Drill to stop elbow drop

[Neil]

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

To your #1 above: I have to put that in the same category as moving your wrist to hit like a sword after contact alters the effects on the cb.

In essence, what you are really advocating is this: If I take a stroke with my best followthrough I will get action "A" on the cb. But, if I take the exactly same stroke, and .004 seconds after contact with the cb a sheet of thin steel drops down and stops my followthrough, I will then get action "B" on the cb because the followthrough effects the cb. Is that correct??

 

[ENGLISH!]

Post #300

Very good post Mike, on several fronts.

Best,
Rick

 

[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 is 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 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

Mike,
All New York Blackie would tell me is, "You gotta hit it good!"

I like all of your posts. You are one of the most fair-minded and intelligent posters this forum has.

I don't have that many answers to the "secrets" of pool but I am going to keep squeezing them out of the professional player's minds as I do commentary with them. :smile:

People who have nothing better to do with their time than to call other people names are not the kind of people I enjoy spending my time around. It does get kind of old beating them off with a stick. :grin:

JoeyA

 

[ENGLISH!]

Mike,
All New York Blackie would tell me is, "You gotta hit it good!"

I like all of your posts. You are one of the most fair-minded and intelligent posters this forum has.

I don't have that many answers to the "secrets" of pool but I am going to keep squeezing them out of the professional player's minds as I do commentary with them. :smile:

People who have nothing better to do with their time than to call other people names are not the kind of people I enjoy spending my time around. It does get kind of old beating them off with a stick. :grin:

JoeyA

Hi Joey,

I agree with you too, on several fronts.

While I have gotten caught up & have taken the bait many times, I'm learning, or at least I hope that I am.

Best Regards & Best Wishes,
Rick

PS I saw the 'golf instructor' Larry G. Wednesday @ Jamie's place. He must have been looking for some softer action. I don't think he found it.

 

[Mikjary]

Mike,
All New York Blackie would tell me is, "You gotta hit it good!"

I like all of your posts. You are one of the most fair-minded and intelligent posters this forum has.

I don't have that many answers to the "secrets" of pool but I am going to keep squeezing them out of the professional player's minds as I do commentary with them. :smile:

People who have nothing better to do with their time than to call other people names are not the kind of people I enjoy spending my time around. It does get kind of old beating them off with a stick. :grin:

JoeyA

Joey,

Thanks for the encouragement, but a lot of what I post here is regurgitated. It comes from conversations with pros I have, sometimes daily. Some are Hall of Famers, some are hustlers, some are AZB heroes and Accu Stat commentators. Whether they're right or wrong, they have their take on this game.

I also get some great gossip and already know the stories behind all these bashing threads. :grin-square: And a lot more stories that never make it here. All I have to do is make a phone call and I get the skinny on any living pool player. It's like an underground network still alive in the digital age. :smile:

I enjoy your commentating and appreciate you looking out for us fish!

Best,
Mike

 

[Petros Andrikop]

To your #1 above: I have to put that in the same category as moving your wrist to hit like a sword after contact alters the effects on the cb.

In essence, what you are really advocating is this: If I take a stroke with my best followthrough I will get action "A" on the cb. But, if I take the exactly same stroke, and .004 seconds after contact with the cb a sheet of thin steel drops down and stops my followthrough, I will then get action "B" on the cb because the followthrough effects the cb. Is that correct??

What I'm trying to say is this:
yes, there might be some scientifically minor but functionally significant affect of follow through, as stated by people like Ceulemans who played billiards with extreme accuracy in all aspects and can never be regarded as "players with lack of knowledge or false perceptions".

Here are some of the facts in order:

- Experiments have proved that tip-CB contact time is short in terms of human perception.
- Experiments have also proved minor variations in tip-CB contact time do occur.
- Interpretation of this data leads to the conclusion that since the tip-CB contact time is short follow through length does not affect CB behaviour. Only things that matter are direction of stroke, CB spin and speed.
- The above data do not contradict the use of different stroke techniques which may simply provide the necessary elements for different types of stroke.

This is most likely what stands true, there was never an argument about it being the best explanation available. There is only one thing missing to confirm it, and verify that the approach used by some champions in altering follow through length in some shots has functional but no scientific base:

Two shots performed by a machine similar to the ones used by some companies for deflection studies:
- Stroke direction, CB spin and speed remain the same and only thing different between shots is the length of follow through.
- Perhaps use of medium-soft tip and medium-soft speed could be appropiate.
- Camera recording of CB reaction-complete pathway up to the end after hitting at least a cushion, in good table conditions.

That's it, I always believed there is nothing to lose from an experiment like that, and maybe there will be something new revealed, or possibly not..

Thanks again,
Petros

 

[Mikjary]

What I'm trying to say is this:
yes, there might be some scientifically minor but functionally significant affect of follow through, as stated by people like Ceulemans who played billiards with extreme accuracy in all aspects and can never be regarded as "players with lack of knowledge or false perceptions".

Here are some of the facts in order:

- Experiments have proved that tip-CB contact time is short in terms of human perception.
- Experiments have also proved minor variations in tip-CB contact time do occur.
- Interpretation of this data leads to the conclusion that since the tip-CB contact time is short follow through length does not affect CB behaviour. Only things that matter are direction of stroke, CB spin and speed.
- The above data do not contradict the use of different stroke techniques which may simply provide the necessary elements for different types of stroke.

This is most likely what stands true, there was never an argument about it being the best explanation. There is only one thing missing to confirm it, and verify that the approach used by some champions in altering follow through length in some shots has functional but no scientific base:

Two shots performed by a machine similar to the ones used by some companies for deflection studies:
- Stroke direction, CB spin and speed remain the same and only thing different between shots is the length of follow through.
- Perhaps use of medium-soft tip and medium-soft speed could be appropiate.
- Camera recording of CB reaction-complete pathway up to the end after hitting at least a cushion, in good table conditions.

That's it, I always believed there is nothing to lose from an experiment like that, and maybe there will be something new revealed, or possibly not..

Thanks again,
Petros

Petros,

The only problem arising with the use of robots is possibly their movement in the experiment. Are we saying the robot arm should just drop down in a pure pendulum, continuous arc, or another fashion more closely resembling human mechanical movement?

The movement of the human arm is not a repeatable, non-erring machine and I agree the robot arm could be a baseline for further research and discussion. I submit that the motion of the robot could then be calibrated to introduce variables in the stroke and produce a more bio mechanical example of a player's swing and follow through.

Possibly graphing a Mike Massey's stroke in time with relevant points of distinction could provide an adjusted working model as a human baseline for future comparison.

Best,
Mike

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Petros,

The only problem arising with the use of robots is possibly their movement in the experiment. Are we saying the robot arm should just drop down in a pure pendulum, continuous arc, or another fashion more closely resembling human mechanical movement?

The movement of the human arm is not a repeatable, non-erring machine and I agree the robot arm could be a baseline for further research and discussion. I submit that the motion of the robot could then be calibrated to introduce variables in the stroke and produce a more bio mechanical example of a player's swing and follow through.

Possibly graphing a Mike Massey's stroke in time with relevant points of distinction could provide an adjusted working model as a human baseline for future comparison.

Best,
Mike

Yes, all that is true and people with the relative technical knowledge will have to address those issues, unfortunately I can't help in that.
Thanks,
Petros

 

[CJ Wiley]

digging into the cue ball opens up a whole new dimension in someone's pool game.

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 is 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 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

You are coming to some great understandings about the Game - sure nice to witness these type revelations.

It's funny, when you use the phase "digging into the cue ball" that's how we describe "Pinning"......they are exactly the same thing and accomplished in the same way. Pinning is more the term we use and "digging in" is a description of what we feel.

Being able to stun/kill/dig into the cue ball opens up a whole new dimension in someone's pool game.....I used to hate seeing other people do it because I knew they were going to be tough to beat......and it usually required breaking them down physically to win, their game would hold up under even the most severe pressure.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I just came from another thread where baseball & golf were part of the discussion.

Even though there are many extremely good professional golfers, I've heard it said by more than a couple of commentators that the strike of the ball just has a different sound coming from a few of the really great ball strikers. What are they doing differently?

Also, Ted Williams used to say that he could smell the bat burn the leather of the ball when he hit it right. He was amazed that he could not find any other hitter to say the same thing. It was a long time ago & I was rather young but I am fairly sure that I heard maybe Dizzy Dean or Pee Wee Reese say that the ball just sounds different coming of the bat of Ted Williams.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Mikjary]

I've smelled that burnt leather on the bat. He could've asked me! Never smelled it on my draw stroke, though. Probably need to work on that.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

I've smelled that burnt leather on the bat. He could've asked me! Never smelled it on my draw stroke, though. Probably need to work on that.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

Thanks for the chuckle.

Just to be clear, Ted Williams was talking about smelling it as it burned the ball when he hit it, not on the bat after.

Did you do that too? And I think it should be pointed out that he said when he hit it right. Obviously all hits were not of the same quality level to him.

Best,
Rick

 

[Mikjary]

Mike,

Thanks for the chuckle.

Just to be clear, Ted Williams was talking about smelling it as it burned the ball when he hit it, not on the bat after.

Did you do that too? And I think it should be pointed out that he said when he hit it right. Obviously all hits were not of the same quality level to him.

Best,
Rick

The smell hangs in the air. I never equated it with hitting it well as I was never even close to his level.

I heard that story years ago and realized how great his mental game must've been! Imagine spending a week with him even away from a baseball diamond.

Best,
Mike

 

[elvicash]

I just came from another thread where baseball & golf were part of the discussion.

Even though there are many extremely good professional golfers, I've heard it said by more than a couple of commentators that the strike of the ball just has a different sound coming from a few of the really great ball strikers. What are they doing differently?

Also, Ted Williams used to say that he could smell the bat burn the leather of the ball when he hit it right. He was amazed that he could not find any other hitter to say the same thing. It was a long time ago & I was rather young but I am fairly sure that I heard maybe Dizzy Dean or Pee Wee Reese say that the ball just sounds different coming of the bat of Ted Williams.

Just some thoughts.

There is nothing like the smell of scorched chalk when drawing my rock in the morning, I pin that tip right on the cue ball, low and through at the miscue limit. That chalk scorches for a moment in time. My elbow will drop when I snatch the cue ball but only after the moment of contact.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Coming back to the thread subject, it's interesting to notice that almost in every sport a complete follow through is considered ideal.

In Pool the logical approach is to use less muscles, less axes and planes of movement in order to provide more accuracy and be more more consistent. That is why the pendulim stroke is considered the best way.

All the so-appeared contradictions arrive due to approach of the subject.

Even if we think of follow through as a completely insignificant factor from scientific point of view still the functional aspect of it remains, that is why quite a few champions that studied the game in depth have noticed that desired elements of different shots can be achieved by different kind of follow throughs, even drop elbow ones.
Instructors as well do not argue against that, after all the preparation phase of stroke is one thing, what happens is another thing, why and how it happens is a third thing and so on.

So as others suggested already, including top players, if you reverse the observation between results and techniques used you might consider their relation in a feedback way as well besides linear.

It would also be interesting to extend experimental research in this aspect of the game as well as other aspects.

One other thing that came into mind today is a conversation with Earl Strickland I had while he was in Athens. Among other things he talked with great respect for other champions, referring to Rayes as the "one that sees what others can't see".
One of the reasons this happens is that as we know Mr. Reyes from time to time prefers to watch amauters play, he observes what they do and draws conclusions from shots that good players would not play..
It's important to have an open mind, even from the most simple and controversial discussions we can learn.
A good day to everybody in US.
Petros

 

[CJ Wiley]

follow through - Less is More

Coming back to the thread subject, it's interesting to notice that almost in every sport a complete follow through is considered ideal.

In the golf swing the follow through mirrors the backswing's length, tennis the shorter shots, like the "volley" has a short follow through, same with "half volleys" and mid size swings. The FULL shots have full follow throughs and there's a good reason for this.

I believe the most common fault with pool player's strokes is too LONG/Extended follow through and many could benefit from a limited follow through that encourages a more accelerated "shot/cue speed". Think more in terms of a "punch shot" in golf or a "volley" in tennis.....quick, accurate and precise is ideal. imho

The masse' shot gets maximum cue ball action and, for the sake of the pool room owner, it's best to NOT follow through much at all.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

In the golf swing the follow through mirrors the backswing's length, tennis the shorter shots, like the "volley" has a short follow through, same with "half volleys" and mid size swings. The FULL shots have full follow throughs and there's a good reason for this.

I believe the most common fault with pool player's strokes is too LONG/Extended follow through and many could benefit from a limited follow through that encourages a more accelerated "shot/cue speed". Think more in terms of a "punch shot" in golf or a "volley" in tennis.....quick, accurate and precise is ideal. imho

The masse' shot gets maximum cue ball action and, for the sake of the pool room owner, it's best to NOT follow through much at all.

As usually great input, thank you Sir, you are honoring this forum.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Adagio - A tempo having slow movement; restful at ease.

Allegro - A direction to play lively and fast.

Energico - A symbol in sheet music a direction to play energetically.

Espressivo - A direction to play expressively.

Forte - A symbol indicating to play loud.

Grandioso - Word to indicate that the movement or entire composition is to be played grandly.

Legato - Word to indicate that the movement or entire composition is to be played smoothly.

Piano - An instruction in sheet music to play softly. Abbreviated by a “p”.

Presto - A direction in sheet music indicating the tempo is to be very fast.

Staccato - Short detached notes, as opposed to legato.

Vivace - Direction to performer to play a composition in a brisk, lively, and spirited manner.

All off the above are different directives in music as to how the composer wants the notes to be played. They can be the exact same notes through out the composition but played differently.

The point being that the cue ball does not have to be struck in one manner ALL of the time. It can be struck in a variety of different manners depending on the 'song' (outcome) that the composer (cueist) wishes to portray.

In music, many can play the notes, but everyone can not make their instrument sing. I think the same can be said about a cue stick & just how it is used.

Some are robotic & can only play the notes. While others are artists & make their cue sing.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Here's the players I would associate with the other musical examples:

All off the above are different directives in music as to how the composer wants the notes to played. They can be the exact same notes through out the composition but played differently.

The point being that the cue ball does not have to be struck in one manner ALL of the time. It can be struck in a variety of different manners depending on the 'song' (outcome) that the composer (cueist) wishes to portray.

In music, many can play the notes, but everyone can not make their instrument sing. I think the same can be said about a cue stick & just how it is used.

Some are robotic & can only play the notes. While others are artists & make their cue sing.

Allegro - A direction to play lively and fast.

Energico - A symbol in sheet music a direction to play energetically.

Espressivo - A direction to play expressively.

Forte - A symbol indicating to play loud.

Grandioso - Word to indicate that the movement or entire composition is to be played grandly.

Legato - Word to indicate that the movement or entire composition is to be played smoothly.

Piano - An instruction in sheet music to play softly. Abbreviated by a “p”.

Presto - A direction in sheet music indicating the tempo is to be very fast.

Staccato - Short detached notes, as opposed to legato.

Vivace - Direction to performer to play a composition in a brisk, lively, and spirited manner.

ENGLISH!

Adagio - Steve Mizerak

Allegro - Lou Butera

Energico - "Morro" from Hardtimes/LA

Espressivo - Allison Fisher

Forte - Jimmy "Pretty Boy" Mataya

Grandioso - Willie Mosconi

Legato - Shane V.

Piano - Jimmy Rempe

Presto - The "Ginger Wizard"

Staccato - Allen Hopkins

Vivace - Earl Strickland



Music is more appealing when it goes "up and down" (with many variations), and so will your game if you use all these different strokes, tempos and styles. Playing the different games like one pocket, rotation, banks and billiards require some of these different aspects too.

While knowing all these variations has it's place (and can be used to describe different player's style), it's still best to find one that produces the best results {for you}, and play the same song/game......consistency in pool is vital....in music it {can be} monotonous. I appreciate pool, like art and music is more of an "art form" than a sport.

I prefer the Staccato style myself and recommend it for precision and accuracy. Here's the players I would associate with the other musical examples:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Adagio - Steve Mizerak

Allegro - Lou Butera

Energico - "Morro" from Hardtimes/LA

Espressivo - Allison Fisher

Forte - Jimmy "Pretty Boy" Mataya

Grandioso - Willie Mosconi

Legato - Shane V.

Piano - Jimmy Rempe

Presto - The "Ginger Wizard"

Staccato - Allen Hopkins

Vivace - Earl Strickland



Music is more appealing when it goes "up and down" (with many variations), and so will your game if you use all these different strokes, tempos and styles. Playing the different games like one pocket, rotation, banks and billiards require some of these different aspects too.

While knowing all these variations has it's place (and can be used to describe different player's style), it's still best to find one that produces the best results {for you}, and play the same song/game......consistency in pool is vital....in music it {can be} monotonous. I appreciate pool, like art and music is more of an "art form" than a sport.

I prefer the Staccato style myself and recommend it for precision and accuracy. Here's the players I would associate with the other musical examples:

CJ,

I agree. I did not mean to imply that one should hit every shot differently.

I meant to imply that the music theme (the stroke) can be played differently with variations & will yield a different type song (sound & outcome).

Knowing how to make the cue sing differently can be a good thing when the music calls for that style & type of play. That is... if one can even read the music.

Best,
Rick