That's an interesting video.
What's most interesting is that the video editors picked a few of the most lousy Shane breaks you could ever see to use as visual examples, lol.
How important is the hop on Shane's break?
- Thread starter (((Satori)))
- Start date
What's most interesting is that the video editors picked a few of the most lousy Shane breaks you could ever see to use as visual examples, lol.
You are probably right but I am going to experiment with the trajectory coming into the rack to see what difference it makes.
That is the only factor that I can see that would be hard for someone else to replicate, giving him the edge. The placement of the cueball, hitting them square, the speed of the break all seem like they can be easily replicated which made me wonder if the difference in his success lied in the trajectory.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
So the best 9ball and 10ball breaker on the planet is wrong...
That isn't at all what he said.
He said that one shouldn't try to create it artificially by striking down into the cueball. Hitting down into the cueball more than necessary is a great way to lose energy and control of the cueball.
In fact, Dr. Dave goes on to say that it is difficult to avoid the hop. This means that the hop is very likely a byproduct of many great breaks...Shane's included.
Shane may well be wrong about the hop being as important as he thinks it is...that doesn't change his results. We all know that Shane has put in tremendous amounts of work on his break and if he says that his best results are when he gets significant hop, I don't think any reasonable person would argue with him.
That said, Dr. Dave has put in tremendous amounts of work in the physics of pool and for someone to argue against that is shortsighted at best.
I watched the vid(thanks) several times...
Wonder how many bloody knuckles were suffered to get that timing right?
Amazing timing to strike cb on a shallow up angle just before tip angles back down...to fly cb to head ball...appears cb strikes head ball on the way down, at a very shallow angle, bouncing off slate after collision...hard to tell, could be wrong...again..:thumbup:
Wonder if this is why the bridge finger loop is just above cushion level, and somewhat close to cushion to promote a slight cue tip up angle as the rear portion of the shaft briefly scrapes the rail just before re-raising back hand to avoid smashing his fingers into rail, sending the tip back down.....???
Maybe I'm not seeing what I think I'm seeing...maybe he is hitting cb down into slate....:sorry:
I don't see me trying this...too much coordination involved for me, but an amazing break to watch.:grin:
Sometimes pros (and grandfathers of pros) don't always explain the physics of the game totally correctly.So the best 9ball and 10ball breaker on the planet is wrong...
There is no doubt that Shane has a good break. There is also no doubt that when he hits the 1 ball squarely with fast speed (with the cue slightly elevated at impact to clear the head rail), the CB hops and squats. There is nothing on my CB hop and squat on the break resource page that is in conflict with these facts. If you haven't read the entire resource page, please do so. And if you or anybody else thinks anything is incorrect, please let me know.
Regards,
Dave
PS: The CB hops when I break too. Although, if it hops too much or in the wrong direction, I know I did something wrong.
Breaking Bad
IMHO, number one key for 9 and 10 ball breaking.... hit the one DEAD SQUARE..
The best breakers, Shane, Archer, Earl back in the day, hit that one top dead center
and usually the one went in the side, or wing ball goes in the corner.
I remember watching Earl playing Varner, just crushing the one dead center, cue
ball usually ended up center table, two or so balls on the break... when he hit it off
center, it was a disaster, scratching or cue ball off the table.
And of course it depends on the table!
IMHO, number one key for 9 and 10 ball breaking.... hit the one DEAD SQUARE..
The best breakers, Shane, Archer, Earl back in the day, hit that one top dead center
and usually the one went in the side, or wing ball goes in the corner.
I remember watching Earl playing Varner, just crushing the one dead center, cue
ball usually ended up center table, two or so balls on the break... when he hit it off
center, it was a disaster, scratching or cue ball off the table.
And of course it depends on the table!
I'm not wanting to argue. I seriously do respect your knowledge and your work you put into obtaining it. Thanks for sharing it too.
I do wonder though if it is best case scenario for the cueball to land simultaneously to contacting the 1 ball. It probably is the best way to transfer all of the power but I wonder if the balls react different when the cueball is slightly airborne still at contact?
It's a bad tradeoff - it robs the break of power at any speed, and you can prevent it without changing the speed (just change the distance a little).
pj
chgo
It could be that a consistent hop is the feedback he uses to know that he struck it how he wanted - speed, aim, cue elevation - but the hop itself isn't what is causing his break to be so good. The hop itself is incidental. It's an effect rather than a cause of a good break.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
It maybe robs the rack of 3-5% of the total power in the case of shane's break. I estimate that the speed he causes the cueball to move it would reach a height of 20-25 feet if thrown straight up. Given that his ball appears to pop ~6" off the table, that means that he is only 1/40th of the energy, so even if it were to pop 1ft, it would only be 5% of the energy that is lost to the hop.
There could easily be many benefits (i.e. the path of the balls) that outweigh this 3-5% loss that we see in Shane's break.
Just as a hard, poorly-aimed break will not produce results on par with a softer, well-aimed break, a hop may produce better action...despite all this lost energy you are on about.
If the CB hops, then the head ball was hit off center like any poorly aimed break (just vertically off rather than horizontally off). If it's not good when off target horizontally, how is it good when off target vertically?
In fact, being off target vertically drives the head ball down into the slate, losing more power than being off target horizontally.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Just like a cut break gets the action wanted on some 9ball breaks I am wondering if a vertical off center hit gets him the action wanted on his 10ball break
I can see how hitting off center horizontally changes the direction the head ball will take (although I suspect the same thing can be accomplished by simply breaking from another spot), but I can't see any predictable benefit from hitting the head ball above center (except that it might avoid some occasional OB/CB collisions). Until I hear another advantage that's more than a wildass guess I'll keep trying to hit the head ball as square as possible.
pj
chgo
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
I already gave you my estimate of the amount of energy that is lost...it is only lost once, it doesn't matter that it is resolved by the head ball and the slate.
Which is it for you? It is the energy lost (relatively insignificant) or the 'poor aim' (which it isn't)?
I've told you why it might help--the cueball may indeed restrict the movement of the rest of the balls less if it is aloft than if it stays on the slate. You either need to prove this incorrect, prove that there is more energy lost than my estimate or admit that you are speaking from bias and not fact.
I question the 5% guess, but if it isn't doing anything else for him, why lose any power?
pj
chgo
Another question. If the cueball is coming in at a slight angle (airborne) and it hits the 1 ball full from this angle, wouldnt that hit transfer the most power? It seems if the cueball was coming in at a slight angle and hit both the 1ball and slate at the same time then this would not generate as much power because that is not a true full hit (coming in from an angle).
I hope thia makes sense.
I hope thia makes sense.
I'd call that a wildass guess, not an estimate - but I'm willing to be convinced with some actual data.
Driving the head ball into the slate isn't "resolving" anything - it's another separate and additional loss of power delivered into the rest of the balls.
How do we compare that with the movement lost from power diversion?
Actually, since the numerical assertion is yours, you need to prove it correct - i.e., that there is only 5% energy lost (I doubt it) and that there would be more energy lost due to occasional CB/OB collisions (I doubt it).
pj
chgo
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
The 3-5% estimate is based upon the ratio of how high the hop is versus how high a ball would fly if thrown straight up into the air based on the speed (~23mph) that the ball hits the rack. I explained that. I can direct you to the acceleration equations I used if you need them.
The energy that is lost by the head ball being driven into the slate is minimal because everything is very massive, heavy and solid...therefore creating nearly an impulse situation. You in the past have used the impulse equations for cuestick/cueball contact...this is much closer to an impulse. Because of this, the energy lost is minimal.
These are the assumptions I've made. I'm sure I've simplified it a bit, but I never claimed it was much better than an estimate. Why don't you give us your estimate and tell us what it is based upon.
As for the power diversion and the rest of the terms you've made up, I don't know...the interactions of the balls is a very complex problem with many relevant variables. All I said is that there is a chance that the cueball going aloft may give better breaks, all other things being equal...something you argue against on nothing more than a single data point of energy up not being energy in.