On a stroke shot, how much follow through?

[Colin Colenso]

Stroke is about Cue Velocity

In my opinion, if we're after power then we need to create cue velocity. The follow through is simply a measure of what we do regarding decellerating after the CB impact.

Most the time there is no need to bring the cue to an abrupt stop, so might as well let the follow through take its course of 6-12 inches. I think hitting the CB where you want / need to is more important than how you follow through on a stroke shot.

Not saying this is how it should be done, but here is a video of me playing some stroke shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keznf66dSHE

Note: On some shots my follow through bounces into the air off my open bridge. A bit of a lazy habit but tricky to avoid with an open bridge sometimes.

Colin

 

[pip9ball]

The problem is that at point b, you can't have doubled your force. You're trying to make a proof by assigning a value to Fb that we're saying isn't happening.

At impact, most good strokes are at nearly constant speed. In other words, zero acceleration.

Fred <~~~ another "accelerating through" thread?

why can't you? Assume at point a you are completely stationary. (tip almost contacting cueball...now swing your forearm to your chest. point a has zero force...point b has more force. Double, I don't know...but it is more.

So if your forward stroke is a smooth accelerating stroke...isn't it possible to maintain or increase the same velocity after contact?

I'd love to hear what Mr Jewett has to say about this...or any other physics guys. I just might have to dig out my old physic books and come up with a proof

-Phillip

 

[Jal]

....So if your forward stroke is a smooth accelerating stroke...isn't it possible to maintain or increase the same velocity after contact?

I'd love to hear what Mr Jewett has to say about this...or any other physics guys. I just might have to dig out my old physic books and come up with a proof

-Phillip

Well, I have a degree in physics too, but I wouldn't accept anything I say on that basis. As far as I know, everyone here has said something wrong at one time or another, including those with the highest credentials.

The reason it's not possible to maintain or increase velocity during impact, at least not for humans short of supermen, is that the force acting between the cue and the cueball typically ranges up into several hundreds of pounds. It's this large because of the compressibility characteristics of the items involved. Compare this to the force required to accelerate the cue up to speed during a fast stroke, which is roughly 10 - 15 pounds. The reaction force of the cueball acting backward on the stick (hundreds of pounds) will always win, and by a large margin.

Nevertheless, I completely agreed with your earlier post which stated that continuing to apply positive force all the way up to impact will produce more cueball speed. Once impact begins, however, if you could turn it off at that point, virtually nothing would be lost. But since you can't turn it off that fast, you're inevitably going to continue applying it throughout the impact. This will likely result in a longer follow-through (though not necessarily).

Fred (Cornerman) indicated that a good stroke typically will not have the cue accelerating up to impact. Others equally knowledgeable here would agree, and I certainly wouldn't argue the point. But, this doesn't produce maximum cue and cueball speed when you really want to let it out. And as a corollary, "accelerating through" also requires less peak force to get the cue up to any particular speed.

Jim

 

[PunchOut]

all physics aside, i think we are missing the point of why a follow through is so important on certain shots requiring extra english, draw etc.....which is to make sure your cue isnt slowing down when making contact with the cue ball.....

 

[BRKNRUN]

I personally would not compare the pool stroke to a full golf swing. However there are times when you do abbreviate the full golf swing and it does have an effect on trajectory...(creates a lower ball flight)....This is NOT due to a club decelerating at impact...It is more due to the change in timing at impact (hand release) creating a different blade angle at impact....The club should still be accelerating at impact of an "abbreviated" swing... (AKA: Punch Shot)


The only comparison I would make is the putting stroke....In putting you followthrough lenth is determined by the length of your backswing...If your backswing is 8" your follow through should be about 8"...It helps create a swinging effect of the putter blade.....Taking it back 3" and then following through 8" is awkward and leads to off rythum putting strokes....just like taking a 8" backswing and then trying to only follow through 3" ....not very effective and will lead to the ball leaving the putter blade in strange ways

I think the followthrough of the pool stroke can be determined much the same way as the putting stroke...perhaps not exactly...but very close...if you are only using a very short backswing on a particular shot...the followthough will also be farily short. As the backswing gets longer for "stroke shots" the follw through will lengthen accordingly......

 

[gunzby]

That's a very vague question. It is also a very relative question because of tips and shafts nowadays.

On an extreme masse shot the follow throw may be 2 and a quarter inches or less.

On a follow or draw it may be 6 inches or more.

The importance isn't so much follow through as it is hitting the CB on a precise plane. You ofcourse want follow through, but first you want to hit the CB where you need to hit it to make that stroke shot happen. Concentrate on that first and then move on to stroking it through.

Another stroke shot type comparison can be made for softball or golf. It is not nearly as important to hit it hard as you can as it is to have the bat/club hit the ball in the best possible location.

 

[Gerald]

As said at the beginning of this thread the follow through varies from person to person. As one person said "when the meat of the forearm meets the meat of the bicep." This completes the "stroke" that started with the 'Set" proceeded to the slow back swing and the 'Pause" and finishes with the finish just before the "Freeze." Generally 5 to 7 inches. However, I have a friend whose finish is slightly longer. For people who have longer follow throughs they also usually have significant elbow drop or their tip finishes well up in the air. I'm not sure physics adds as much to this topic as it does to other areas of pool. Follow through is simply the natural completion of the stroke.

 

[pooltchr]

Follow through is simply the natural completion of the stroke.

And to think it only took 27 posts for someone to come up with an accurate summary of what follow through really is.
GOOD JOB! This statement is right on target.

Steve

 

[Cornerman]

So if your forward stroke is a smooth accelerating stroke...isn't it possible to maintain or increase the same velocity after contact?

"Maintain same velocity" means zero acceleration. Surely your Physics books would have told you that. Nevertheless, upon hitting the cueball, your speed drops to approximately half. That's rapid deceleration. Your example had you doubling the acceleration. You're in the wrong universe.

I'd love to hear what Mr Jewett has to say about this...or any other physics guys.

Take your pick. Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, Mike Page, Ron Shepard.... none are Physicists, but they certainly know enough. All would agree with me.

I can point to a post from ~ 1996 when I said "you have to accelerate through the cueball." Guess who corrected me? Bob Jewett. Thankfully

Fred <~~~ great part about being wrong is learning the right things

 

[Patrick Johnson]

all physics aside, i think we are missing the point of why a follow through is so important on certain shots requiring extra english, draw etc.....which is to make sure your cue isnt slowing down when making contact with the cue ball.....

It doesn't matter to the cue ball if your cue stick is slowing down, speeding up or coasting; it only matters how fast it's travelling at the moment of impact. If on one shot your stick is moving at 5 mph when it hits the CB but your stroke is slowing down, and then on the next shot your stick is moving at 5 mph when it hits the CB but it's speeding up, the results will be the same.

Followthrough and "accelerating through" make it easier to hit the cue ball at a pre-planned speed with a straight stroke. They don't do anything to the hit itself.

pj
chgo

 

[tjlmbklr]

When you address a shot that needs a good stroke how much follow through do you need? How far will the cue travel past the cue ball's original position?

BCA certified instructors teach full follow through on all shots. I mean full by the tip will be touching the cloth when done. And your back arm will have reached it's natural stopping point (the inside of your ribcage).

This stroke is great because if you always use the ribcage/back arm with little to no elbow drop your can regulate the follow through when needed. I have had draw shots with the CB 1-2" from OB and able to draw several feet back. All you have to do is choke up your back hand (to mimic the stroke) and shorten you bridge accordingly. all without having to raise the butt of the cue. You never follow through too far because the backhand has a natural stopper.

Hope this helps!

Merry Christmas all!

 

[jtompilot]

"Maintain same velocity" means zero acceleration. Surely your Physics books would have told you that. Nevertheless, upon hitting the cueball, your speed drops to approximately half. That's rapid deceleration. Your example had you doubling the acceleration. You're in the wrong universe.

Take your pick. Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, Mike Page, Ron Shepard.... none are Physicists, but they certainly know enough. All would agree with me.

I can point to a post from ~ 1996 when I said "you have to accelerate through the cueball." Guess who corrected me? Bob Jewett. Thankfully

Fred <~~~ great part about being wrong is learning the right things

I have also used the term "accelerate through the cue ball." I know the cue doesnt accelerate once contact is made, it just helps with visualizing the smooth completion of the stroke.

To have zero or little follow through means the cue has started slowing down well before contact with the cue ball.

 

[poolplayer2093]

When you address a shot that needs a good stroke how much follow through do you need? How far will the cue travel past the cue ball's original position?

no more than 3 inches

 

[pip9ball]

"Maintain same velocity" means zero acceleration. Surely your Physics books would have told you that. Nevertheless, upon hitting the cueball, your speed drops to approximately half. That's rapid deceleration. Your example had you doubling the acceleration. You're in the wrong universe.

Take your pick. Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, Mike Page, Ron Shepard.... none are Physicists, but they certainly know enough. All would agree with me.

I can point to a post from ~ 1996 when I said "you have to accelerate through the cueball." Guess who corrected me? Bob Jewett. Thankfully

Fred <~~~ great part about being wrong is learning the right things

Fred, I never said maintain same velocity...and I do know the definition of acceleration. My example was just that...an exaggerated example to demonstrate that it is possible. Possible by humans may be a different story...however it is still possible. I was just replying to a thread posted by djb who said it was impossible.

There has been a lot of good posts in this thread and I did pop out my physics book last night. While I still think it is possible to accelerate through, I admit that probably no human can actually do this due to the force required to counter act the reverse force the cue ball has upon impact.

Even with this said, I don't think a constant velocity is the best recipe. I still believe that an accelerating stroke up to the point of contact is better. Why I dont know...but it sure as hell works for me

Have a Merry Xmas!!

-Phillip

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... I can hit a ball low and hard and stop my stroke as soon as the cue ball is touched (well, as fast as my brain can and I will get little to no draw. However I can hit the same shot with less firmness and a clean follow through and draw 1 to 1.5 table length.

It's not the lack of followthrough, it's what you have to do to stop it. You have to slow your stick down quite a bit before it hits the CB (and maybe jerk it off course). For a fair comparison you can't slow your stick down at all until after it hits the CB.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

...While I still think it is possible to accelerate through, I admit that probably no human can actually do this due to the force required to counter act the reverse force the cue ball has upon impact.

Yes, it is physically possible to accelerate through as in your earlier example of positioning the tip next to the cueball and then starting the stroke. It would also be possible on a normal stroke with a very springy stick/tip that drastically increased the contact time. In these cases, the force acting between the cue and cueball is greatly diminished. It just doesn't happen with normal cues and normal strokes.

Even with this said, I don't think a constant velocity is the best recipe. I still believe that an accelerating stroke up to the point of contact is better. Why I dont know...but it sure as hell works for me

There are some advantages to either method.

Constant Velocity:

- Least sensitive to variations in bridge length.

- Uses the least amount of energy during the stroke.

- Much better than decelerating.

Accelerating:

- Less sensitive to changes in muscle timing (to the extent that they occur).

- Less peak force is required to get the cue up to some target speed.

- Can produce more maximum cue speed.

With a pendulum stroke, it's usually recommended that the forearm be perpendicular to the stick at impact so that the tip is not moving in the vertical plane. This also seems to be about where constant velocity takes place, i.e., forward muscle push is reduced to around zero. How much voluntary control we have over this, I don't know.

Jim

 

[Detlev Rackow]

Check Newton's second law. Force = ma, where m = mass and a = acceleration.

So, a = F/m. As long as the Force is greater than the mass of the cue ball, then it is physically possible to accelerate through it

-Phillip

You applied this in a wrong context: F=m*a is valid for a constantly accelerated mass. If you deal with two objects which bounce together for only milliseconds, there is nothing to be concluded from this formula.

Furthermore, there is never a mass that is larger than a force, those are different natural powers (hope I translated this correctly). Even if the numeric value of F is larger than that of m, that would only mean that the acceleration is less than 1m/s^2.

When a moving object hits another object, we're talking about the transmission of an impulse, which is defined as p=m*v. The rules for impulse transmission are not physical laws, as the transmission is dependent on a very complex set of parameters, it's probably as complicated as thermodynamics

Best regards,

Detlev

 

[randyg]

BCA certified instructors teach full follow through on all shots. I mean full by the tip will be touching the cloth when done. And your back arm will have reached it's natural stopping point (the inside of your ribcage).


Please, not all BCA Instructors teach this.....SPF=randyg

 

[pip9ball]

You applied this in a wrong context: F=m*a is valid for a constantly accelerated mass. If you deal with two objects which bounce together for only milliseconds, there is nothing to be concluded from this formula.

Furthermore, there is never a mass that is larger than a force, those are different natural powers (hope I translated this correctly). Even if the numeric value of F is larger than that of m, that would only mean that the acceleration is less than 1m/s^2.

When a moving object hits another object, we're talking about the transmission of an impulse, which is defined as p=m*v. The rules for impulse transmission are not physical laws, as the transmission is dependent on a very complex set of parameters, it's probably as complicated as thermodynamics

Best regards,

Detlev

Hi Detlev,

Excellent post! Yes, I realized I used this formula in the wrong context after reading my kinetics and motion physics book last night. I guess the saying use it or lose it surely applies here.

Anyhow, thanks for the correction!

-Phillip

 

[LAMas]

Alan Hopkin's punch stroke

Alan from BD:

"I?ve had two poolrooms in my life. And when you own poolrooms, you also learn a lot. I?d have players come in from New York City and from all around, hustlers come in trying to hustle you in some way and try to get you in a prop bet. And to tell you the truth, you learn. I paid my dues too. There are times that I would get trapped too. But a lot of times I shot my way out of them. I think that is where I got my reputation. I would shoot my way out of traps. They would go, ?God, how could you do that?? They see your stroke and think right away, ?He doesn?t have much of a stroke.? And I say I can do whatever anyone else can do with their long and fancy stroke. It may not look as pretty, but I can do it."