accelerating through the ball??
- Thread starter clint3612
- Start date
Yes, I think so too.
Yes, I think that's a good assumption to make. The reason it's important to make the distinction that the followthrough doesn't directly affect the hit is simply to dispel that common myth so a discussion of followthrough's real value can happen. The myth clouds the facts and makes learning more difficult.
pj
chgo
Is a poke stroke one with a short followthrough? They work OK when they're necessary - they're just harder to use. The reason is that "putting on the brakes" screws up most players' strokes.
But, again, it's not the lack of followthrough itself that screws things up - it's what you have to do to your stroke to prevent the followthrough that screws things up.
pj
chgo
Because it looks ugly and it's not smoooooth.GG11 said:
GG11 said:Well, if you want to be technical for the sake of argument (which seems to be what the AZ Billiards forum is all about now) I was referring to Godzilla tackling Santos half way through these millimeters. (The ridiculousness in that statement is mind boggling.) Maybe our definitions of follow through are different, but I refer to it as the distance from where the cue initially makes contact with the cue ball and the point at which the cue discontinues it's movement.
I apologize for not clarifying this. It was a ridiculous hypothetical situation and I didn't know it'd be analyzed in detail or I'd have made it more clear. I was unaware that the critical posters of AZ needed me to specify the exact moment of Godzilla's impact!
My main goal in this was to relay what I've been taught to Clint3612 in hopes in might help him with his new discovery.
You also forgot to tell us how fast Godailla was traveling and was he accelarating though his impact or not!
Patrick Johnson said:
I guess my only fear in vocalizing that follow through is irrelevant is that for the amateurs (like myself,) you're more likely to instill a belief that "poking" or hitting whitey is just as efficient and productive as a smooth consistent follow through stroke. It's confusing. I think it's best to say that the length of your follow through dictates the speed at which you hit the cue ball. Course that's just my opinion.
Godzilla is clearly at the top of his game. He would be employing the most efficient tail-lashing technique possible. That involves striking at peak average speed of the effective end-mass of the tail. I will not go into the details of the Bessel-function analysis of the quasi-sinewave motion of the tail, but suffice it to say that Godzilla's tail will impact at precisely zero acceleration.9ballrun said:You also forgot to tell us how fast Godzilla was traveling and was he accelerating though his impact or not!
This was all studied extensively by Professor Tanabe during G's first appearance (as Gojira) in 1954. Typical measured speeds were between 180 and 800 meters/second. I'm surprised that there is any question about any of this.
Go go Godzilla!! He doesn't care about the cueball
Hahaha... I think it's more of when it comes down to the talk of something that lasts for 1/1000 of a second, it tends to get technical. lol
Personally... I dont' believe that godzilla would ever smack Santos with his tail....... santos wouldn't let him get that close.
I look at the "follow-through" portion of a shot from the moment the contact time is over, until the cue stops it's forward motion. So pretty much the exact same thing that you speak of... only starting 1/1000 of a second later.
During this 1/1000 time it's the actual Contact time. This is when ALL the force is transfered from the stick, to the ball... and the actual cueball movement begins.
I agree with PJ that if the follow through was shortened, the amount of power and/or direction of the stick's movement before this 1/1000 time period would have been changed..... thus changing the critical 1/1000 time period.
Now, if Santos was to be distracted by a bunch of cheerleaders AND godzilla after that 1/1000 of a second..... it still wouldn't matter, because the cueball doesn't give a crap about football, tokyo, or santos. It has it's instructions... it's headed to the rack. What happens after that is completely irrelevent.
The part leading up to this 1/1000sec contact time is what changes from a poke to a stroke. And what changes the follow through.
I'm rambling.....
GG11 said:Well, if you want to be technical for the sake of argument (which seems to be what the AZ Billiards forum is all about now) I was referring to Godzilla tackling Santos half way through these millimeters. (The ridiculousness in that statement is mind boggling.) Maybe our definitions of follow through are different, but I refer to it as the distance from where the cue initially makes contact with the cue ball and the point at which the cue discontinues it's movement.
I apologize for not clarifying this. It was a ridiculous hypothetical situation and I didn't know it'd be analyzed in detail or I'd have made it more clear. I was unaware that the critical posters of AZ needed me to specify the exact moment of Godzilla's impact!
My main goal in this was to relay what I've been taught to Clint3612 in hopes in might help him with his new discovery.
Hahaha... I think it's more of when it comes down to the talk of something that lasts for 1/1000 of a second, it tends to get technical. lol
Personally... I dont' believe that godzilla would ever smack Santos with his tail....... santos wouldn't let him get that close.
I look at the "follow-through" portion of a shot from the moment the contact time is over, until the cue stops it's forward motion. So pretty much the exact same thing that you speak of... only starting 1/1000 of a second later.
During this 1/1000 time it's the actual Contact time. This is when ALL the force is transfered from the stick, to the ball... and the actual cueball movement begins.
I agree with PJ that if the follow through was shortened, the amount of power and/or direction of the stick's movement before this 1/1000 time period would have been changed..... thus changing the critical 1/1000 time period.
Now, if Santos was to be distracted by a bunch of cheerleaders AND godzilla after that 1/1000 of a second..... it still wouldn't matter, because the cueball doesn't give a crap about football, tokyo, or santos. It has it's instructions... it's headed to the rack. What happens after that is completely irrelevent.
The part leading up to this 1/1000sec contact time is what changes from a poke to a stroke. And what changes the follow through.
I'm rambling.....
Last edited:
And I think it's best to say things that aren't false. What you are saying is technically false, and I think it is possible to rephrase your suggestion in a way that is both useful and true.GG11 said:
On a serious note I believe that the follow through in more about being accurate in where you strike the cue ball, the effect is better english. If you stand the without a stick and just act like you are stroking the ball and try to stop you back hand at a 90 degree angle you will notice that your arm will have some variation in it. That variation or movement witch is not in perfect line with where you where aiming the tip is causing the effect of less english or miss aimed shot. With that being said now do the same stroke and let your arm continue past 90 degrees and notice at the 90 degree spot that it was still moving in the same path that you started.
Hope that makes sense. JMHO
Hope that makes sense. JMHO
Why would you vocalize that? I haven't suggested that followthrough is irrelevant, just that its effect on the stroke's straightness and consistency, while important to accuracy and consistency, doesn't change the "physics" of the hit itself.
Only if you're careless in how you say things. That's what I'm trying to correct here. And the fact is poking whitey is just as efficient and productive if you do it accurately, and sometimes you need to do it, so people should know that.
I think that's a careless way to say it, which leads to confusion and misinformation.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Don't be such a baby. AZ isn't your party either, and politely disagreeing with what you say isn't a personal attack.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
I wasn't trying to offend or belittle anyone's opinions. I have been helped in many ways by various people and this was one of the subjects I was taught that helped improve my game. Maybe you don't learn things the same way I do, but if it helps Clint3612 with his game, then I did something good. If it doesn't, then at least I tried or maybe it helped someone else who read it.
I find that on this forum, it's hard to express your opinions or your teachings b/c there are posters that just can't fathom there are different ways to learn various elements to this game. And if they aren't spot on with their own teachings, they bash the poster till they don't ever want to help out again. I believe this forum is about helping each other get better and vocalizing various things you've learned in your experiences. Clearly though there are some that only want to hear their own methods and damn the fools who maybe were taught a different way.
It's discouraging and intimidating to those who are just trying to learn or help. I apologize again for expressing what I've learned. Call me a baby if you want, but it's not a very welcoming environment.
GG11 said:[...] I think it's best to say that the length of your follow through dictates the speed at which you hit the cue ball. Course that's just my opinion.
Even if different length follow throughs were recommended for different speed shots, wouldn't this be the tail wagging the monster?
mikepage said:
Yes, I can see that. I'm just trying to relay that THAT was the easiest way for me to learn how to control the speed of the cue ball. For me to focus on the length of my follow through instead of trying to control how soft or hard my muscles hit the cue helped me have more control over it's speed. It's just another way to view it.
So the more "other ways" offered the better, right?
pj
chgo