It also allows you to check alighnment. When tip is at the bottom of the cue ball the ferrule will be reflected in the cue ball--if the reflection is dead straight you are right on if the reflection of the ferrule is somewhat off set you are not in perfect alighnment.
Lining up low on the cue ball?
- Thread starter JohnnyShakes
- Start date
This is often an adjustment for elbow drop during the final stroke. The cue is like a lever, and the bridge is a fulcrum.
As your elbow drops, the tip raises. This is why many beginning players don't understand why they aim low, but don't get draw.
There are two solutions, either keep your elbow level or adjust when addressing the cue ball.
Both methods work.
As your elbow drops, the tip raises. This is why many beginning players don't understand why they aim low, but don't get draw.
There are two solutions, either keep your elbow level or adjust when addressing the cue ball.
Both methods work.
Pump handles, pendulums and power
I’m reviving this thread because it’s related to recent topics. The developments with Earl then Shane adding length and mass to their cues started discussions. The added mass behind the hand was speculated as allowing players to pull the cue through the ball rather than push through. After studying top pros and coaches some seemingly unrelated observations suddenly came together and made sense.
The mass discussion reminded me of Ronnie O’Sullivan commenting that he brings the mass of the cueing arm through the ball. Elementary physics with Newton’s second law tells that F=ma. Physics also tells us that energy is conserved during collisions. So F=ma also applies to the cue ball and ball to ball collisions. In simple terms if a large mass hits a smaller one the small mass will end up going faster than the larger mass was at impact. A heavier cue with the same speed swing will send the cue ball farther.
Suddenly the different stroke methods commonly used historically took on significance. In the interest of brevity, mass was central to each evolution. Initially using a fingertip grip the mass was limited to the cue. The pendulum stroke added the forearm mass to the force formula. Lastly when force variables were wanted players added the mass of the entire cueing arm. By adding the extra mass the acceleration component could be slowed and still impart the same force. So even on a soft follow shot the big muscles can slowly drive a ball to the rail and off. Lesser mass with more speed to provide the same force has to be careful the extra speed does hit too hard and that fear might cause the player to quit on the shot. The slower speed, extra mass shot is more measured and controlled.
I’m not advocating for a method here, just describing. Each shot has different needs and good players have different ammunition in their arsenals. One principle has remained constant and that is the idea of using a relatively level cue through impact. Del Hill, an elite snooker coach, suggests that the level cue idea has been taken too far and while through contact and beyond it is ideal, during address its bs, in his words. When looked at in his context the large number of premier players who address the ball on a downwards slope near the base of the ball and many who use what has been described as a pump handle stroke, offered context.
The basic modern snooker stroke involves player aiming the shot directly down the cue, when aligned the chin and side of the chest move to prevent sideways deviation or a lifting of the cue. Using a pendulum stroke with that setup results in the hand stopping abruptly against the chest. Del describes the action as looking like a chicken pecking. His instruction is that the address position needs to slope at address so the cueing hand can clear the rail and have some tolerance. With stop action and a protractor I measured a Ronnie draw shot on a side blue at about a 10° slope. His backswing, arcing up, caused some of it. His bridge was about 10 inches and tip came back to under 2 inches from the vee. The arm angle was vertical at address with the upper arm angle at ~75° opening changing to ~105° at the back. His hand was about 8-9" off the table. The point is that even the pendulum stroke arcs up and creates a downwards cueing angle at the back. The pendulum stroke is relevant since the pump handle players use its backswing. If the cue travels back along the side of the body, it is positioned on the target line before going forward. Good players who want a simple stop or stun shot not highly sensitive to speed will simply pendulum back and with a limited follow through never hit the body. They still accelerate through the ball driving it. The difference comes when they bring the entire arm into play.
While they may use a pendulum backstroke to assure alignment at the back, they now hold the angle at the elbow and initiate the forward swing by moving the arm in a one piece motion down. The downward force will start to close the elbow hinge and the cue starts an arced path much like a plane landing. Both when reaching the horizontal continue forwards. Rather than the finish ending with the hand in the rib cage, the drop flattens the cue path and allows the hand to finish under the chest still on line.
Sorry for the length. Just wanted to share with others on this journey.
I’m reviving this thread because it’s related to recent topics. The developments with Earl then Shane adding length and mass to their cues started discussions. The added mass behind the hand was speculated as allowing players to pull the cue through the ball rather than push through. After studying top pros and coaches some seemingly unrelated observations suddenly came together and made sense.
The mass discussion reminded me of Ronnie O’Sullivan commenting that he brings the mass of the cueing arm through the ball. Elementary physics with Newton’s second law tells that F=ma. Physics also tells us that energy is conserved during collisions. So F=ma also applies to the cue ball and ball to ball collisions. In simple terms if a large mass hits a smaller one the small mass will end up going faster than the larger mass was at impact. A heavier cue with the same speed swing will send the cue ball farther.
Suddenly the different stroke methods commonly used historically took on significance. In the interest of brevity, mass was central to each evolution. Initially using a fingertip grip the mass was limited to the cue. The pendulum stroke added the forearm mass to the force formula. Lastly when force variables were wanted players added the mass of the entire cueing arm. By adding the extra mass the acceleration component could be slowed and still impart the same force. So even on a soft follow shot the big muscles can slowly drive a ball to the rail and off. Lesser mass with more speed to provide the same force has to be careful the extra speed does hit too hard and that fear might cause the player to quit on the shot. The slower speed, extra mass shot is more measured and controlled.
I’m not advocating for a method here, just describing. Each shot has different needs and good players have different ammunition in their arsenals. One principle has remained constant and that is the idea of using a relatively level cue through impact. Del Hill, an elite snooker coach, suggests that the level cue idea has been taken too far and while through contact and beyond it is ideal, during address its bs, in his words. When looked at in his context the large number of premier players who address the ball on a downwards slope near the base of the ball and many who use what has been described as a pump handle stroke, offered context.
The basic modern snooker stroke involves player aiming the shot directly down the cue, when aligned the chin and side of the chest move to prevent sideways deviation or a lifting of the cue. Using a pendulum stroke with that setup results in the hand stopping abruptly against the chest. Del describes the action as looking like a chicken pecking. His instruction is that the address position needs to slope at address so the cueing hand can clear the rail and have some tolerance. With stop action and a protractor I measured a Ronnie draw shot on a side blue at about a 10° slope. His backswing, arcing up, caused some of it. His bridge was about 10 inches and tip came back to under 2 inches from the vee. The arm angle was vertical at address with the upper arm angle at ~75° opening changing to ~105° at the back. His hand was about 8-9" off the table. The point is that even the pendulum stroke arcs up and creates a downwards cueing angle at the back. The pendulum stroke is relevant since the pump handle players use its backswing. If the cue travels back along the side of the body, it is positioned on the target line before going forward. Good players who want a simple stop or stun shot not highly sensitive to speed will simply pendulum back and with a limited follow through never hit the body. They still accelerate through the ball driving it. The difference comes when they bring the entire arm into play.
While they may use a pendulum backstroke to assure alignment at the back, they now hold the angle at the elbow and initiate the forward swing by moving the arm in a one piece motion down. The downward force will start to close the elbow hinge and the cue starts an arced path much like a plane landing. Both when reaching the horizontal continue forwards. Rather than the finish ending with the hand in the rib cage, the drop flattens the cue path and allows the hand to finish under the chest still on line.
Sorry for the length. Just wanted to share with others on this journey.
You kind of lost me in your most recent post, but I still can't understand in the case of Shaw and Strickland, why the need for 12" or more of cue behind where you place your grip hand on the butt? Just seems to me like it's a completely unnecessary part of the cue, but there must be some reason for it I'm not getting.
I agree. Once you understand the reasoning that the forearm and upper arm are both masses you can add to the stroke the only thing you need is for the grip to be just firm enough to allow the mass to become one with the cue. There are mechanics involved with the grip as well. As to the pros adding length and mass I think they are simply knowing that a larger mass can use a slower stroke to get the same result.
The idea of mass is that the more mass, the more power without speeding up the cue.
Maybe a horseshoe can give you an analogy. Consider a horseshoe in hand hanging from the shoulder straight down. If you try to throw it with just your hand only the mass of the horseshoe and hand are behind the throw. Now try to throw it using your forearm and hand. Adding the mass and some ability to increase hand speed lets you generate more force. If you now free the whole arm to swing from the shoulder and note how you don’t have to swing all that fast to send the horseshoe flying.
The rest of the original post is simply about the mechanics of how to use the whole arm’s mass to hit a cue ball and that it explains low cueing and pump handle actions by elite players.
Maybe a horseshoe can give you an analogy. Consider a horseshoe in hand hanging from the shoulder straight down. If you try to throw it with just your hand only the mass of the horseshoe and hand are behind the throw. Now try to throw it using your forearm and hand. Adding the mass and some ability to increase hand speed lets you generate more force. If you now free the whole arm to swing from the shoulder and note how you don’t have to swing all that fast to send the horseshoe flying.
The rest of the original post is simply about the mechanics of how to use the whole arm’s mass to hit a cue ball and that it explains low cueing and pump handle actions by elite players.
You lost me at your misuse of F=MA. It feels like you meant momentum in your high brow.
You’re absolutely correct about the F=ma use. I’m over 50 years away from my engineering physics classroom. Did not mean to confuse. The right formula is p=mv. Velocity not acceleration is the needed variable. p stands for momentum. Nothing high brow about it. Adding mass while cueing has implications to cueing speed needs on shots.
Thanks for the input.
Thanks for the input.
__________
Last edited:
This statement is not true. It would take an inhuman grip to add significant mass to the cue stick. The problem is that the flesh of the hand is much softer than the tip and it cannot "wind up" in the time that the tip is on the cue ball. Your hand is roughly 100 times softer than the tip (technically, in terms of the two spring constants). That is what high-speed measurements show.
Damned straight, PJ... damned f'ing straight.
It is confusing that the first two replies to this thread contradict each other, yet both are from PBIA Instructors and members of the SPF family.
Nevertheless, it was a good read as I too have wondered why many good players line up low on the cue ball during their preshot routine.
Nevertheless, it was a good read as I too have wondered why many good players line up low on the cue ball during their preshot routine.
:rotflmao1:
Lol..........
Every pro I've ever ask said they called it "grounding the cue".
I was taught to do it to help find center/centers.....
Watch it now..... don't go trying to simplify things.
You’re right Bob, but only semantically. Your comment suggests that the implication of adding the cueing arm to the stroke does not increase momentum. The combined momentum vectors of the cue and cueing arm are already available at the moment of collision of the tip. The grip is simply setting the same velocity for the momentum vector of the arm and cue, both which are going in the same direction. They are combined unless something separates them.
Math is a language, the language of physics. Sorry if my syntax isn’t hitting your understanding mark, but that doesn’t mean the implications are wrong. A different combination of "sentence" structures, math descriptions, will get you to roughly the same result. It’s like approximation math is technically not accurate but narrates a big picture truth, that can be useful. That is the crux. Physics without application is like cueing straight without aiming at a target. We need to measure it by usefulness.
I find it useful to know that using the whole arm in the action adds momentum to the shot. I find that as a result I can slow the velocity of the shot, compared to not using the arm, and get the same momentum. A tool that can offer more control, is that, a tool. On the other hand players routinely use the concept on the break, putting the momentum of as much of the body as they can behind the shot, including the arm. Usefulness is the measure. Sorry if my "approximation math" is getting in the way of seeing the utility.
I think I understand your syntax.
If you want the cue ball to move faster or have more spin with a particular contact point you need to move the stick faster. It is as simple as that.
If you want someone to get more speed into the cue stick one way to help them to do that would be to tell them to "get more arm" into the shot. I would not use that particular suggestion for fear that it would encourage them to get more shoulder into the shot which usually causes problems. I would simply tell them to shoot harder.