Myth or real - Stroke smoothness as a requisite for certain shots

Oikawa said:
My understanding is that for the CB's reaction after hitting it with the cue, all that matters is what the cue is doing at the moment of contact, within a few milliseconds(?) of the impact. Breaking down the components of the possible factors at impact (normalizing for the environment and the cue itself, I'm not talking about whether a shitty tip vs. good tip can execute certain shots), these would be point on CB (spin), power and angle of impact in 3D space. Simple enough, and makes sense.

However, the amount of times I've heard (mostly from local folks, but also at various online discussions) that certain shots can only be executed with a "smooth stroke", "good timing" or a "good follow-through", such that those shots are literally impossible without it, makes me wonder if there's any truth behind it, or if its just a false belief that has evolved over time from the fact that good timing is very useful in many other aspects, and that great players who make great shots often also have great timing.

Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed? What I am absolutely not disputing is that timing aids in consistency, that is true. An extreme spin shot is definitely more likely to be made with a smooth delivery, but can all the shots be executed even one time with a bad one? That is the question I'm wondering.

My own experience definitely supports that this is a myth, what do you all think?
Click to expand...

The only thing that should matter is the moment of contact. The language mentioned ("smooth," "timing," "follow-through") are descriptions of characteristics that we (as humans) need to accurately replicate the "moment of contact" for some manner of predicable result. That is, for all of us human pool players, we discuss stroke as a proxy/predictor for the "moment of contact."

If a machine could create the "moment of contact" with the same factors over and over using a 1mm, or whatever distance, "stroke" (e.g. the "spin, power, angle" noted) - it would have a repeatable and measurable result. There are no delivery/pre-delivery/post-delivery requirements. Just the force(s) at the moment of contact.

Here's a new robot that helps on this point. It does have some type of stroke, but only to accelerate the cue cue to mechanical limitations. If it could be done in a shorter distance, the result would be the same.

-td (my $0.02, probably worth less)

Robot_arm.png
 
td873 said:
The only thing that should matter is the moment of contact. The language mentioned ("smooth," "timing," "follow-through") are descriptions of characteristics that we (as humans) need to accurately replicate the "moment of contact" for some manner of predicable result. That is, for all of us human pool players, we discuss stroke as a proxy/predictor for the "moment of contact."

If a machine could create the "moment of contact" with the same factors over and over using a 1mm, or whatever distance, "stroke" (e.g. the "spin, power, angle" noted) - it would have a repeatable and measurable result. There are no delivery/pre-delivery/post-delivery requirements. Just the force(s) at the moment of contact.

Here's a new robot that helps on this point. It does have some type of stroke, but only to accelerate the cue cue to mechanical limitations. If it could be done in a shorter distance, the result would be the same.

-td (my $0.02, probably worth less)

View attachment 878369
Click to expand...
I love this thing. The stroke is like magic.
 
Oikawa said:
I tried to be clear about emphasizing that I am not talking about consistency, but the absolute limit of what is even possible, I don't disagree with you one bit about the consistency part.

Put in another way, I am not trying to ask about whether good timing helps in consistency (it does), I am asking on a more theoretical level if certain shots are literally impossible with bad timing, because this is what many people have claimed to me in real life and I've disagreed with them.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you're referring to as "timing". Many people are really referring to acceleration when they talk about "timing"

Kind of a funny story, when I first started posting here, over twenty years ago now, me and Colin Colenso would get into these long arguments. After arguing and discussing over time, we ended up determing that we agreed on almost everything, we were just using different terms to describe it.

This may be the case here when someone talks about certain shots not being possible without the proper "timing". That has to do with many people REALLY not understanding what's happening when you stroke. They think they know, but don't really.

So while, no, there are no shots that require specific timing, someone who is claiming they do, might not be wrong, they may just not know what they're truly describing.
 
Last edited:
td873 said:
The only thing that should matter is the moment of contact. The language mentioned ("smooth," "timing," "follow-through") are descriptions of characteristics that we (as humans) need to accurately replicate the "moment of contact" for some manner of predicable result. That is, for all of us human pool players, we discuss stroke as a proxy/predictor for the "moment of contact."

If a machine could create the "moment of contact" with the same factors over and over using a 1mm, or whatever distance, "stroke" (e.g. the "spin, power, angle" noted) - it would have a repeatable and measurable result. There are no delivery/pre-delivery/post-delivery requirements. Just the force(s) at the moment of contact.

Here's a new robot that helps on this point. It does have some type of stroke, but only to accelerate the cue cue to mechanical limitations. If it could be done in a shorter distance, the result would be the same.

-td (my $0.02, probably worth less)

View attachment 878369
Click to expand...
I made something similar when I was testing my tips.
 
Jaden said:
Many people are really referring to acceleration when they talk about "timing"
Click to expand...
Seems like both to me: acceleration timed to achieve the target speed at the millisecond of contact. One of the reasons I like a pendulum stroke is that it naturally "coasts" for a bit before contact, making the timing a bit easier.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
"Timing" sounds like CTE for feel. The actual timing would be more along the lines of synaptic latency over neural response over coffee lifting muscular activity.
 
Oikawa said:
My understanding is that for the CB's reaction after hitting it with the cue, all that matters is what the cue is doing at the moment of contact, within a few milliseconds(?) of the impact. Breaking down the components of the possible factors at impact (normalizing for the environment and the cue itself, I'm not talking about whether a shitty tip vs. good tip can execute certain shots), these would be point on CB (spin), power and angle of impact in 3D space. Simple enough, and makes sense.

However, the amount of times I've heard (mostly from local folks, but also at various online discussions) that certain shots can only be executed with a "smooth stroke", "good timing" or a "good follow-through", such that those shots are literally impossible without it, makes me wonder if there's any truth behind it, or if its just a false belief that has evolved over time from the fact that good timing is very useful in many other aspects, and that great players who make great shots often also have great timing.

Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed? What I am absolutely not disputing is that timing aids in consistency, that is true. An extreme spin shot is definitely more likely to be made with a smooth delivery, but can all the shots be executed even one time with a bad one? That is the question I'm wondering.

My own experience definitely supports that this is a myth, what do you all think?
Click to expand...
1. The cue should be coasting on most shots for pros—not accelerating at impact. Smooth strokes are the goal.

2. Many players grip too hard, while pros rely on smoother, more relaxed strokes. Ringside, you sometimes can’t even hear the tip hit the ball.

3. All of my students improve as their flow and smoothness improve—without exception.

Yes, physics dictates that odd strokes can still get the job done. Sure.
 
I'm having an ongoing argument with a friend about tip/ball contact.

He refuses to acknowledge that different stroke types - as in a smooth stroke that accelerates through the ball, versus a jab that pulls away as soon as possible post result in different outcomes.

He claims the only influence on what happens is the motion at impact.

Spend some time on a 3c billiards table, people! The bigger balls and faster cloth show you things pool does not.
 
In my experience, it holds true.
I 100% get more deflection when my stroke is quick from the start than when I smoothly accelerate through to the target.
It affects other areas as well but a smooth stroke makes many fairly powerful shots seem effortless.
 
Black-Balled said:
I'm having an ongoing argument with a friend about tip/ball contact.

He refuses to acknowledge that different stroke types - as in a smooth stroke that accelerates through the ball, versus a jab that pulls away as soon as possible post result in different outcomes.

He claims the only influence on what happens is the motion at impact.
Click to expand...
I like to visualize it from the cue ball's perspective: The CB can only "feel" the Angle, Spot and Speed of the tip's impact - all the hard earned stroke mastery that we put into delivering that millisecond of contact is sadly lost on it (fortunately, ASS is all it needs).

Black-Balled said:
He claims the only influence on what happens is the motion at impact.
Click to expand...
I agree with him that only the impact itself has direct influence on the CB, and also recognize the knowledge and technique needed to deliver it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
“Proper technique” works for the most people.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Maybe that means "is teachable" to the most people.
For example, Bustamante:

Picture the shot magically transpiring in your pool space and let yourself be absorbed and melded into this duality of perfection. Release your misgivings and tensions. The spirit will guide you to and through Nirvana. Rinse repeat...

Frankly, I think he might just be shooting _past_ and not _at_ the cueball.
 
It is a false belief.

According to Newtonian physics, the only thing that causes a cue ball to not be at rest anymore is the impulse vector applied to the face of the cue ball, which has been measured and observed many times with high speed cameras to last less than 1ms. Math agrees. The human body can not generate forces within this short period of time, period.

This means that the impulse vector is the ONLY variable you have to work with. A three dimensional vector is an arrow in space and has the following components:
Position of the Head of the arrow (location)
Length of the tail (magnitude)
Angle of the tail (pitch/yaw)

Therefore the motion of the cue ball is completely determined by:
Tip contact point location on face of the ball the instant the cue tip arrives
The angle of this force
The magnitude of this force.
These can’t be changed during contact.

Fluid mechanics of the air affects things slightly, but it so small it is negligible.
General relativity affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.
Quantum mechanics affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.
The hemisphere that you were born in affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.

You get the idea.

The delivery of the tip to a location on the face of the cueball is not part of this discussion. Its importance in application is isolated from the conversation, because observations of phenomena in isolation from application is exactly what science is.

There is a tendency of uneducated people to be desperate to know something that everybody else doesn’t. They have no credentials to reject an established theory of science based on experience, because their experience is not controlled.

Also, many in the pool player demographic / specific political circles, refuse to allow others to be smarter than themselves. It is called spiteful ignorance. Beware of this.

My credentials: masters degree in electrical engineering, physics focus, and over 10 years of focused pool ball mechanics research.
 
nataddrho said:
It is a false belief.

According to Newtonian physics, the only thing that causes a cue ball to not be at rest anymore is the impulse vector applied to the face of the cue ball, which has been measured and observed many times with high speed cameras to last less than 1ms. Math agrees. The human body can not generate forces within this short period of time, period.

This means that the impulse vector is the ONLY variable you have to work with. A three dimensional vector is an arrow in space and has the following components:
Position of the Head of the arrow (location)
Length of the tail (magnitude)
Angle of the tail (pitch/yaw)

Therefore the motion of the cue ball is completely determined by:
Tip contact point location on face of the ball the instant the cue tip arrives
The angle of this force
The magnitude of this force.
These can’t be changed during contact.

Fluid mechanics of the air affects things slightly, but it so small it is negligible.
General relativity affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.
Quantum mechanics affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.
The hemisphere that you were born in affects things slightly, but it is so small it is negligible.

You get the idea.

The delivery of the tip to a location on the face of the cueball is not part of this discussion. Its importance in application is isolated from the conversation, because observations of phenomena in isolation from application is exactly what science is.

There is a tendency of uneducated people to be desperate to know something that everybody else doesn’t. They have no credentials to reject an established theory of science based on experience, because their experience is not controlled.

Also, many in the pool player demographic / specific political circles, refuse to allow others to be smarter than themselves. It is called spiteful ignorance. Beware of this.

My credentials: masters degree in electrical engineering, physics focus, and over 10 years of focused pool ball mechanics research.
Click to expand...
But...
Player has to set this vector in motion. Many have crooked albeit compensated strokes. The nano histrionics may be the only way they can produce the required hit. Ultimately somebody has to _make_ the shot.
 
straightline said:
But...
Player has to set this vector in motion. Many have crooked albeit compensated strokes. The nano histrionics may be the only way they can produce the required hit. Ultimately somebody has to _make_ the shot.
Click to expand...
The OP wanted confirmation on the following: "My understanding is that for the CB's reaction after hitting it with the cue, all that matters is what the cue is doing at the moment of contact, within a few milliseconds(?) of the impact.... Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed?"

The answer is no.

No matter how the tip lands on the cue ball, if it generates the same vector as from any other type of smoothness/stroke/timing/delivery, the result of the cue ball will be the same.

Your personal stroke mechanics may end up delivering the tip in a different location with different power and angle. In that case , the vector will be different. But it is the vector difference that makes the cue ball do something different, not an additional parameter affecting the cue ball at the time of contact.
 
nataddrho said:
The OP wanted confirmation on the following: "My understanding is that for the CB's reaction after hitting it with the cue, all that matters is what the cue is doing at the moment of contact, within a few milliseconds(?) of the impact.... Does anyone here know any science behind this, does the timing/smoothness/delivery etc. whatever you want to call it really affect the range of possible shots that can be executed?"

The answer is no.

No matter how the tip lands on the cue ball, if it generates the same vector as from any other type of smoothness/stroke/timing/delivery, the result of the cue ball will be the same.

Your personal stroke mechanics may end up delivering the tip in a different location with different power and angle. In that case , the vector will be different. But it is the vector difference that makes the cue ball do something different, not an additional parameter affecting the cue ball at the time of contact.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know. But the genre is still people insisting ya gotta do this and that etc... they are not entirely wrong.
 
One more example before I stfu.

The correct physics can only be done by computation. One input. One output.

Absolutely cannot do that with a stick and balls. :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top