:

Technology has come a long way since then, Neil. I'm not talking about owning a camera. One could possibly be rented for a few thousand a day.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

-----------------------

 

[dr_dave]

3. You are still not presenting any specific link, please allow me to bring something from the "common ground" sources:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#contact
As you see, variations on tip-CB contact time are INDEED mentioned, with the conclusion that they do not play a SIGNIFICANT role, and stating that follow through length does not alter anything.

Follow through has no direct effect on a shot (because the CB is already gone during the follow through), but it is a huge indicator of the "quality" of a stroke. For more info, see the follow through resource page.

5. Most of the instructors have covered the subject, still a specific experiment on this one is missing, a robot stroking the CB with the same speed and different follow through length.

If the robot strokes the exact same way into the ball each time and only changes the character of the follow through (after the CB is already gone), I can guarantee that the differences in follow through will have absolutely no effect. Now, when a human (not a robot) strokes the cue with different amounts of follow through, he or she is usually getting different speeds, accelerations, and/or tip positions at CB contact with changes in follow through, even if they don't think they are.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Thank you Dave, your treasure sources are always beautiful to study and I believe everyone interested has studied them.
The interesting point is exactly at your last statement. There is no experiment like the one described, so we are assuming about the result. Allow me to kindly have my doubts until the experiment is actually performed.
Your last sentence is also very important because it verifies the practical application of the follow through length variations, regardless of the scientific explanation behind it...
Thanks,
Petros

 

[Neil]

Thank you Dave, your treasure sources are always beautiful to study and I believe everyone interested has studied them.
The interesting point is exactly at your last statement. There is no experiment like the one described, so we are assuming about the result. Allow me to kindly have my doubts until the experiment is actually performed.
Your last sentence is also very important because it verifies the practical application of the follow through length variations, regardless of the scientific explanation behind it...
Thanks,
Petros

You are confusing "verifying" with "it can be an indicator". Huge difference there.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hi Dave,

Where would you classify the actual contact time?

Would it be fair to put it in with the follow through as it is on the other side of the initial contact?

Or are you taking it completely out of the follow through.

I think it is rather important to define just where the actual contact time is logged. On the hit side or the follow through side?

Some golfers hit at the ball while some swing through the ball.

Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Good point Neil, still this leads to discussion about the relative articles and their purpose which can be best described by the authors.
To me and I believe to most elbow drop does make a difference regardless of the science behind it, I believe you and others have described very well what might actually happen during stroke.
Thanks,
Petros

 

[dr_dave]

Hi Dave,

Where would you classify the actual contact time?

Would it be fair to put it in with the follow throught as it is on the other side of the initial contact?

Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

A shot has three phases: the stroke into the ball (which is where all of the important stuff happens), an incredibly brief tip contact time (where anything the player does has no meaningful effect), and the follow through (which occurs after the CB has already left the tip). The follow through has no direct effect on a shot (because the CB is already gone), but it is often (but not always) a very good indicator of what is going on during the stroke into the ball. For more info, see:

cue tip contact time
follow through
effects of light vs. tight grip
stroke type and quality

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Still the matter of the specific experiment that has never been performed remains...
Anyway, thanks everyone again for all input!
Petros

 

[dr_dave]

To me and I believe to most elbow drop does make a differences

.. of course elbow drop "makes a difference," even if it occurs after the CB is already gone, because whether or not a player intends to drop the elbow during the follow through usually affects how they stroke into the ball. For more info, including complete lists of advantages and disadvantages of dropping the elbow during a stroke, see the elbow drop resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Good point Neil, still this leads to discussion about the relative articles and their purpose which can be best described by the authors.
To me and I believe to most elbow drop does make a difference regardless of the science behind it, I believe you and others have described very well what might actually happen during stroke.
Thanks,
Petros

Here's why I THINK most believe it makes a difference. In reality, the cb is long gone before we even feel that we hit the cb. (about 4 thous. of a sec. vs. max contact time of 2 thous. of a sec. Knowing that, we know that one cannot change a stroke in mid-contact because of how it feels to them. It's just impossible. (not to mention that humans are not that fast to start with).

This means that what we "feel" is after the fact. When using a pendulum stroke, we tend to confine to just the bicep as the main muscle controlling the shot. With a dropped elbow, we tend to use many groups of muscles. It's very possible that using more muscles in the shot enables us to "feel" the shot better. And, thereby, maybe to have better initial control (without training) of altering speeds for the next shot if needed. Most things we use our arms for, we use many muscles. Thereby are used to better feedback from them. With mainly just using our biceps with the pendulum stroke, it takes training to get that same "feel" with fewer muscles in action. Just some "food for thought".

 

[ENGLISH!]

A shot has three phases: the stroke into the ball (which is where all of the important stuff happens), an incredibly brief tip contact time (where anything the player does has no meaningful effect), and the follow through (which occurs after the CB has already left the tip). The follow through has no direct effect on a shot (because the CB is already gone), but it is often (but not always) a very good indicator of what is going on during the stroke into the ball. For more info, see:

cue tip contact time
follow through
effects of light vs. tight grip
stroke type and quality

Enjoy,
Dave

Thanks Dave,

By the statement above in blue, are you saying that if the tip hits the exact same spot on the ball but takes a different path during contact that the results will be exactly the same?

Best,
Rick

PS Apparently I was editing my earlier post has you were answering. Would be so kind as to re-read it.

 

[mantis99]

Here's why I THINK most believe it makes a difference. In reality, the cb is long gone before we even feel that we hit the cb. (about 4 thous. of a sec. vs. max contact time of 2 thous. of a sec. Knowing that, we know that one cannot change a stroke in mid-contact because of how it feels to them. It's just impossible. (not to mention that humans are not that fast to start with).

This means that what we "feel" is after the fact. When using a pendulum stroke, we tend to confine to just the bicep as the main muscle controlling the shot. With a dropped elbow, we tend to use many groups of muscles. It's very possible that using more muscles in the shot enables us to "feel" the shot better. And, thereby, maybe to have better initial control (without training) of altering speeds for the next shot if needed. Most things we use our arms for, we use many muscles. Thereby are used to better feedback from them. With mainly just using our biceps with the pendulum stroke, it takes training to get that same "feel" with fewer muscles in action. Just some "food for thought".

I completely agree with this post. For me, no elbow drop means I transitioned correctly from my backstroke to the forward motion, and that I accelerated smoothly from there. When the forward portion of my stroke begins too violently, I have recruited my shoulder muscles and my gripping muscles resulting in my cue coming into my body too much, my elbow dropping, and my stroke being very poor. It happens when I try to ramp my stroke up, and is a hard habit to break. I started this thread qiute a while ago, yet I still struggle with this. Someday I may actually have the time and ability to overcome this. My game would certainly benefit from it.

 

[CJ Wiley]

there's a lot of "De Programming" that needs to be done

The cueing experiments done 15 years ago were a tremendous boon to our knowledge of the game. I thank Mr. Bob Jewett and others for their research. I also want to thank them for unselfishly sharing that information with us.

That being said, I think it's time to upgrade! Let's not sit on our hands and stop asking questions. I'd like to see many more types of strokes and cueing attempts demonstrated to answer some of the current nagging debates.

The science is dated and limited. We need more research and input for interpretation. I'd be willing to chip in for another go. I'm sure many other members could get a few bucks together to have another round with the high speed camera.

There's always something more to learn about the game.

Best,
Mike

That sure is true....pool's still in the dark ages in many respects.

The follow through is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the game and probably contributes to more frustration than ..... well, I don't need emphasis, let's just say there's a lot of "DeProgramming" that must be done first 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[naji]

I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. For me it isn't really a question of whether or not to drop, because I know my shots suffer if my elbow drops. Grip strength and shoulder movement certainly have an adverse affect on it, and of course it occurs more when I ramp my stroke up. I would like to find some ways to work on this with all levels of stroke from soft to hard so it can become more automatic with all shots. The challenge is being able to tell if it dropped, and having some sort of specific feedback or technique that helps you work on keeping it still through contact.

IMO elbow drop is not the direct culprit, you need to slow your backward stroke, follow through, use TOI on most shots, watch your elevation and magic will happen.

If you play snooker style you will have hard time dropping your elbow, your hand will hit your chest.

Good luck

 

[mantis99]

If you read my last post on this page, you will see that I said I believe the elbow drop is a result of accelerating too violently from backstroke to forward movement, using my shoulder muscles instead of just the elbow flexors, and overgripping the cue. In essence, I agree with what you are saying. It is just difficult to get yourself to avoid using those other muscle groups when a more powerful stroke is needed.

 

[naji]

Still the matter of the specific experiment that has never been performed remains...
Anyway, thanks everyone again for all input!
Petros

Hi Petros,
I was a firm believer that long follow through is essential to spin the CB, but that is gone when i watched Mike Massey YouTube attached below. At 1:36 pause it, and with right arrow one click at a time, you will see that Mike draws the CB almost two table lengths with less than about 6" follow through, and no elbow drop.
I know Dr. Dave references Mike's draw shot but if i recall only from elbow drop perspective, not follow through. (Mike like many of us believes(d) follow through is essential and, at 1:46 he says follow through and elbow drop is what made that shot happens, and shows where his tip ends at, but, based on the actual shot- @ 1:36) he seem to be wrong, or maybe regular size people have to follow through a lot to get what mike does in 6" follow through!!!!

I consider Mike's clip the best experiment performed to prove that follow through is not essential like Dr, Dave and many said. To my knowledge, Mike uses his muscle mass to gain cue speed; However, it is essential, (long follow through that is) to gain CB speed, if you use your cue weight alone for acceleration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI1Q-8nfiBk

Would this change your mind like it did mine!!

 

[Petros Andrikop]

I have seen this, still the ultimate proof would be two robot shots.
Thanks,
Petros