Put me down also for not quite understanding the point of the video. Maybe it is a series of videos? I only watched the one linked.
I agree with PJ. Stark is saying two things:
1. He is defining timing as the contact time of tip/cue ball
2. He is claiming a better hit results in longer timing.
For #1, I disagree this is the meaning of timing. I've never heard anyone in all the years of AZ threads use the word timing as this definition. Maybe in the snooker world they do? For me, timing is maybe the opposite of "jerkiness". So a player with a fluid backstroke and fluid forward stroke, who hits the CB at the bottom of the pendulum (or piston stroke equivalent) would have good timing and a smooth delivery. In contrast, someone like Hopkins who pulls the stick back 2 inches and lunges through the CB, would have poor timing, and the stroke looks jerky. Obviously both methods work, as Hopkins' record speak for itself.
(From my memory which may be wrong): In Capelles 9 ball analysis book and video of Efren vs Archer from the Sands Regency Open, he said he measured the lengths and/or time of Efrens/Archers strokes for the shots, and then averaged them up. He found Efren had a longer back stroke, where he used more time to accelerate to the final speed before striking the CB. Archer had a shorter backstroke, and accelerated to the final speed quicker. You could say with this data that Efren has a smoother and more "relaxed" or "fluid" or better "timing" stroke.
For #2, I disagree the length of contact time has any bearing whatsoever on the shot outcome. Consider this: for the snooker pro in the video, every time he "felt" that the shot was hit poorly, and gave it a poor rating for later analysis.... Every single one of those "poor hits" is the absolute 100% perfect hit for "some other shot".
The timing of closing the hand will partly determine how high on the cue ball the tip hits.
