Drill to stop elbow drop

[Mikjary]

My two cents...the follow through is just the result of a well timed stroke. Whether it's short or lengthy, it's a reflection of the stroke.

The timing of the actual cue ball contact in the stroke is what separates the winners and losers. Mike's stroke is a clear example of what the stroke does with the "angle of attack", and the desired results. His lightning fast hands deliver the cue to the contact point with a quick levering motion as his tip drives into the cue ball.

In this split second motion of his hands, wrist, and forearm, he swipes down on the cue ball with perfect timing to impart maximum backspin. A 1/1000th hit sooner or later would significantly throw his timing off and be cause for a retake on the shot.

Many players can achieve the speed of the stroke that Mike displays, but not the quick "lever" action and timing. His stroke does more than just go through the cue ball like a robot. That's why I believe two players, with the same speed and cue ball contact points, will not get the same stroke on the ball.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

My two cents...the follow through is just the result of a well timed stroke. Whether it's short or lengthy, it's a reflection of the stroke.

The timing of the actual cue ball contact in the stroke is what separates the winners and losers. Mike's stroke is a clear example of what the stroke does with the "angle of attack", and the desired results. His lightning fast hands deliver the cue to the contact point with a quick levering motion as his tip drives into the cue ball.

In this split second motion of his hands, wrist, and forearm, he swipes down on the cue ball with perfect timing to impart maximum backspin. A 1/1000th hit sooner or later would significantly throw his timing off and be cause for a retake on the shot.

Many players can achieve the speed of the stroke that Mike displays, but not the quick "lever" action and timing. His stroke does more than just go through the cue ball like a robot. That's why I believe two players, with the same speed and cue ball contact points, will not get the same stroke on the ball.

Best,
Mike

View attachment 292066

Hi Mike,

You better be careful.

What you speak of may be heresy.:wink:

Best,
Rick

 

[Neil]

I have always understood what was in my post.

You nor no one here has taught me anything in that regard.

So it is NOT finally as you state with an explanation point. You are wrong again & make another statement of distortion.

The point has always been about what happens before contact that can effect the contact & during contact that can effect the outcome.

Again you attempt to belittle me even though I was an A student for all of my six(6) physics classes.

You are you... & I will just leave it at that.

Rick, just got home and read your crap. I give you a compliment, and you twist it into an insult. Then, in another post, you again distort and lie and accuse. Thought there might be some hope for you, but you proved me wrong. Time to put you on ignore like so many others have. Good riddance.

 

[Mikjary]

Hi Mike,

You better be careful.

What you speak of may be heresy.:wink:

Best,
Rick

Hey Rick,

It's what I see. I've seen a it a million times before and didn't need slow motion to verify it. I've talked with many great players about it and it's what they've said they do.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hey Rick,

It's what I see. I've seen a it a million times before and didn't need slow motion to verify it. I've talked with many great players about it and it's what they've said they do.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

Phil Mikelson hit a shot today that made Tiger & Adam Scott just seemed to drop their jaw.

When asked about it after the round, he basically said, 'I could explain it but no one would understand'.

When Tiger was asked about is, he just basically said, 'well that's just what he does'.

Best,
Rick

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Ok, here are the relative quotes from the 3C book of Raymond Ceulemans "mister 100".
In that book he has photos of 3 different lengths of follow through and a diagram of 4 different angles of "attacking" the CB. He refers to 5 different types of strokes, "follow through", "short", "rapid", "slow" and "dead ball (short)".
Among other advice it is written:

" The stroke is difficult subject to deal with because most players develop a faulty stroke from their earliest beginnings. The commonest and best know technique in 3-cushion play is the follow through stroke. By this I mean the long drive or follow action needed to give the cue ball an opportunity of hitting more cushions without forcing.
With a long stroke the tip end of the cue remains longer in contact with the cue ball. As a result the cue ball is given maximum rotation together with the necessary impetus.
You therefore drive the cue into the cueball.
This technique must normally be applied energetically - i.e. not long and slow or limp - and with this we find some important variations. For example we get a long drive which may be quick or slow. How can this be achieved?

These gradations in the stroke are obtained when setting it up. You move the cue backwards and forwards a few times before hitting the ball. By practice strokes of this kind you allow the cue a certain run-up before striking the cue ball.
There are players who will suddenly interrupt this movement before striking the cue ball or carry out the whole movement. This is a characteristic of a faulty stroke.

In order to achieve a long but slow stroke your rhythm on starting up must be more delayed or slower.
With a rapid or with a short stroke your starting-up rhythm will have to be either faster or shorter.
You therefore adapt your cadence to the nature of the stroke.
The difference between a fast and short stroke is that a short stroke is carried out more abruptly.
With a fast stroke the tip follows the cue ball through.
Short and fast can be combined."

Here I would like to emphasize once again that in this case we are not talking about a champion who has just "some idea" about the details of stroke techniques and their relation to CB behaviour but a champion who knows exactly what he is doing, regardless of the scientific explanation behind it which is a matter of discussion.
The pause as a characteristic of a faulty stroke is mentioned because in 3C exact speed is very important among other exact characteristics of the stroke, including length of follow through..

It is very interesting that the great Robert Byrne in his books has a different approach, since we know that most of his material related to 3C in his work is based among other things to his detailed discussions with Raymond Ceulemans himself.

I believe this is great "food for thought" and discussion..
Thanks everyone for you time.
Petros

 

[ENGLISH!]

Petros,

Sir,

Thank you for posting that.

Some rather interesting comments especially given the source.

I doubt that any real discussion will be possible here.

That is truly a shame.

Best Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[CJ Wiley]

the chances of this happening in the future are somewhere between "slim" and "none".

Excellent advice! For example, even though I know logically that follow through can have no direct physical effect on a shot, I still like to think "accelerate through the ball" when I shoot draw shots. And it works. What one thinks certainly makes a difference and affects the stroke into the ball. The Game is the Teacher ... and the Mind is Powerful.

Agreed. Also, a robot can be programmed to do things with a stroke that a human can't possibly do, so robot tests don't always result in meaningful or useful results.

"Never" is a strong word. Eventually, with enough research, development, and funding, I think it will be possible to design, build, and program a robotic playing system to rival top human players not only with shot execution, but also with vision, planning, judgment, and strategy. But the robotics and artificial intelligence researchers still have a long way to go. They would also need some reason (like a lot of money) to focus all of their energies on pool.

Regards,
Dave

In my world there's a seperation between what is "logical" and what really works in a real game, under real "pressure filled" situations.

If someone thinks the follow through doesn't matter, it doesn't, and they have given up their "hand" so to speak.

Hal Mix was the one that made a point to show me one particular shot and emphasize what could be done with an extended follow through.....and in doing so showed me why it's best NOT to extend the follow through unless you absolutely have to OR you're throwing your opponent off.....I have to admit many of us have done that while giving up weight.

The best rule of thumb is to keep your back-swing and follow-through the same distance.....if anything keep the follow through less if possible, and for most players it's VERY difficult and generally long follow throughs lead to poor playing.

'The Game is the Teacher'

PS: I know the word "never" makes some people unconformable, however one thing's for sure there's never been a robot that could beat a human so far.....and the chances of this happening in the future are somewhere between "slim" and "none".

I have a feeling the world, thus the game, will be long gone before that time could possibly come....and like Dennis Miller says "I could be wrong".

 

[MahnaMahna]

In my world there's a seperation between what is "logical" and what really works in a real game, under real "pressure filled" situations.

If someone thinks the follow through doesn't matter, it doesn't, and they have given up their "hand" so to speak.

Hal Mix was the one that made a point to show me one particular shot and emphasize what could be done with an extended follow through.....and in doing so showed me why it's best NOT to extend the follow through unless you absolutely have to OR you're throwing your opponent off.....I have to admit many of us have done that while giving up weight.

The best rule of thumb is to keep your back-swing and follow-through the same distance.....if anything keep the follow through less if possible, and for most players it's VERY difficult and generally long follow throughs lead to poor playing.

'The Game is the Teacher'

PS: I know the word "never" makes some people unconformable, however one thing's for sure there's never been a robot that could beat a human so far.....and the chances of this happening in the future are somewhere between "slim" and "none".

I have a feeling the world, thus the game, will be long gone before that time could possibly come....and like Dennis Miller says "I could be wrong".

Another brilliant picture selection, really drives home whatever your point was.

Facepalm

 

[CJ Wiley]

when I think about the word "never" I think of GWB

Another brilliant picture selection, really drives home whatever your point was.

Facepalm

Thanks, when I think about the word "never" I think of GWB for some reason.

 

[naji]

Ok, here are the relative quotes from the 3C book of Raymond Ceulemans "mister 100".
In that book he has photos of 3 different lengths of follow through and a diagram of 4 different angles of "attacking" the CB. He refers to 5 different types of strokes, "follow through", "short", "rapid", "slow" and "dead ball (short)".
Among other advice it is written:

" The stroke is difficult subject to deal with because most players develop a faulty stroke from their earliest beginnings. The commonest and best know technique in 3-cushion play is the follow through stroke. By this I mean the long drive or follow action needed to give the cue ball an opportunity of hitting more cushions without forcing.
With a long stroke the tip end of the cue remains longer in contact with the cue ball. As a result the cue ball is given maximum rotation together with the necessary impetus.
You therefore drive the cue into the cueball.
This technique must normally be applied energetically - i.e. not long and slow or limp - and with this we find some important variations. For example we get a long drive which may be quick or slow. How can this be achieved?

These gradations in the stroke are obtained when setting it up. You move the cue backwards and forwards a few times before hitting the ball. By practice strokes of this kind you allow the cue a certain run-up before striking the cue ball.
There are players who will suddenly interrupt this movement before striking the cue ball or carry out the whole movement. This is a characteristic of a faulty stroke.

In order to achieve a long but slow stroke your rhythm on starting up must be more delayed or slower.
With a rapid or with a short stroke your starting-up rhythm will have to be either faster or shorter.
You therefore adapt your cadence to the nature of the stroke.
The difference between a fast and short stroke is that a short stroke is carried out more abruptly.
With a fast stroke the tip follows the cue ball through.
Short and fast can be combined."

Here I would like to emphasize once again that in this case we are not talking about a champion who has just "some idea" about the details of stroke techniques and their relation to CB behaviour but a champion who knows exactly what he is doing, regardless of the scientific explanation behind it which is a matter of discussion.
The pause as a characteristic of a faulty stroke is mentioned because in 3C exact speed is very important among other exact characteristics of the stroke, including length of follow through..

It is very interesting that the great Robert Byrne in his books has a different approach, since we know that most of his material related to 3C in his work is based among other things to his detailed discussions with Raymond Ceulemans himself.

I believe this is great "food for thought" and discussion..
Thanks everyone for you time.
Petros

Thanks Petros for the long write up. I quote from Wikipedia,
"Ridder Raymond Ceulemans (born 12 July 1937 in Lier, Belgium) is a three-cushion billiards player and possibly the most dominant single figure in any one sport, having won 35 World Championship titles (23 in three-cushion + 12 in other carom disciplines), 48 European titles (23 in three-cushion) and 61 national titles"
Truthfully i did not hear of him before; no doubt he is a great player; but that does not make him a great physicist; Dr. Dave on the other hand, is Physicist, and knows all about the theory of object collisions; who do i trust more on analyzing the physics of pool? i also hear Mike Massey explain his power draw shot in a completely different way than the way he played it yet both ways the CB gets drawn twice table length .

Back to follow through, in pool you have rotational speed, and directional speed; we all know depending where the tip hits CB. Part of the energy goes to propel the CB forward and other part is to rotate the CB, either forward, backward, sides, or mixed rotation;
So say center ball hit, you will get max directional speed, CB will go up and down the table three or 4 times, with the same speed but tip at extreme bottom draw CB (kill shot) will go up and down maybe 2-3 times. With a lightly grip cue, you must do long follow through to allow you to have maximum cue forward speed so when tip hits CB at lowest point it gains maximum rotational speed; If you end up not following through, your brain would have send a signal to stop but by the time it gets to the muscles the CB would have already gone but your acceleration would have died and speed suffers; therefore, your rotational speed suffers too and not draw CB as much, or kill as much.
This is why follow through is critical. In Billiard, with a lot of english required, therefore rotational speed is dominant; hence follow through is required.

Rick, i apologize, you are right, weather and cloth type does make a difference on how much follow through required.

If you have a tight grip on the cue, then muscles weight/momentum kicks in and it will propel the CB directional as well as rotational speed with less follow through.
Hope that is better explanation.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

On the question regarding who do we trust more, it's not mainly about who but what.
That "what" is scientific experiment, like the one that I described which has never been performed specifically for this point.

Dave also agrees that this experiment has not been performed, but he assumes about possible results. He is possibly right, but until the experiment is actually performed there is no definite proof.

In cases like the one of Mr. Ceulemans we are not talking about "false perception" which is "covered" by feeling/talent.

The game of 3C needs exact accuracy in all elements of stroke, and different follow throughs are used for different kind of shots, so there is no doubt about the practical aspect of using techniques which were derived after detailed studies.

The explanation behind the techniques used is the matter of discussion and Dave very well described how the results may be obtained by the players using them.

I also had a look today at my copy of Steve Mizerak's "Complete book of pool" and at the relative photos about stroke he clearly drops elbow, I believe it will be hard to argue on the fundamentals of another great champion of that caliber.
Thanks,
Petros

 

[sfleinen]

Rick, just got home and read your crap. I give you a compliment, and you twist it into an insult. Then, in another post, you again distort and lie and accuse. Thought there might be some hope for you, but you proved me wrong. Time to put you on ignore like so many others have. Good riddance.

And this is your best bet, Neil. You should've done this a while ago -- but I understand your commitment to not let anyone get away with poisoning new readers/lurkers with incorrect information that actually will set them back in their learning/progress.

Interesting this guy was supposedly an "A" student in supposedly six physics classes, with his fixation on dispelling the pendulum stroke.

Ah well, OCD -- what can ya do? Just ignore it.

-Sean

 

[ENGLISH!]

Mr. Naji,

In is my humble opinion I would suggest that if you want to learn the science then I would suggest that you listen to the scientists & if you want to play like a champion then I would suggest that you 'look & listen' to the Champions.

naturally the above is just my humble opinion.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[JoeyA]

My two cents...the follow through is just the result of a well timed stroke. Whether it's short or lengthy, it's a reflection of the stroke.

The timing of the actual cue ball contact in the stroke is what separates the winners and losers. Mike's stroke is a clear example of what the stroke does with the "angle of attack", and the desired results. His lightning fast hands deliver the cue to the contact point with a quick levering motion as his tip drives into the cue ball.

In this split second motion of his hands, wrist, and forearm, he swipes down on the cue ball with perfect timing to impart maximum backspin. A 1/1000th hit sooner or later would significantly throw his timing off and be cause for a retake on the shot.

Many players can achieve the speed of the stroke that Mike displays, but not the quick "lever" action and timing. His stroke does more than just go through the cue ball like a robot. That's why I believe two players, with the same speed and cue ball contact points, will not get the same stroke on the ball.

Best,
Mike

View attachment 292066

I think you're correct about most of these things if not all. However, I don't believe that you have said anything contrary to the "science" of pool.

Timing? Absolutely

Angle of Attack? The direction of the cue tip as it hits and enters the space occupied by the cue ball ............Sure.

Quick Lever? Why, I think that's simply speed. Of course. (However, I would greatly appreciate you explaining further what your definition of quick levering is, if different from mine). Maybe we should remove "quick" from the lever and describe the motion you refer to as "lever". Lever, might turn into "angle of attack".

Personally, I don't believe players have the same speed and timing or that their cue tip's angle of hit are the same and that's why we see different results.

I think some of the differences in results happen because of fast-twitch muscles or just faster hand/arm/wrist speed but the results are affected by all of those things...speed, angle of contact, point of contact.

Sometimes players "look" slower than others and others "look" like they have faster hand speed. Scotty Townsend seems to have fast hand speed as does Mike Massey.


JoeyA

 

[BeiberLvr]

Mr. Naji,

In is my humble opinion I would suggest that if you want to learn the science then I would suggest that you listen to the scientists & if you want to play like a champion then I would suggest that you 'look & listen' to the Champions.

naturally the above is just my humble opinion.

Best Wishes,
Rick

So when can we expect you to post a video of you playing like a champion?

 

[Neil]

On the question regarding who do we trust more, it's not mainly about who but what.
That "what" is scientific experiment, like the one that I described which has never been performed specifically for this point.

Dave also agrees that this experiment has not been performed, but he assumes about possible results. He is possibly right, but until the experiment is actually performed there is no definite proof.

In cases like the one of Mr. Ceulemans we are not talking about "false perception" which is "covered" by feeling/talent.

The game of 3C needs exact accuracy in all elements of stroke, and different follow throughs are used for different kind of shots, so there is no doubt about the practical aspect of using techniques which were derived after detailed studies.

The explanation behind the techniques used is the matter of discussion and Dave very well described how the results may be obtained by the players using them.

I also had a look today at my copy of Steve Mizerak's "Complete book of pool" and at the relative photos about stroke he clearly drops elbow, I believe it will be hard to argue on the fundamentals of another great champion of that caliber.
Thanks,
Petros

Petros, has it ever occurred to you that Ceuleman never realized that the tip leaves the cb so fast, and correlated longer follow-through with a different action on the cb because of his lack of knowledge in that regard? Here's one scenario for you to mull over.... on a soft shot, most players don't have much follow-through at all. When they want distance, their follow-through increases. Very possible that he associated different follow-through distances with actual different speeds of hit, and never really realized that it was the speed difference that made the difference, and not the follow-though that made the difference in the shot.

Now, there is nothing at all wrong with doing that. It can easily be a way of obtaining the correct speed for the shot at hand. But, that does not equate to the follow-through as being the reason for the change in shot. As you know, and as has been proven, follow-through can have zero effect on the shot. Follow-through is only a result, not a reason for what has happened.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So when can we expect you to post a video of you playing like a champion?

Never mind. You're just not worth the effort.

So...here is my other cheek. Take another shot.

Picture three(3) crosses.

Are you the one on the left or the one on the right?



PS You're making my post count go up & upsetting some other AZBers.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Dear Neil,
1. Until the desired experiment is performed there is no definite proof, only the theory that since the tip-CB is short follow through does not have any effect.
2. There is no way that these thoughts you are referring to did not pass from the minds of champions that studied the game in great depth.
3. We should keep in mind that both champions and science have their limits.

I finally believe that the so-appeared contradiction may not be that much of a contradiction at all, since the approach of the matter by the two sides is only different. Science approaches the matter from the physics aspect and players from the functional aspect. One side does not necessarily contradict the other..

You and others are doing very well by using scientific approach together with all other knowledge in order to propose an average correct way of playing the game based on principles that can be explained.
After all you also believe that what happens is one thing and how/why it happens is another.
Thanks again for your input.
Petros

 

[Mikjary]

I think you're correct about most of these things if not all. However, I don't believe that you have said anything contrary to the "science" of pool.

Timing? Absolutely

Angle of Attack? The direction of the cue tip as it hits and enters the space occupied by the cue ball ............Sure.

Quick Lever? Why, I think that's simply speed. Of course. (However, I would greatly appreciate you explaining further what your definition of quick levering is, if different from mine). Maybe we should remove "quick" from the lever and describe the motion you refer to as "lever". Lever, might turn into "angle of attack".

Personally, I think that I don't believe players have the same speed and timing or that their cue tip's angle of hit are the same and that's why we see different results.

I think some of the differences in results happen because of fast-twitch muscles or just faster hand/arm/wrist speed but the results are affected by all of those things...speed, angle of contact, point of contact.

Sometimes players "look" slower than others and others "look" like they have faster hand speed. Scotty Townsend seems to have fast hand speed as does Mike Massey.


JoeyA

Good questions, Joey. Maybe I have some answers that create more questions. :wink:

I used the term quick lever to emphasize the changing angle of attack on the cue ball. Rather than jacking up and angling the cue to the contact point, the slight movement downward creates no bouncing effect on the cue ball. Lever is a word that we all can identify in a description, I think.

I can stroke a draw shot with a medium speed and get a predictable result. If I add the slight, quick change of cue address, I can get more draw with less follow through. Some call it pinning the cue ball. I call it digging into the cue ball.

I've always had fast hands, but I think it's more than that in my stroking. I think it's the point in time I choose to change my cue angle and apply tip contact that increases my outcome.

Spin is affected by the timing developed in the stroke. It's also shown in Dr. Dave's video of Mike Massey just before he contacts the cue ball. It is a small movement and can be seen on almost every draw shot worthy of mention. Why can't he (or anybody) shoot this type of draw shot every time? It could be he is hitting an incorrect contact point or using less speed. Most likely the answer is the timing in his stroke as he changes his angle of cueing to get the greatest possible directional tip contact.

My position is that we've seen Mr. Jewett's efforts to capture tip contact on the cue ball and drawn conclusions from them. But have we learned anything? Have we taken the information and discussed it to possibly be able to recreate the effects of imparting tremendous spin, or are we content to say..."See? When you hit it this way, this will happen"?

Well, why isn't it happening for all of us seekers? :grin-square: I watched the videos many times as did many others. Armed with this knowledge, we should be discussing the nuances and possible biomechanical movements associated with them. Instead, we fight and call each other idiots because somebody proposes a fresh idea or wants to take another look at conventional wisdom. And if they doggedly pursue their quest, they're labeled a sociopath.

If you (collective...not you, Joey) already know it all, please share. I'm open to suggestions and promise to not beat you into a verbal pulp. Unless we start talking about the Cubs. I have my limits! :grin-square:

Best,
Mike