How does Shane get the white in the air everytime??

[KMRUNOUT]

IMO, any way you slice it...he's not "wasting" energy because he's using the hop to control his CB...

I don't think so. He is using his stroke and elevation (or lack thereof) to get the pop and the action out of the break, and a dead square hit on the head ball to control the cb. I don't think the hop is a technique at all. It is nothing he is striving for, simply a by product of his stroke and hit.
IMHO, of course...

KMRUNOUT

 

[Drew]

(playing devils advocate)...

This is not true. The power lost is quite measureable. All you have to do is determine the exact height the cueball goes up. This allows you to calculate the power used in raising the cueball to that height. The amount is not insignificant. I bet it is in the order of about 1-4% of the total power. I would say that at the upper exchelon of breaking, this little percent difference represents real iprovement.

That being said, there are limits to how hard you can hit the ball and not get a hop. I think over 20 mph (my guess) and you WILL get a hop. So you have to decide to break less than 20 mph, or accept the hop. Now the question is whether the energy lost to the cueball being slightly higher than the head ball outweighs the increased power of a faster speed. I would say that in all but a totally jacked up jump stroke, it does not. Hence, if you want maximum power, you must offer maximum velocity of the cueball to the headball with as square a hit as possible, and also as level a stroke as possible. You will get a hop and you just need to live with that. Someone show me video of a 25mph break in which the cueball does not hop at all. I would love to see this.

KMRUNOUT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1tsONEI_U Colin Colenso has a good video. The CB doesn't hop on the first of these which are well over 25mph.

Shane doesn't break anywhere near maximum power. When he does the CB jumps considerably higher. That's because the CB is either airborne or indented into the cloth at time of impact. Any energy lost during the hop can be adjusted if he decides to put a little bit more force into the CB. He breaks at a manageable and predictable speed. That's why his breaks always look the same.

The hop may have started by accident but today, he is fully aware of it and it is very controlled. Just like the rest of us, control comes at the price of force. He doesn't have the strongest break around but it is one of the most predictable.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1tsONEI_U Colin Colenso has a good video. The CB doesn't hop on the first of these which are well over 25mph.

Shane doesn't break anywhere near maximum power. When he does the CB jumps considerably higher. That's because the CB is either airborne or indented into the cloth at time of impact. Any energy lost during the hop can be adjusted if he decides to put a little bit more force into the CB. He breaks at a manageable and predictable speed. That's why his breaks always look the same.

The hop may have started by accident but today, he is fully aware of it and it is very controlled. Just like the rest of us, control comes at the price of force. He doesn't have the strongest break around but it is one of the most predictable.

I will have to check this out. I can't watch youtube at work.

Thanks for the heads up!

Actually, I should modify my statement. I personally break anywhere from 15 mph up to my best of 27mph. The easiest speed for me to duplicate is 23-24 mph. I am pretty sure I have hit a few breaks at this speed or maybe more with what appears to be no hop. I find that a silly amount of draw helps with this. Though there have been those rare moments when I smash the headball and just plant the cue ball. No hop, no bounce back, just dead stuck like 6 inches from the rack. Still, this is 1 out of 500 or 1000 breaks-not worth striving for imo.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Cornerman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1tsONEI_U Colin Colenso has a good video. The CB doesn't hop on the first of these which are well over 25mph..

I don't think you can say this considering that Colin actually loses that cueball to the right by a lot on the first break. Clearly, his next several breaks hop. The ones with most control hop.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

Though there have been those rare moments when I smash the headball and just plant the cue ball. No hop, no bounce back, just dead stuck like 6 inches from the rack. Still, this is 1 out of 500 or 1000 breaks-not worth striving for imo.

KMRUNOUT

That's just the thing, though. Of the several times that I've dead stopped the cueball on a hard break (no hop and hardly any movement of the cueball) none of those times would have ranked in my top thousand breaks as far as explosiveness goes. I don't know what anyone else's experience is, but that's mine. There's no reason for me to strive for that then since I've personally seen a decrease in results, not an increase.

Fred

 

[Patrick Johnson]

That's just the thing, though. Of the several times that I've dead stopped the cueball on a hard break (no hop and hardly any movement of the cueball) none of those times would have ranked in my top thousand breaks as far as explosiveness goes. I don't know what anyone else's experience is, but that's mine. There's no reason for me to strive for that then since I've personally seen a decrease in results, not an increase.

Fred

As an engineer, how would you explain a decrease in power to the rack for a CB that doesn't hop (assuming the same CB speed)?

And by "hardly any movement of the CB" do you mean it doesn't even rebound back uptable? How would you explain that? When I get little or no hop on a strong break the CB rebounds back uptable a foot or two.

In fact, this rebound is a sign to me that I'm maximizing force into the rack - because the CB rebounds in exactly the opposite direction of the direction of force I want into the rack. When the CB hops I figure the equal/opposite force is simply pushing the head ball down into the cloth (isn't that how we get divots at the foot spot?).

pj
chgo

 

[Drew]

I don't think you can say this considering that Colin actually loses that cueball to the right by a lot on the first break. Clearly, his next several breaks hop. The ones with most control hop.

Fred

It was an example as how the CB doesn't have to hop when breaking hard. The hop comes from an off-center contact point between CB and OB. In other words if the path of the CB center of gravity goes extends through the OB center of gravity then you won't get the hop. There are quite a few players who consistently break much harder than SVB with no hop at all.

 

[Tommy-D]

> For a graphic demonstration of a player who's break I've raved about here before,but was never able to accurately describe,here you go. I saw him warming up at this tournament and watched exactly what you see here for 2 hours straight. Tommy D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O21AsO3g9Ms

 

[mullyman]

Its all about holding the cue at the Balance point i know Shane :wink:

Most cues have a balance point about 3 fingers above the grip. I highly doubt that anyone holds their cue that far up.
MULLY

 

[mullyman]

That's just the thing, though. Of the several times that I've dead stopped the cueball on a hard break (no hop and hardly any movement of the cueball) none of those times would have ranked in my top thousand breaks as far as explosiveness goes. I don't know what anyone else's experience is, but that's mine. There's no reason for me to strive for that then since I've personally seen a decrease in results, not an increase.

Fred

To be honest, some of my best breaks have been when I don't try to overdo it. Just using a natural stroke of the cue with medium/fast speed and getting a good solid contact with the head ball.
MULLY

 

[Rod]

I think its not a major concern whether the c/b hops or not. What is important is the results. If you control whitey and make a ball or two, who can argue those results?

Rod

 

[JB Cases]

Analyze this............

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
View attachment 80183

Athletic, but I'd say kind of gymnastic.

Um, do you have a frame by frame

That, to me, is the hottest picture of a female player I have ever seen. Hot woman with a break like that - awesome combination.

 

[JB Cases]

I used to play in a league with Cheyenne Pete Trujillo. Pete is one of the old time road players.

He would hit the 8 ball rack so softly on the head ball you could barely hear it. Looked like 2 miles an hour. With that break he would always make one, two, or three balls. I could never figure it out.

Timing I guess. No idea. It was a mystery but it was deadly.

 

[Bigkahuna]

Um, do you have a frame by frame

That, to me, is the hottest picture of a female player I have ever seen. Hot woman with a break like that - awesome combination.

No, I don't have any video. I just found that somewhere and downloaded.

 

[Cornerman]

It was an example as how the CB doesn't have to hop when breaking hard. The hop comes from an off-center contact point between CB and OB. In other words if the path of the CB center of gravity goes extends through the OB center of gravity then you won't get the hop. There are quite a few players who consistently break much harder than SVB with no hop at all.

Sorry for being unclear. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can say that on his first break that his cueball doesn't hop. I think does hop, but it's tough to tell because he's lost the cueball to the right, plus the video is fuzzy.

Given that every other one of his breaks, the cueball hops, there's enough evidence to suggest that his first one does as well. It just happened to catch the cushion on the right such that it didn't fly off the table.

Fred

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I don't think you can say this considering that Colin actually loses that cueball to the right by a lot on the first break. Clearly, his next several breaks hop. The ones with most control hop.

Fred

My thoughts exactly. I looks like he has some draw on that first one too.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

As an engineer, how would you explain a decrease in power to the rack for a CB that doesn't hop (assuming the same CB speed)?

And by "hardly any movement of the CB" do you mean it doesn't even rebound back uptable? How would you explain that? When I get little or no hop on a strong break the CB rebounds back uptable a foot or two.

In fact, this rebound is a sign to me that I'm maximizing force into the rack - because the CB rebounds in exactly the opposite direction of the direction of force I want into the rack. When the CB hops I figure the equal/opposite force is simply pushing the head ball down into the cloth (isn't that how we get divots at the foot spot?).

pj
chgo

Well, first off I think the main idea behind what Fred is saying is that he is NOT an engineer (to my knowledge), and hence is more interested in the results rather than the explanation behind them. I guess you could assemble a team of engineers and scientists, philosophers, etc. and analyze the break and the physics behind a flat hit on the head ball and no bounce, but I think the bottom line is that this is only usefull for discussion and novelty sake. The most important thing is the results of the break. If a bounce produces better results, I want a bounce!

However, if I were to guess, I think the most likely explanation for when the cueball stops dead near the rack is a loose rack. This would also support Cornerman's claim that those were often not his best breaks and didn't have as much explosive power. Also, he didn't say anything about a decrease in power. He said that there was a difference in the effectiveness of the break, and the explosive quality. I suppose "explosive" implies power...but I have plenty of times had the rack "explode" appart with a not so powerful hit, and had it not explode appart so much with a very powerful hit (both cases a square hit on the head ball).

KMRUNOUT

 

[Cornerman]

As an engineer, how would you explain a decrease in power to the rack for a CB that doesn't hop (assuming the same CB speed)?

For the hop itself, given the fact that every break will be struck with slight elevation, then what has to happen for a hop not to occur? Something not part of the normal break collision. An extra force? A force that's not normally found on a good hopping break? It can't be that the cueball lands right when it strikes, or else it will still hop. No, I think for no hop to occur, the cueball must not hit the front ball square at all. Maybe it hits the head ball on the way down just prior to landing, or hits the head ball just on the way up (after a slight compression of the cloth) and gets "trapped" by the head ball slightly. Either way, IMO, it's actually a sign of a non-square hit (in the veritical direction).

That's my guess since my experience tells me that no hop = bad break for me.

In fact, this rebound is a sign to me that I'm maximizing force into the rack - because the CB rebounds in exactly the opposite direction of the direction of force I want into the rack.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Others were talking about some notion of little cueball motion resulting in a better break. I was responding to that, pretty much saying that this isn't what I experience. Physics agrees with me on this one.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

Well, first off I think the main idea behind what Fred is saying is that he is NOT an engineer (to my knowledge),

Last I knew, my 1040 says something about an engineer.

Fred <~~~ better ask my wife is she's the engineer in the family

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
As an engineer, how would you explain a decrease in power to the rack for a CB that doesn't hop (assuming the same CB speed)?

Fred:
For the hop itself, given the fact that every break will be struck with slight elevation, then what has to happen for a hop not to occur? Something not part of the normal break collision. An extra force? A force that's not normally found on a good hopping break? It can't be that the cueball lands right when it strikes, or else it will still hop. No, I think for no hop to occur, the cueball must not hit the front ball square at all. Maybe it hits the head ball on the way down just prior to landing, or hits the head ball just on the way up (after a slight compression of the cloth) and gets "trapped" by the head ball slightly. Either way, IMO, it's actually a sign of a non-square hit (in the veritical direction).

Here's what I'd call a perfectly square hit: the CB hits the head ball when the CB's direction of force is straight through the OB's center of mass (just before hitting the cloth on the way down). When that happens the CB will bounce back off the rack (assuming a good rack, of course) at the same angle that it came in at, which will look like no hop (since it looked like no hop going in). Maybe you think this is the hop you see on a "good hopping" break? I don't think so - I think if you can see the rebounding hop more easily than you can see the going-in hop, then it's not a "square hit".

Here's what I'd call a square-enough hit: the CB hits the head ball and the cloth just about simultaneously (its direction of force is either exactly through the head ball's center of mass or just a little higher or lower depending on whether it hits coming in or rebounding out or exactly between). When this happens the CB will also bounce back off the rack at just about the same angle that it came in at, which will again look like no hop.

... my experience tells me that no hop = bad break for me.

My experience (and my theory) tells me the opposite.

Me:
In fact, this rebound is a sign to me that I'm maximizing force into the rack - because the CB rebounds in exactly the opposite direction of the direction of force I want into the rack.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Then I guess I still don't understand what you're saying, because I think we're saying different things.

pj
chgo