accelerating through the ball??

[GG11]

Do you agree that if halfway through his follow-through Santos got tackled by a drunk fan--or got smacked by Godzilla's tail-- that the action on the cue ball would be unaffected?

If "half way through his follow through" these comical but absurd events to place, I believe two things would occur:

1. No one would notice the break as they'd be laughing and beating up the drunk fan that tackle Santos and/or be screaming and running in fear that Godzilla decided to watch some pool and

2. The cue ball wouldn't hit the rack where Santos had intended given the "pushing of the cue" in the follow through had been disturbed. But if that weren't the case, I think he'd have only HALF power on the break that Santos' monster break normally has given HALF the follow through had been ... um ... interrupted.

 

[mikepage]

I[...]
2. The cue ball wouldn't hit the rack where Santos had intended given the "pushing of the cue" in the follow through had been disturbed. But if that weren't the case, I think he'd have only HALF power on the break that Santos' monster break normally has given HALF the follow through had been ... um ... interrupted.

I think you're imagining Santos's cue tip being in contact with the cueball for several inches on the shot. It isn't. The contact length is maybe the thickness of a few dimes. After that the ball is gone and what Santos does--or what's done to Santos-- can't affect it anymore.

 

[DoomCue]

You said it yourself: followthrough is part of the whole stroke, and the rest of the stroke changes without it.

When a batter hits a baseball, follow through is the rest of the swing after the bat hits the ball. Same in golf. When a baseball players throws a ball, the follow through is the rest of the arm motion after the ball leaves the hand. Same in basketball. In pool, the follow through is the part of the stroke after contact is complete (same as baseball and golf). I don't believe I made the statement you're attributing to me, and I don't believe it's correct. Follow through is the part of the stroke from the period after contact to the finish point.

As Cameron said, you'd have to "brake" your stroke before contact in order to eliminate the followthrough, and that would most likely throw your accuracy off.

Sure it would - you'd be trying to control something which doesn't need to be controlled. Purpose tremor's a b!tch. Whatever is natural is what is best - there's no need to force a longer or shorter follow through. That isn't going to make someone more accurate, or make a stroke better. Everything previous to the follow through is what makes the stroke what it is. What does the CB care about follow through? The CB is already gone when follow through starts.

I disagree. Followthrough is a major part of how a good (accurate) stroke is produced. It's definitely not "just a way to be sure you don't waste energy". However, I agree that followthrough doesn't do anything special for the hit - it just ensures accuracy.

Again, the follow through is the RESULT of the stroke (while still being part of the stroke). It doesn't ensure accuracy. You can still miss the contact point with a 2 foot follow through, and you can still hit the contact point if follow through is only an 1/4 inch. The follow through simply should be the natural deceleration from contact to finish. That's all it is. If someone attempts to control the follow through, he's wasting energy and increasing the potential for inaccuracy.

Amen, brother.

pj
chgo

-djb

 

[TATE]

The problem is, if you "try" to accelerate the cue, chances are you will jerk it at the transition from final backstroke to forward.

If you relax your arm and wrist a little through the entire stroke (but keep a good grip on the cue), and just let the cue do what it's supposed to do, you'll follow through naturally. If you watch some of the pros, like Niles Feijen on tape, they follow through naturally and hold the tip in follow through position. I think they do this to avoid the "poke stroke".

Make sure you're taking a long enough bridge for your natural stroke and think smooth transition on your final stroke. The follow through is simply the natural result of everything else leading up to it. The last thing you want to do is abruptly stop the cue or force it through the ball - just let your arm go.

Chris

 

[ginsu]

I believe the important part of this message is "hit the spot on the cue ball that you actually want to". "Accelerating through" is a mental image that helps you make your stroke more smooth, straight and accurate, but doesn't by itself do anything special for draw or any other kind of hit. It just helps you hit the cue ball where you want to, which is the only thing necessary (or possible, for that matter) for draw or any other kind of cue ball action.

pj
chgo

"Accelerating through" can be a mental image but in truth it is a physical action and in certain shots improves the action on the cueball. You are correct that for a stroke to be in grove it must be smooth (and the tip correctly placed) thru the cb, no matter how it got there. Acceleration does not mean a completely faster stroke, just increasing in speed through the cueball. It's still a soft hit, medium or harder hit with the height of speed at and just past the cb. A better explanation might be increased momentum through the forward motion of the stroke.

 

[GG11]

I think you're imagining Santos's cue tip being in contact with the cueball for several inches on the shot.

I'm not I understand the "pushing of the cue" is mere millimeters.

 

[JimS]

Paying attention to staying down after the shot improves follow through. When possible stay down until the cb stops rolling. Poke stroke usually results in a quick jump up after the poke.

 

[Sensation]

I agree completely with Patrick Johnson (again) and DoomCue. And they do agree with each other.

All that matters is:
-speed of the tip at impact (from beginning to end *.001 sec*)
-placement of the tip at impact
-vertical angle of the hit/cue
-any other?


Let's just not talk about:
-type of cue ball
-object balls
-kind/brand/condition of chalk
-cloth...
-rails
-slate (straightness of table)
-etc.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Mike Page:
Do you agree that if halfway through his follow-through Santos got tackled by a drunk fan--or got smacked by Godzilla's tail-- that the action on the cue ball would be unaffected?

GG11:
If "half way through his follow through" these comical but absurd events to place, I believe two things would occur:

1. [skip comical result]

2. The cue ball wouldn't hit the rack where Santos had intended given the "pushing of the cue" in the follow through had been disturbed. But if that weren't the case, I think he'd have only HALF power on the break that Santos' monster break normally has given HALF the follow through had been ... um ... interrupted.

Mike Page:
I think you're imagining Santos's cue tip being in contact with the cueball for several inches on the shot.

GG11:
I'm not I understand the "pushing of the cue" is mere millimeters.

Then how would interrupting the followthrough, which all takes place after these mere millimeters, have the effects you describe above?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
"Accelerating through" is a mental image that helps you make your stroke more smooth, straight and accurate, but doesn't by itself do anything special for draw or any other kind of hit. It just helps you hit the cue ball where you want to, which is the only thing necessary (or possible, for that matter) for draw or any other kind of cue ball action.

ginsu:
"Accelerating through" can be a mental image but in truth it is a physical action and in certain shots improves the action on the cueball.

What shots? How is the action improved?

Acceleration does not mean a completely faster stroke, just increasing in speed through the cueball. It's still a soft hit, medium or harder hit with the height of speed at and just past the cb. A better explanation might be increased momentum through the forward motion of the stroke.

Because of the extremely short duration of tip/ball contact (1/1000 of a second, maybe 1/4 inch of distance), it doesn't really matter whether the stick is accelerating, decelerating or coasting. In any of those cases it acts like an instantaneous impact at an unchanging speed.

"Accelerating through the ball" to get "more action" is probably the most common stroke myth. It's probably a useful image for developing a straight stroke, but it doesn't do anything to the cue ball that a decelerating or coasting stroke can't do too.

pj
chgo

 

[GG11]

Then how would interrupting the followthrough, which all takes place after these mere millimeters, have the effects you describe above?

pj
chgo

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.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
You said it yourself: followthrough is part of the whole stroke, and the rest of the stroke changes without it.

DoomCue:
When a batter hits a baseball, follow through is the rest of the swing after the bat hits the ball. Same in golf. When a baseball players throws a ball, the follow through is the rest of the arm motion after the ball leaves the hand. Same in basketball. In pool, the follow through is the part of the stroke after contact is complete (same as baseball and golf).

Well, of course. But that doesn't mean the followthrough isn't a necessary part of the whole swing or stroke - without it the first part doesn't work as well.

Everything previous to the follow through is what makes the stroke what it is.

Except that if you eliminate the followthrough everything previous to it changes.

What does the CB care about follow through? The CB is already gone when follow through starts.

Yes, the CB only cares about the hit, but the hit changes with and without followthrough because the part of the stroke before the hit changes with and without followthrough. The followthrough doesn't affect the hit at the time of the followthrough (because, as you say, the hit's over by then), but it's much more difficult to hit the ball the same way if you're not going to follow through - it's the presence or absence of the followthrough in the whole stroke that's important, not where it occurs in time.

...the follow through is the RESULT of the stroke (while still being part of the stroke). It doesn't ensure accuracy. You can still miss the contact point with a 2 foot follow through, and you can still hit the contact point if follow through is only an 1/4 inch.

Sure, but the point is that it's much harder to be accurate without the followthrough. If it makes it easier for you to understand me I'll change my statement to "the purpose of the followthrough is to help ensure accuracy".

The follow through simply should be the natural deceleration from contact to finish. That's all it is. If someone attempts to control the follow through, he's wasting energy and increasing the potential for inaccuracy.

I agree with all of that (except maybe the "that's all it is" part).

pj
chgo

 

[GG11]

"Accelerating through the ball" to get "more action" is probably the most common stroke myth. It's probably a useful image for developing a straight stroke, but it doesn't do anything to the cue ball that a decelerating or coasting stroke can't do too.

pj
chgo

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. This is why "poke" strokes don't work. If you start to decelerate before you've made contact with the cue ball, you WILL NOT have the cue ball travel as far as if you'd followed through the cue ball 1 inch, 2 inches, 3 inches, etc.

In EVERY sport that I can think of, it's taught to follow through, golf, football, baseball, soccer. If a soccer player goes to kick a ball and only follows through 1 inch after contact, you can't tell me the ball will travel the same distance as it would had he followed through 1 foot. That's illogical.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

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 want to "be technical" for the sake of accuracy in the information that's broadcast here. Don't you want to give and receive accurate information?

And this one thread among the many threads started every day isn't even close to "what AZ is all about now" - although I think AZ and its readers need more of it.

pj
chgo

 

[Sensation]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. This is why "poke" strokes don't work. If you start to decelerate before you've made contact with the cue ball, you WILL NOT have the cue ball travel as far as if you'd followed through the cue ball 1 inch, 2 inches, 3 inches, etc.

In EVERY sport that I can think of, it's taught to follow through, golf, football, baseball, soccer. If a soccer player goes to kick a ball and only follows through 1 inch after contact, you can't tell me the ball will travel the same distance as it would had he followed through 1 foot. That's illogical.

Well, yes... exactly the same distance. BUT! He couldn't achieve as much speed with his foot at impact if he has to stop 1 inch after contacting the ball. In order to stop 1 inch after the hit... he would have to decelerate before impact, causing a least amount of speed achieved by the foot (before and during impact).

 

[Sensation]

I want to "be technical" for the sake of accuracy in the information that's broadcast here. Don't you want to give and receive accurate information?

And this one thread among the many threads started every day isn't even close to "what AZ is all about now" - although I think AZ and its readers need more of it.

pj
chgo

We find a lot of misinformations here. Az people tend to spread the stroke myths. We need a lot more of critical, logical, analytical people on here.

For science sake, whatever happens to the cue/player after the hit of the cue ball doesn't change a thing! Being mere human beings, we need to follow through to ensure we hit the cue ball at the right spot, at the right speed... I sometimes wish I could explain all of this in my own language.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you.

No need to be sorry. Disagreements don't have to be disagreeable.

This is why "poke" strokes don't work. If you start to decelerate before you've made contact with the cue ball, you WILL NOT have the cue ball travel as far as if you'd followed through the cue ball 1 inch, 2 inches, 3 inches, etc.

In EVERY sport that I can think of, it's taught to follow through, golf, football, baseball, soccer. If a soccer player goes to kick a ball and only follows through 1 inch after contact, you can't tell me the ball will travel the same distance as it would had he followed through 1 foot. That's illogical.

Everything the stick does after the 1/4 inch (or less) that the tip is in contact with the cue ball is irrelevant to the cue ball - the rest of that 1, 2 or 3 inches of followthrough does nothing to the cue ball, so it can have no effect on cue ball action.

Followthrough does indirectly affect how far the ball will travel, because if you're not going to follow through you have to slow your stroke (or kick) down in order to stop it so quickly after impact.

pj
chgo

 

[GG11]

Well, yes... exactly the same distance. BUT! He couldn't achieve as much speed with his foot at impact if he has to stop 1 inch after contacting the ball. In order to stop 1 inch after the hit... he would have to decelerate before impact, causing a least amount of speed achieved by the foot (before and during impact).

Thank you! Thus proving that the length of your follow through DOES impact the distance the cue ball travels. If you follow through 1 inch, you are in effect decelerating before contacting the cue ball thus sending the cue ball a shorter distance, where as if you follow through 4 inches, you are putting more energy into the cue ball thus sending it farther.

Patrick's quote stated

"Accelerating through the ball" to get "more action" is probably the most common stroke myth. It's probably a useful image for developing a straight stroke, but it doesn't do anything to the cue ball that a decelerating or coasting stroke can't do too.

This can not be true given your follow through is a critical component of cue ball action, IMO. A decelerating or coasting stroke or a longer follow through stroke DOES, make the cue ball react differently. Otherwise a 1 inch follow through, a poke, a decelerating, a coasting or a 4 inch stroke would all produce the same results on the cue ball.

 

[GG11]

Everything the stick does after the 1/4 inch (or less) that the tip is in contact with the cue ball is irrelevant to the cue ball - the rest of that 1, 2 or 3 inches of followthrough does nothing to the cue ball, so it can have no effect on cue ball action.

Followthrough does indirectly affect how far the ball will travel, because if you're not going to follow through you have to slow your stroke (or kick) down in order to stop it so quickly after impact.

Ah, now that you say it that way, I'm starting to believe you and I might be saying the same thing, just in two different ways. Clearly the cue can't effect the cue ball after the contacting is completed. That's a given. And as I said in my previous post before, following through 1 inch or 4 inches will dictate when you're decelerating your stroke. If I understand you correctly, you say the contact speed you hit the cue ball is what dictates the cue ball's reaction. I just say it's the follow through (which is contact speed, but measured by inches after contacting the cue ball.) So wouldn't you say that someone who followed through 4 inches contacted the cue ball at a higher speed than someone who contacted it following through only 1 inch?

 

[Sensation]

Thank you! Thus proving that the length of your follow through DOES impact the distance the cue ball travels. If you follow through 1 inch, you are in effect decelerating before contacting the cue ball thus sending the cue ball a shorter distance, where as if you follow through 4 inches, you are putting more energy into the cue ball thus sending it farther.

Patrick's quote stated


This can not be true given your follow through is a critical component of cue ball action, IMO. A decelerating or coasting stroke or a longer follow through stroke DOES, make the cue ball react differently. Otherwise a 1 inch follow through, a poke, a decelerating, a coasting or a 4 inch stroke would all produce the same results on the cue ball.

He said that too. We (Patrick and I) agree 100%.
Scientifically: we could easily create a robot that strokes the cue ball with an inch of follow through THAT CREATES AS MUCH ACTION ON THE CUE BALL AS A HUMAN STROKE WITH 12" OF FOLLOW THROUGH AT A GIVEN SPEED OF HIT.

I'm glad we now kind of understand each other's opinion on the follow through myth (12 inches is not better than 6).