High English Thoughts
- Thread starter elvicash
- Start date
Wow...my sarcastic attempt at humor was totally lost in my post I guess. I threw in thesymbol, but I guess I was too subtle ha ha! Also, beginning my 2nd paragraph with the phrase "seriously, though" was intended to imply that the first paragraph was not at all serious.
I don't know if *any* follow through is necessary for any shot. Except in so much as the tip probably must move forward *some* to impart action on the ball. I was just watching trick shots on ESPN and someone (Nick Nikolaidis or Stefano Pelinga) set up a shot where the cueball was about a 1/4" from the object ball, and he was able to draw back about 4 feet without fouling.
So to be clear, read my 2nd paragraph in my last post for my thoughts on follow through.
KMRUNOUT
Got it now....sorry.
randyg
Naji,
With all due respect, you are completely wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on in a pool shot. The *amount* of draw is dictated by 2 and ONLY 2 things: 1) Velocity of tip at contact with cueball, and 2) contact point on cueball.
Mike Masse actually has a very short follow through. I have played pool with him many times. I don't think many would argue against the power of his stroke. Mike can hit very low on the ball accurately and consistently, and can do so at a high speed. While the follow through may be the *result* of a good stroke, it does not in and of itself produce ANY effect in the cue ball. As I said in a previous post, a high cue speed will naturally result in more momentum after contact. With the "pinned" elbow approach, all this means is that your had will crash into your chest harder, with no change in the length of follow through. For someone who drops their elbow, the increased cue speed may result in a naturally longer follow through, however even an elbow dropper has a "finish" position for their stroke. I drop my elbow, but even on power draw shots (I can draw 2 table lengths!), my follow through is not much longer than on any other shot. I am watching Mike Sigel playing Johnny Archer on youtube right now. Even on power stroke shots, Mike doesn't follow through any differently than on soft shots.
I would try to get your mind around this...I get the impression that you might enjoy the feeling of having correct information about this great game.
KMRUNOUT
Glad i was able to help a little.
I love to learn of course if i am wrong i will correct my self. The object of a draw shot is to spin the CB backward and maintain that spin until it contacts OB then it separates the more spin the further it will draw, from OB. We know if you hit the tip in middle of CB it will be max or near max speed, if you hit CB at bottom near miss will not gain too much speed (as the center tip hit), but spin that will be required to a draw shot
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on power draw shots, since it requires so much spin so to get that you have to hit with long follow through to get cue shaft acceleration required to get the spin, so shaft speed in this shot is used to generate the spin of cb , of course CB will fly
On short draw shots, you barley have to put speed, to draw cb;
Last edited:
Naji,
If I play two shots with:
Same tip placement on cueball
Same distance for follow through
Different speed of tip at contact with cueball
Which shot will I achive more cueball draw?
Why?
If I play two shots with:
Same tip placement on cueball
Same distance for follow through
Different speed of tip at contact with cueball
Which shot will I achive more cueball draw?
Why?
Thanks Tony, actually before i was trying to pocket a ball while i am drawing the CB, so i did not know really how much cue speed i am putting to generate spin required. So i decided to shoot the OB straight down and up the rail to see how much ob travel vs draw distance. I find out, the following:
1-OB 1st diamont, CB at 2nd diamond , best i got is factor of 3, i need OB to travel 3 x CB draw, if i need to draw one diamond, OB will travel 3 diamonds
2- two diamonds apart, 4x
3- three diamonds apart 5x
4- Four diamonds apart 6x
5- Five diamonds apart 7x
my cloth is slow
Could someone validate the results, or variance of these. Thanks much
Again, i will validate these results on other fast cloth when i can and see. But truthfully thanks to all that pointed out my miss understanding, i under estimated how fast cue ball travel to generate required spin.
Thanks.
I think the "no follow thru required" camp is getting lost in the science and losing some sight of the practical.... I am an elbow dropper... always have been... always will be... Hybrid actually as I don't drop until after contact on most shots but when I have to really reach for a ball I can drop before contact and hit the cueball accurately... This ability in my opinion is why I never want to work to eliminate the drop.. I want it available when I go to it....
With that said, follow thru from a practical standpoint can actually be a benchmark for me or someone like Naji...
If I am dropping my elbow and I am NOT stopping my stroke the the force of the stroke will dictate pretty consistently the length of the follow thru....
When Naji says to accomplish a shot requires at least a 12" follow thru, it may not be scientific.... It is likely more of a force/speed indicator instead of a requirement... The 12" gives him a way to quantify what HE has to do to get satisfactory results......
With that said, follow thru from a practical standpoint can actually be a benchmark for me or someone like Naji...
If I am dropping my elbow and I am NOT stopping my stroke the the force of the stroke will dictate pretty consistently the length of the follow thru....
When Naji says to accomplish a shot requires at least a 12" follow thru, it may not be scientific.... It is likely more of a force/speed indicator instead of a requirement... The 12" gives him a way to quantify what HE has to do to get satisfactory results......
I think we agree based on what you say here. You do indeed seem to have the right attitude for mastering the knowledge of a topic. This has been a good thread!
KMRUNOUT
Actually it was me that mentioned the 12" follow through, and I meant it to be a joke. I said that the cueball wouldn't even move unless you had 12" of follow through. But yeah, I agree with you completely. The length of the follow through is a function of the cue sticks momentum at impact, which obviously will increase the greater the speed. So a hard shot (where you swing the cue fast) will result in a long follow through (assuming you are an elbow dropper, which you are, and so am I). So the long follow through doesn't cause anything to happen, but rather is a byproduct of the cue speed.
On the other hand, I notice that I really only have two follow through lengths (approximately). On almost all regular shots, my follow through is about the same. Probably about 8 inches or so. On my break, my follow through is considerably longer, often having the joint go through my bridge. On super soft shots, my follow through might be very short. I think my elbow dropping has reduced a lot over the years...
Seems like we are all starting to zero in on saying the same thing.
KMRUNOUT
For another example of the hook shot with follow, check out this Youtube video. I think both the follow and the side spin are much clearer. I edited off my first five shots which were misses.
Careful observers will note that I use a fairly short bridge but like Raymond Ceulemans I bring the cue stick back so far that you can see the ferrule come out of my bridge. Also, the length of my follow through might be of interest.
I'm actually surprised there was so much controversy about how shots like this are made. They are absolutely standard artistic shots, and the sort of fancy shot I learned many years ago the first year I first started to play. Most of the kids in the rec center worked on shots like this. If you have never played a shot like this, you have a long and hopefully enjoyable journey ahead of you as you begin to learn to play pool.
Careful observers will note that I use a fairly short bridge but like Raymond Ceulemans I bring the cue stick back so far that you can see the ferrule come out of my bridge. Also, the length of my follow through might be of interest.
I'm actually surprised there was so much controversy about how shots like this are made. They are absolutely standard artistic shots, and the sort of fancy shot I learned many years ago the first year I first started to play. Most of the kids in the rec center worked on shots like this. If you have never played a shot like this, you have a long and hopefully enjoyable journey ahead of you as you begin to learn to play pool.
Very nice shot Bob. This camera angle helps see what you are doing. I have a long journey ahead of me now.
Oh yeah did you have a Kamui tip or was that shot all Balabushka?
Hey Bob I do have a question... err well maybe a few scenarios....
1)If I strike down on the cueball and make it hop with follow would I not be able to achieve overspin? I was thinking that if it is hopping the overspin might not get turned into traction for lack of a better word.....
2)If I actually shoot up thru the ball I am now fighting gravity while applying overspin... Would it be possible to get overspin this way since the vector from the cue will be up instead parallel to the surface of the table....
3)The Kamui video had me thinking about one other thing that might be possible.... If I load up that shot with high and a ton of left could a jump off of contact coupled with the contact induced english vector possible cause a tilt in the axis of the cueball resulting in the left spin yielding pure overspin????
Great video, thanks Bob, I think people who tried the shot and find it hard, did not know the one secret which OB has to be close to the short rail otherwise the CB direction will go at larger angle to short rail and will not bend, and kill the follow and spin. Wonder if you have loose grip or tight, it looks tight since you did not follow much and looks like you using your mussels not cue weight? i could be wrong.
I say in the video notes, but it is a Balabushka butt, a Jim Buss carom shaft that I had retapered to pool style by Rick Chudy, a Moori tip, and Master chalk. Of course the shot is about as easy with a house cue and a Triangle tip, which is what I originally learned the shot with but I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's sales of expensive gimcracks so don't let anyone know.
1) I'm hitting the ball hard enough that if I elevate the cue ball will bounce off the end cushion and might even follow straight into the pocket after the 1 ball.
2) I have gotten about 20% overspin on a shot as recorded on the Jacksonville Project video. I would not trust a hit that far off center for a shot as hard as I shot in the Youtube video. It is impossible to shoot up through the ball in that particular position or for nearly any practical shot on the pool table. Shooting up through the ball should be reserved for trick shots, like making the ball curve left with right english.
3) Left may be made to work for that shot, but it will make the shot much harder and may require a bounce off the end rail. So far as I know it is not possible to convert left into follow.
Naji,
Perhaps it would help if I describe a shot in terms of a sequence of events:
1) I decide I want to hit a particular shot with lets say lots of follow. I want TONS of follow.
2) I get ready to shot, cue up high on the ball.
3) I do not think about "I need a really long follow through on this shot." Instead I think "I really need my cue to be moving fast when it strikes the cue ball".
4) So I swing my cue and attempt to bring the tip up to a high speed right at the moment of contact.
5) My cue tip contacts the cue ball and is in contact with it for say 1/1000th of a second.
6) Immediately at the end of contact, 100% of the force I am going to put into the cueball has already been applied. The ball is accelerated forward and rotated about its axis.
7) Because I swung the cue so fast, and because I'm not attempting to slow down the stick, but rather just let it stop naturally, my cue tip continues to move forward past the point that the cueball was.
8) The large amount of speed that the cue had at impact causes it to take a long time to slow down, and hence a long follow through.
Thus, the *cause* of the large amount of spin is the speed of the tip at impact, and the location that I struck the cueball. The follow through doesn't cause anything to happen. It is a *result* of the cue moving fast up to the point of contact.
I personally try to be very aware of the exact moment of contact with my tip and the cue ball. Not everyone has or cares about this awareness. For those that don't think of this, they could achieve a similar result by making sure to "follow through" plenty. In other words, they could make sure that they hit the cueball with sufficient force by focusing on the concept of firing the tip out to a point well beyond the cue ball. This is a mental trick...simply an image that allows some to achieve the desired result. It is not what is really going on, however.
A great illustration might be this: suppose some magician could make the pool cue vanish immediately after the end of contact with the cue ball. I contend that the behavior of the cue ball would be completely unchanged, because everything the cue stick could do to it has *already* been done. Once the ball leaves the tip, there simply is no amount of follow through that can influence the ball any further. The only "purpose" of the follow through is to attempt to fit my anatomy to the pool stroke effectively. In other words, because I am a human with arms, a brain, etc. (last one debatable), I find that the "concept" of a follow through is helpful for allowing me to strike the ball well. But the *concept* doesn't hit the ball. Only my tip does. It would be extremely awkward and unnatural to try and halt my swing right after contact. That would create all sorts of problems with the fluidity of my stroke. So instead we all just let it go straight through the ball.
Does this help clear up my statement that you highlighted?
Interested...
KMRUNOUT
I just though of another cool idea I would love to have the funds to try:
Create a device that could sit on (or attach to) the table. It would have a cue tip mounted on a short pneumatically powered piston. The stroke length of the piston would be whatever length is required to reach a desired speed at impact with the cue ball. The stroke would end at whatever the minimum distance possible to finish contact and have the tip and ball part ways. Lets say 1/4". Suppose that this device could accelerate the tip VERY quickly, and could achieve a velocity necessary to transfer the exact same amount of force to the ball as a 30 mph break. My contention is that you could thus achieve a 30 mph break with this device, or else raise and lower the tip to create a ridiculous amount of spin. All with a 1/4" follow through.
Anyone agree/disagree? It would be a damn fun engineering project...maybe I should call Mythbusters!
KMRUNOUT
Create a device that could sit on (or attach to) the table. It would have a cue tip mounted on a short pneumatically powered piston. The stroke length of the piston would be whatever length is required to reach a desired speed at impact with the cue ball. The stroke would end at whatever the minimum distance possible to finish contact and have the tip and ball part ways. Lets say 1/4". Suppose that this device could accelerate the tip VERY quickly, and could achieve a velocity necessary to transfer the exact same amount of force to the ball as a 30 mph break. My contention is that you could thus achieve a 30 mph break with this device, or else raise and lower the tip to create a ridiculous amount of spin. All with a 1/4" follow through.
Anyone agree/disagree? It would be a damn fun engineering project...maybe I should call Mythbusters!
KMRUNOUT
Hate to bust your bubble, but the weight of the cue plays no role in the length of follow through.
The length of follow through is solely related to how far past impact with the CB you move your grip hand.
There is no such thing a a pendulum stroke in pool. The stroke movement may look like that of a pendulum, but that's the only thing in common between a pool stroke and a pendulum.
This is a definition of a pendulum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum
As far as I know, the bending of the elbow requires the expanding and contracting of muscles. There is no way to have the elbow be a frictionless point as in a pendulum.
Plus a pendulum works in a arc where as, in pool the goal is to stroke straight which can not be done with a pendulum swing.
See, all this time you are really using a piston stroke. The explanation given here, http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-40.htm, is very similar to the movement a piston makes in a engine.
Stop thinking swing and start thinking stroke.
I love poking holes in things......