Do you try to "pop" the CB on the break?
- Thread starter bdorman
- Start date
Not necessary to strike downward. Hitting the cb with top spin, and as level as you can, but forcefully will actually push the cue ball down into the table, causing it to jump up and down the entire length of the table... thus you have about a 50/50 chance, that at contact with the rack, the cb will be airborne, and jump.
Hitting the cb at center ball or lower, and the ball is not "jumping" off the table.
Just hitting top, with force and a level cue, I've gotten the cb to jump over 4 pennies sitting only inches in front of the cue ball, and never touched a cent.
A trick I was taught that sort of 'encourages' the pop, is to make a taller-than-average closed bridge.
Bring your bridge up high, as if you wanted to use topspin. But now, aim your tip at the center.
Because the bridge hand is higher, you must point the stick downward a little to hit the center of the cue ball.
Your back arm will just automatically adjust to bring up the butt end + lower the tip.
This slightly angled cue is what bounces the break off the slate a bit, like a long and low jump shot.
edit: actually the guy who posted just before me might be on to something
Maybe the jacking up is not needed.
If you stand up fully mid-break (like shane) I think it helps keep the cue angled.
I have a hard time getting the pop if I stay down fully on my breaks.
You don't need a jabby or stabbing or "punch" stroke.
It can be a long, slow, fluid, languid stroke with tons of followthrough.
Notice at the moment of impact it's actually almost level.
Also notice the length of the follow through, like almost to the front of the wrap.
Bet the glove makes that a bit easier.
Bring your bridge up high, as if you wanted to use topspin. But now, aim your tip at the center.
Because the bridge hand is higher, you must point the stick downward a little to hit the center of the cue ball.
Your back arm will just automatically adjust to bring up the butt end + lower the tip.
This slightly angled cue is what bounces the break off the slate a bit, like a long and low jump shot.
edit: actually the guy who posted just before me might be on to something
Maybe the jacking up is not needed.
If you stand up fully mid-break (like shane) I think it helps keep the cue angled.
I have a hard time getting the pop if I stay down fully on my breaks.
You don't need a jabby or stabbing or "punch" stroke.
It can be a long, slow, fluid, languid stroke with tons of followthrough.
Notice at the moment of impact it's actually almost level.
Also notice the length of the follow through, like almost to the front of the wrap.
Bet the glove makes that a bit easier.
Extended followthrough has no effect on how well the balls break. It's all about efficient energy transfer, cue stick speed and timing. Tight grip (necessary to "punch" the CB) is detrimental to overall accuracy, which is especially important on the break. Here's what Mosconi had to say about it: "A 'death grip' on the butt end of the cue tends to deaden the action". I'm in the camp that believes he knew what he was talking about.
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
I'm not SVB...BUT,
I've done a lot of testing on the break, using my break rak and lots of different people and hundreds of racks documenting speed...and nothing that I see indicates that there is value in this theory.
By hitting high on the cue ball, so as to jump it enough to get the pop, you're giving up at least 1-2 mph...that's a big deal. I'm recording about a 1mph drop for every 1/2 tip off center you hit the cue ball on delivery.
Further more, as Neil stated, if the cue ball jumps up at contact with the 1 ball, it's because the cue ball didn't hit the 1 squarely. That's plain physics. That means that let's just say for example...80% of the energy of the cue ball went into moving the rack and 20% went into moving the 1 ball into the slate....and the cue ball up in the air.
Combine 1-2 mph loss at contact with cue ball, and let's say 20% loss of energy transfer???why would anyone employ this strategy???
I've watched SVB break, it's smooth as silk, controlled, he gets a very dead center hit on the cue ball and the 1 ball. That's what makes his break so special.
Just my .02
I've done a lot of testing on the break, using my break rak and lots of different people and hundreds of racks documenting speed...and nothing that I see indicates that there is value in this theory.
By hitting high on the cue ball, so as to jump it enough to get the pop, you're giving up at least 1-2 mph...that's a big deal. I'm recording about a 1mph drop for every 1/2 tip off center you hit the cue ball on delivery.
Further more, as Neil stated, if the cue ball jumps up at contact with the 1 ball, it's because the cue ball didn't hit the 1 squarely. That's plain physics. That means that let's just say for example...80% of the energy of the cue ball went into moving the rack and 20% went into moving the 1 ball into the slate....and the cue ball up in the air.
Combine 1-2 mph loss at contact with cue ball, and let's say 20% loss of energy transfer???why would anyone employ this strategy???
I've watched SVB break, it's smooth as silk, controlled, he gets a very dead center hit on the cue ball and the 1 ball. That's what makes his break so special.
Just my .02
For some reason I can't figure out, you and I believe Neil are under the impression that harder is better on the break. It isn't. Given a particular rack and breaking position, there is a *right* speed to pocket the corner ball. You don't need to hit the rack very hard or very soft...you need to hit it this right speed. I can break up to about 28 mph. However, I find that a *slightly* elevated cue, dead center hit on cueball, at about 17 mph wires the corner ball, pops the cueball and sticks it right in the center of the table, and produces an excellent spread of balls for 9 ball. So I really don't care about losing 20% of my energy...in fact, it takes a very conscious effort to break under 18 mph...heck I'm trying to lose about 40% of my max energy lol!
I always wonder why "energy transfer" is such a big topic in break conversations. I mean, I have instructed a 4'11" girl who is not very strong. She maxes out around 15-16 mph on the break. For her, I suppose energy transfer becomes and issue. But I think for most men who can strike the cueball accurately, and create a very square hit on the one ball (when playing 9 ball), energy transfer is one of the least important things in dialing in an effective break. 16-18 mph will do everything you need to do in 9 ball. Same with 10 ball. In 8 ball its not terrible, but unless you have a super frozen rack, its nice to smash them pretty good in 8 ball.
I wish I knew how to post videos.
KMRUNOUT
No, actually I believe a softer break is better than a harder break. However, I also beleive most people believe the opposite. That is why I mentioned what I did. Yes, popping the cb will lose energy to the rack. To those that think you need as much power as possible, that is a bad thing, and counter-productive.
"Science" has shown that a harder break will not give a better spread, and will tie up balls more often. So, a softer break is more beneficial.
Popping the cb does nothing to benefit the break. The cb does not squat because of it popping up in the air, it stops because of where you hit it. One can just as easily pop it up a foot or two and then have it shoot forward. As far as it gettting the cb out of the way of rebounding balls, you will find that over time it is a wash. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. Same as not popping it.
Popping the cb up does nothing more than give you a better chance of going off the table with a less than solid hit on the one. Doesn't make it any easier to squat the cb either, that is strictly a matter of where you hit the cb. The cb doesn't lose much spin at all while in the air, so any spin you had on it when it went airborne will still be on it when it lands.
When you pop the cb, to get the results you want out of the rack at a given speed, you have to increase that speed a little. Much easier to just hit with as level a stroke as possible and hit at the speed you determined you needed. Hit properly, the cb will squat after the initial rebound from the rack. Just takes a little bit of follow on the cb to squat it. Much more accurate staying down and using a "normal" stroke on the break than jacking up the back of your cue or jumping up in the air thinking that adds something when it doesn't.
In my experience, I find that the different type of impacts- flat or pop- actually do produce different results on a given table.
Nope...
I strive to hit the rack as level as possible. It doesn't make as much noise as a pop break but the balls roll further in my experience.
If you hit the cue ball hard it is way more difficult to eliminate the pop than to get the cue ball to fly up in the air.
Making a ball on the break is all about the gaps in the rack and where you contact the head ball. Not the amount of cue ball hop. (my opinion of course)
A break where the rock jumps up a couple feet and stops where it lands looks cool.. but that's about it.
Having the ability squat your rock after the break is the most important thing. -->Hop or otherwise.
Dudley
I strive to hit the rack as level as possible. It doesn't make as much noise as a pop break but the balls roll further in my experience.
If you hit the cue ball hard it is way more difficult to eliminate the pop than to get the cue ball to fly up in the air.
Making a ball on the break is all about the gaps in the rack and where you contact the head ball. Not the amount of cue ball hop. (my opinion of course)
A break where the rock jumps up a couple feet and stops where it lands looks cool.. but that's about it.
Having the ability squat your rock after the break is the most important thing. -->Hop or otherwise.
Dudley
Good post. I agree 100%.
CB hop looks cool, and it is often an indicator of a powerful break, but is certainly not something one should not try to create (e.g., by elevating the cue) ... that just wastes energy.
The most important attributes of a good break are:
- getting a square hit on the 1 ball.
- using only as much power as you can control.
- squatting the rock as close to the center of the table as possible.
For info, advice, and demonstrations on how to do these things, see:
break technique and equipment advice resource page
CB hop and squat resource page
NV D.14 - Pool Break Technique Advice - from Vol-III of the Billiard University instructional DVD series
Enjoy,
Dave
You quote these scientific studies, how about links to them? Wanna put money up that your "theory" will lead to better breaks?
2 things outside of what I do on the break that determine how hard I will hit the rack will be the table/felt I am playing on, and each rack prior to the game if I am able to tell if I feel it is a solid/tight rack or not. Some tables don't rack very well so I may hit them differently than a table that racks perfect.
I misunderstood your previous post. It seemed like your concern was about losing power. What you have said here is different, and I mostly agree. However, my experience says that with a slight pop, the rack reacts differently. This of course stands to reason, as the forces applied to the rack are different, as you just described above. I don't think, however, that anyone is in a position to say that it "adds nothing". Unless you have done a thorough analysis of how all those different forces affect the way the balls separate, their trajectories, etc, I don't think you can accurately claim that the pop adds nothing. My observation has been that the rack seems to separate better with the pop, given the same speed. So based on that alone I would say it is worth further investigation. Likewise, without actually collecting data, saying that "it is a wash" as far as the cueball getting out of the way is really not a very reliable claim. Most people's experience who favor the pop is the opposite of what you claim. It doesn't mean they are right, but it lends some support to the idea that the cue ball is momentarily out of the way of interfering balls. However, without testing and some serious physics, it is just that, an idea. Same goes for the idea that it *doesn't* help.
The one most important point you make as I see it is that popping the rack requires extreme accuracy, and can potentially create problems if you are not accurate. When I do it, I'm elevating *very* slightly and breaking at about 17 mph. I do not encounter any cue balls leaving the table. I also have my 10 ball break, which is done with a level stroke more like SVB, at about 22 mph or so. Sometimes I do lose my cueball off the table, but hey, you gotta hit the ehad ball square no matter what style you opt for.
Anyway, interesting conversation!
KMRUNOUT
This isn't just your experience. It is basic physics. Different forces produce different results. I agree with you 100%.
KMRUNOUT
Maybe you need to go watch some of his videos. He is clearly popping the cue ball.
Its more effective on a bar box because its easier to get dialed in on the proper speed for me its about 60% of my full speed ,, I once pocketed a ball in 22 straight racks on a 10 table at SBX a few yrs back thought i was shane for while...
when I was younger hitting in the 30s I could pop it a foot or so on a regular basis but now much older I find like in golf just the right speed and a solid hit has better results
1
when I was younger hitting in the 30s I could pop it a foot or so on a regular basis but now much older I find like in golf just the right speed and a solid hit has better results
1