pause before pulling the trigger?

[randyg]

IMO, I believe unorthodox is a correct descriptor since it is not the traditional eye pattern used by the majority of players. Simply becuse it is taught, doesn't make it orthodox. E.g. teaching looking at the sky on the 2nd backswing doesn't make that an orthodox pattern. Unorthodox is something that is not a traditionally accepted or used. Allison's eye pattern is only used by only a minority of players. Thus, it is unorothodox. If I recall correctly, even the BCA recognizes and instructs that this is not the primary (standard) eye pattern.


? Did you mean anytime the cue is moving backwards? Otherwise this means that you should be looking at the cue ball when you strike it (when the cue is moving forward on your final swing). But you should (almost) always be looking at the object ball on the cue's final forward swing (that is, the cue is moving but your eyes are NOT locked on the cue ball) I have never taught looking at the cue ball on your final forward swing to any student [except, of course, for certain specialty shots (e.g., jumps, masses)]

IMO, for the majority of the pool playing world, shifting your eyes during the backswing is just as efficient (and effective) as extended pausing at the end. We have more than enough experience in shifting focus quickly during our lives that shifting focus less than a few feet is no more difficult than walking and chewing gum. More importantly, the absence of an extend pause creates continuity of motion and rhythm. When firmly in place, this type of rote execution is one key to consistency. Admittedly though, some players do shift their eyes only during a pause. This is highly effective for them, however, they are in the minority.

-td

The BCA doesn't recognize any eye patterns, that's why we train our SPF Instructors to teach them......SPF=randyg

 

[randyg]

Not that I am disagreeing with you, but I think the qualification might be whether you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I have made a conclusion in a little different area though, Breaking.
I have tried and continue to use Ralf's method of focusing on the CB when I break. Establishing a line of sight for the hit on the head ball, then relegating it to the background while focused on the Cue Ball to finish breaking. It seems to help with CB control overall on the break, and I don't seem to 'suffer' any glancing hits on the head ball.

Normal shots, I just do it without thinking about it, although I immediately establish a line of aim as soon as I get down (practicing rolling wing shots helps with this a lot), and I think I shift once or twice back to the cue ball before the hit shot. I pause slightly at the beginning of the hit stroke, glance briefly at the cue ball, and then affix my eyes back to the line of aim for the final stroke. I do not pause at the back of my stroke, never have, and that to me, is an incontinuous unnecessary action that disturbs rhythm. To me, anyone that pauses at the back of the hit stroke could never be considered as a natural player, strictly logic player. Natural players have a rhythm, they march to a beat, and they just 'flow', and for the most part, are very enjoyable to watch play.

Logic players, seem to be, encumbered with many more unnecessary movements to do the same thing, little though they be. These movements almost become 'security blankets' to some players.

I must admit I have been a little bit of a stinker in the past, and one thing I have fun with, and yes it is a little bit of a shark, is to say something to a player of something he does when he shoots when they are doing it unconsciously, then they get to thinking about it everytime they shoot, and it's all downhill from there. I have done this to friends sometimes just to be ornery.

Actuallt there are about 6 areas when a player might not want to look at the target ball last. Breaking could be one of them.

That's why we have SOP's and XOP's...........SPF=randyg

 

[td873]

The BCA doesn't recognize any eye patterns, that's why we train our SPF Instructors to teach them......SPF=randyg

Good clarification. I did mean to state it as you did, but momentarily forgot that there were 2 schools of BCA instruction.

Thanks Randy!

-td

 

[Southpaw]

I have had people tell me that I pause in my backswing. I dont do it intentionally, I guess its just there. I know alot of players that do not pause and they have no problems. I think whatever works for you go with it and if its not broken, dont try and fix it. JMO.

Southpaw

 

[randyg]

Good clarification. I did mean to state it as you did, but momentarily forgot that there were 2 schools of BCA instruction.

Thanks Randy!

-td

Absolutely, keep up the great work....SPF=randyg

 

[Matt_24]

I have a pause in my backswing on power draw and power follow shots. I always pause my tip at the cueball point of contact before executing the shot.

On shots that require a great amount of speed control I loose the backswing pause and try to really 'feel' the speed. I find that when I pause, my speed will either be dead-on or dead-off...but if I keep practice stroking with the amount of force I want to use and then just execute --- all in a smooth motion it works out much better for me personally.

I guess you just have to find what works for you - but still be willing to experiment.

 

[9ballprodigy]

well, i went to the pool hall yesterday and tried the pause thing for about 2 hours.
i like it.
i mean, when i practice stroke, i put my tip to the cue ball and zone in on that. then i pull back on the practice stroke and i zone in on the object ball and where i should be hitting on there. i do this a couple of times and on my final stroke, i zone in on the object ball's hit spot.
my only complaint about this is:
1) makes me shoot really slow. but i guess that should be a good thing. i don't think pool is one of those sports that should require fast thinking and speed.
2) i wear contacts and have a physical condition where i don't produce enough tears to accomodate it. if i leave my eyes open too long with my contacts in, i actually feel the contacts detaching from my eyes and my vision goes blurry. i guess i'm getting a 12-pack of visine tomorrow from costco.

overall, i think i'll try to make the method a permanent part of my game. i made some awesome shots last night only because i spent a good amount of time down on the shot.

i had a couple of short stops come over and tell me that they notice me shooting different and that in their opinion, putting a pause in the back of the stroke throws them out of stroke because the pause breaks a steady rhythm. one AAA player likened it to heave-ho-ing a heavy bag. you go back and forth to build momentum. on the last swing before you toss, you don't pause, because it breaks the momentum.

but what can i say... i works out pretty good for me. i mean, how many pros tried to tell keith McCready to stop using the side-arm right?

 

[WesleyW]

...I think the pause at the cue ball is WAY more important. Pause at the cue ball on the last practice stroke and evaluate the accuracy of the stroke and contact point. Then (for me) a slightly shorter backstroke and smooth follow through...

I agree. Right now I'm practicing to pause the cue at the cue ball (looking at the CB). Look at the OB and look back at the CB. Pull my swing back, pause for a sec. Look at the OB, and than shoot. It works great.

 

[pooltchr]

To me, anyone that pauses at the back of the hit stroke could never be considered as a natural player, strictly logic player. Natural players have a rhythm, they march to a beat, and they just 'flow', and for the most part, are very enjoyable to watch play.

Logic players, seem to be, encumbered with many more unnecessary movements to do the same thing, little though they be. These movements almost become 'security blankets' to some players.

I must admit I have been a little bit of a stinker in the past, and one thing I have fun with, and yes it is a little bit of a shark, is to say something to a player of something he does when he shoots when they are doing it unconsciously, then they get to thinking about it everytime they shoot, and it's all downhill from there. I have done this to friends sometimes just to be ornery.

So I guess Allison, Buddy, Neils, and many others would not be considered "natural" players. But I doubt you could shark any of them with your little trick.

Steve

 

[av84fun]

Well, no, they don't state any such thing. Physics is my day job, so I suspect I'm right on this one. A ball thrown straight up has no pause at the top. A child on a swing has no pause at the ends of the arc. And many, many players have no pause on their backswings. You can say they do, but technically, and in physics, you would be wrong.

Hope this helps.

Hello Bob,
This line of inquiry is what got the thread on the other forum off on a tangent and it may on this one too. There are few people in this sport whose views I have come to respect more than yours and so I offer this response with great respect.

However, I have read numerous authoritative commentaries that contradict your own and will post a few when I get time. But just for starters, in the process of acceleration and deceleration, I don't believe that any measurable increments of velocity can just be skipped.

If, for example .0001 fps is the smallest measurable increment WHICH, OF COURSE IT IS NOT but just for sake of example...I don't think that an object can go from .0001 fps to .0003 fps without having passed through .0002.

Is that incorrect??

If not then follow me on this. Say an object is ascending exactly vertically and eventually slows down to the slowest measurable velocity of .0001 fps. If it does NOT stop at the top then it would have to transition from an upward velocity of .0001 fps to a downward velocity of .0001 fps
INSTANTLY which would require the object to be going both up and down at the same time.

Rather, it is my understanding that for an object to EXACTLY change directions...i.e. EXACTlY 180 degrees, (one dimensional velocity in other words) then it MUST achieve .0000 fps...in other words, come to a full stop for the smallest measurable increment before it can change directions.

Again, if that were not the case, then the object would have to be going in two directions at the same time which would require the object to be in two places at the same time...MICROSCOPICALLY speaking of course.

I will now attempt to copy/paste a graph from an engineering site that discusses one dimensional motion in detail. If the copy/paste is successful, the graph will show that zero velocity is reached at the top of a ball's upward travel.

Well, the graph doesn't seem to have copies but below is the link.

http://cnx.org/content/m13834/latest/




Please know I fully understand that this sub-topic has nothing whatever to do with the game of pool. It's just interesting...apparently to both of us.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Snoogi]

Well, no, they don't state any such thing. Physics is my day job, so I suspect I'm right on this one. A ball thrown straight up has no pause at the top. A child on a swing has no pause at the ends of the arc. And many, many players have no pause on their backswings. You can say they do, but technically, and in physics, you would be wrong.

Hope this helps.

Hello Bob,
This line of inquiry is what got the thread on the other forum off on a tangent and it may on this one too. There are few people in this sport whose views I have come to respect more than yours and so I offer this response with great respect.

However, I have read numerous authoritative commentaries that contradict your own and will post a few when I get time. But just for starters, in the process of acceleration and deceleration, I don't believe that any measurable increments of velocity can just be skipped.

If, for example .0001 fps is the smallest measurable increment WHICH, OF COURSE IT IS NOT but just for sake of example...I don't think that an object can go from .0001 fps to .0003 fps without having passed through .0002.

Is that incorrect??

If not then follow me on this. Say an object is ascending exactly vertically and eventually slows down to the slowest measurable velocity of .0001 fps. If it does NOT stop at the top then it would have to transition from an upward velocity of .0001 fps to a downward velocity of .0001 fps
INSTANTLY which would require the object to be going both up and down at the same time.

Rather, it is my understanding that for an object to EXACTLY change directions...i.e. EXACTlY 180 degrees, (one dimensional velocity in other words) then it MUST achieve .0000 fps...in other words, come to a full stop for the smallest measurable increment before it can change directions.

Again, if that were not the case, then the object would have to be going in two directions at the same time which would require the object to be in two places at the same time...MICROSCOPICALLY speaking of course.

I will now attempt to copy/paste a graph from an engineering site that discusses one dimensional motion in detail. If the copy/paste is successful, the graph will show that zero velocity is reached at the top of a ball's upward travel.

Well, the graph doesn't seem to have copies but below is the link.

http://cnx.org/content/m13834/latest/




Please know I fully understand that this sub-topic has nothing whatever to do with the game of pool. It's just interesting...apparently to both of us.

Regards,
Jim

Personally I think we're looking at two different types of strokes..one is 180 degrees straight back (no arc), and the other one not 180 degrees straight back but sorta turn around (arc)..the former there's a pause and the latter without pause..problem is, do such a stroke really exists? (I mean the arc one)..or rather is it really possible?..

 

[Bob Jewett]

... However, I have read numerous authoritative commentaries that contradict your own and will post a few when I get time. But just for starters, in the process of acceleration and deceleration, I don't believe that any measurable increments of velocity can just be skipped.
...

Mike Page put a video on youtube about this stuff. I urge you to try to understand it. Acceleration, velocity, pauses, time integrals of force and velocity are all high-school-level physics. If you have access to high school physics texts or even community college physics texts, try to go through the sections that cover the topics of speed, velocity, force and position. I think that once you really understand those concepts, you will clearly see what I'm trying to get at. If you lack clear understanding of those concepts, it will likely be impossible.

 

[branpureza]

A ball thrown straight up has no pause at the top...

huh? you sure about that one?

 

[Bob Jewett]

huh? you sure about that one?

The reasonable definition of pause includes both zero motion and zero acceleration for a non-zero length of time. That's what Buddy and Allison do. The definition that simply requires a change of direction is obviously pointless, if you understand the physical details.

 

[RRfireblade]

I think you'all are wasting time on the hair splitting of a pause definition.

I think in the subject at hand , we all know what we're talking about.

Either there is a distinct visual stop and start to the parts of the stroke or it appears as tho there isn't.

My 'pause' comes from the feeling I like to have at the start of my forward stroke where I can feel the weight or mass of the cue in a static position and I feel like I have full control over it's gradual acceleration into the CB.

Same feeling I look for at the top of my golf swing , it's a moment where I feel the mass of the club at rest and I feel like I am pulling straight thru the shaft till impact. I have more club/face control , more impact control and more speed control when I am doing that even though it's not really a conscience thought TO do that.

That's for me anyway.

 

[branpureza]

The reasonable definition of pause includes both zero motion and zero acceleration for a non-zero length of time. That's what Buddy and Allison do. The definition that simply requires a change of direction is obviously pointless, if you understand the physical details.

well... i guess that sounds good enough to me.

i've tried the pause before but it's definitely not for me. i don't think anybody has ever struck the cueball as well as buddy though...

 

[av84fun]

Personally I think we're looking at two different types of strokes..one is 180 degrees straight back (no arc), and the other one not 180 degrees straight back but sorta turn around (arc)..the former there's a pause and the latter without pause..problem is, do such a stroke really exists? (I mean the arc one)..or rather is it really possible?..

Right Snoogi. That's why I stated that the "stop before reversal" issue has nothing to do with pool. It's just an interesting concept regarding perfectly reciprocal or "one dimensional" motion reversal.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

The reasonable definition of pause includes both zero motion and zero acceleration for a non-zero length of time. That's what Buddy and Allison do. The definition that simply requires a change of direction is obviously pointless, if you understand the physical details.

I'm responding to two of your posts in this one. First, yes I have had access to both high school and college physics texts.

Second, when you stated that a "pause included both zero motion and zero acceleration" you were being redundant. If there is motion, there is, by definition acceleration (or deceleration).

Did you refer to the physics text I provided a link on and did you see the graph of the rising/falling ball that at the top, indicated zero velocity?

Again, this sub-thread has nothing to do with pool and we could carry this on via e-mail if you wish. But you posted the remark that a ball thrown into the air does does not stop at the top.

Would you not agree with the text I linked for you...which, of course, assumes that the ball tracks a precisely vertical path. Of course, if the balls path is two dimensional then its velocity would NOT reach zero but would arc over at the top...BUT...its ALTITUDE would reach a zero state of change before beginning the decent even though its velocity would not reach zero.

Regards,
Jim

 

[mikepage]

[...]
Second, when you stated that a "pause included both zero motion and zero acceleration" you were being redundant. .

Most definitely not. If you don't understand this, then you should think more, study more, or ask questions.

[...]

Again, this sub-thread has nothing to do with pool and we could carry this on via e-mail if you wish. But you posted the remark that a ball thrown into the air does does not stop at the top.

This most definitely has to do with pool. The discussion seems techy and esoteric only because these are attempts to explain a concept that does matter. Some people pause at the end of their back strokes; others do not.

And as far as I can tell, nobody here, and maybe even nobody in the history of the universe, claims a ball tossed straight up does not stop at the top. If you think somebody said that, then I think you should take that as a sign you don't understand what they're saying.
[...][/QUOTE]

 

[td873]

Second, when you stated that a "pause included both zero motion and zero acceleration" you were being redundant. If there is motion, there is, by definition acceleration (or deceleration).

Jim

Jim,

Although Bob (et al) may leave out some of the technical details (since they are trivial to them AND they have discussed ad nauseum), his statements are accurate.

For example, with respect to your statement above, you can defintely have motion (in the form of velocity) without any acceleration.

Also, you have to pay very close attention to the particular nomenclature used, since (in the physics world) semantics are critical.

-td