Breaking and the Follow Through

BarTableMan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am a huge believer that the extended follow through on the break creates great results. Bringing the cue all the way to the joint on my bridge hand drives balls in like magic. Others disagree... that the ball leaves the tip so quickly that the follow through does not change the cue ball in any helpful manner. The time against the tip must be longer with follow through. Let's break this down. So what's the science?
 
In every game I can think of, a good follow through increases your chance at scoring. In basketball, football, golf, tennis, soccer ect ect. I do not think pool is any exception to the rule. I think a good follow through in pool is very key to success. I can tell when I poke at the ball instead of stroking through it and it make a huge different is being able to pot the ball.
 
Nine times out of ten that I have a bad break (no power, off-center, etc), a short follow-through was part of the problem. I'm sure other factors are involved, but the short follow-through is usually there.

It's like my theory of popping the CB on the break: the pop isn't directly responsible for the better break -- it's the things I do to get the pop (stance, bridge, stroke, follow-through) that result in a better break. The pop is just incidental.

I think the follow-through is incidental too. It's the things you do to make the follow-through happen that cause the better break.
 
Last edited:
I am a huge believer that the extended follow through on the break creates great results. Bringing the cue all the way to the joint on my bridge hand drives balls in like magic. Others disagree... that the ball leaves the tip so quickly that the follow through does not change the cue ball in any helpful manner. The time against the tip must be longer with follow through. Let's break this down. So what's the science?

http://www.billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#follow-through
 
Back
Top