Your statement is false. It is important for you to understand why it is false if we are going to have a useful discussion. A hint: velocity is the integral of acceleration.av84fun said:
pause before pulling the trigger?
- Thread starter 9ballprodigy
- Start date
To side step the "does it stop" problem, we can all agree that there is such a thing as an intentional pause at the end of a back swing.
I have been trying this intentional pause for a few days and I too noticed a noticeable improvement in accuracy and a decrease in the ability to apply spin (of whatever type). The spin problem can probably be overcome with sufficient practice.
In attempting to determine why a pause in the back swing is beneficial I propose the following:
1. Apparently, with a pause one gains a better perception of alignment and adjusts minutely as needed.
2. I suspect that Self 2 or the subconscious motor processes become (?) more aware of minute adjustments in alignment and modifies one?s behavior accordingly.
3. It seems rather obvious, as someone pointed out, that the transition in muscle contractions are brought under better control when there is a slight pause allowing the nervous system to re-group as needed for a push rather than a pull.
4. It is agreed that any reasonable new change in behavior alters one's ability initially because there is better attention to detail in the process. None-the-less, I suspect that a long term change using the pause will improve one's accuracy because one is now sighting down a longer line and checking for alignment at the furthest remove from the actual contact points. In essence, sighting over four feet is better than sighting over three feet.
5. I have now spent about four hours using the pause and while I find that it is difficult to incorporate and that it will substantially change my game the improvement in accuracy is too substantial to ignore. Now it is simply a matter of getting used to it.
6. A footnote. I have also noticed that with the increased length of the aiming line, I am much better able to actually see the deflection and swerve as these are introduced. This is a very interesting phenomena that deserves much more study in the improvement of my game.
I have been trying this intentional pause for a few days and I too noticed a noticeable improvement in accuracy and a decrease in the ability to apply spin (of whatever type). The spin problem can probably be overcome with sufficient practice.
In attempting to determine why a pause in the back swing is beneficial I propose the following:
1. Apparently, with a pause one gains a better perception of alignment and adjusts minutely as needed.
2. I suspect that Self 2 or the subconscious motor processes become (?) more aware of minute adjustments in alignment and modifies one?s behavior accordingly.
3. It seems rather obvious, as someone pointed out, that the transition in muscle contractions are brought under better control when there is a slight pause allowing the nervous system to re-group as needed for a push rather than a pull.
4. It is agreed that any reasonable new change in behavior alters one's ability initially because there is better attention to detail in the process. None-the-less, I suspect that a long term change using the pause will improve one's accuracy because one is now sighting down a longer line and checking for alignment at the furthest remove from the actual contact points. In essence, sighting over four feet is better than sighting over three feet.
5. I have now spent about four hours using the pause and while I find that it is difficult to incorporate and that it will substantially change my game the improvement in accuracy is too substantial to ignore. Now it is simply a matter of getting used to it.
6. A footnote. I have also noticed that with the increased length of the aiming line, I am much better able to actually see the deflection and swerve as these are introduced. This is a very interesting phenomena that deserves much more study in the improvement of my game.
Last edited:
My suspicion on the lack of spin thing is that without the pause, your stroke has more swoop to the side of the spin. With the pause, you are more likely to come straight through were you intend. Of course, without seeing you, no one can be sure.JoeW said:
I urge you to either find an instructor who does video analysis (which is a required part of BCA instructor training) or video tape yourself.
[/QUOTE]mikepage said:
Well here, I think it was you who misread some of the posts here... inclouding this one from Bob...
"Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCue'sProtege
you already have a pause in your stroke. it might only be .001 of a second, but the laws of physics state there has to be a pause when you start your forward stroke. ...
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.
__________________
Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
av84fun said:
Just a second.. Now, I am not in physics, but at some point a ball tossed up in the air must 'stop' moving up, and 'start' moving down. If this is not a pause, what is it called (for the record I have no idea)? Seems to me this millisecond (or even less then a millisecond), has to be a stop or pause. Same thing would apply to the pool stroke in my opinion.
Of course, should you or shouldn't you pause is completely different, but I'm curious about the above.
av84fun said:
AV,
This is more of a semantic issue between you and Bob J.
It is not just the motion of the cue that many refer to when describing a "pause". The muscles used to take the cue back are different than the muscles propelling it forward after the backswing is complete. Those "forward propelling muscles" are basically "pausing" (being statically stretched though) during the entire backswing. Very different than the gravity/baseball or child-on-a-swing situations.
The ball is not motionless for a millisecond or a microsecond or even a billionth of a billionth of second. The length of time that it is motionless is zero. That is not a pause.Snorks said:
When a baseball is struck by a bat for a home run, is does it pause? There is a time (of zero length) when it is motionless on the bat.
RRfireblade said: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.
i agree here. i didnt mean i knew physics, or the laws thereof. thats one of those "old sayings" here in SW Indiana.
like rrfireblade says, either there appears to be a "noticeable" pause, or none whatsoever. thats what we are talking about here, one of those two.
DCP
I never did it in my life, infact I never noticed it, I got a lession from a pro, he made 2 suggestions, As did Scott Lee and they both said the pause in a good idea, Scott wasnt as enthustac about it as the pro, I watched 150 hours of snooker on TV this year in Germany and noticed it, some players pause too long for me, so long I lose my point of aim etc, but a slight pause has helped me alot, I have to concentrait to do it, I noticed that If I dont concentrait I dont make the pause and dont play ae well. That not to say the pause is a cure all, perhaps just the concentration it takes me to do it is why my game is getting better, what ever the case, I believe it works and do it now,
Scott Lee might make it to anywhere, man he gets around. He has his lessions together, He is 100% necessary for C players, Man I wish i met him back in the day. Even strong plsyers can learn from him, I never had lessions from a BCA guy before but I'm sure they compair notes and are all good.
as a side note after my lession from Scott I noticed something that when I draw my rock it comes straight back or slightly to my left, so I have more to work on, something he didnt catch, which is great and made my lession more valuable, i'm gonna buy 15 CB's and work on that, its only on short draws on long ones they are straight. Funny little things you can pick up when you get lessions IF you pay attention.
Scott Lee might make it to anywhere, man he gets around. He has his lessions together, He is 100% necessary for C players, Man I wish i met him back in the day. Even strong plsyers can learn from him, I never had lessions from a BCA guy before but I'm sure they compair notes and are all good.
as a side note after my lession from Scott I noticed something that when I draw my rock it comes straight back or slightly to my left, so I have more to work on, something he didnt catch, which is great and made my lession more valuable, i'm gonna buy 15 CB's and work on that, its only on short draws on long ones they are straight. Funny little things you can pick up when you get lessions IF you pay attention.
Last edited:
It is motionless at some point, but the length of time that it is motionless is zero.Snorks said:
In a similar way, when your car accelerates from zero to sixty, there is clearly some time when the car is doing 30, but usually the length of time when you are doing 30 is zero. But suppose you are driving a manual transmission car, and you happen to shift at exactly 30. Then (neglecting friction) the car can be doing 30 for a duration longer than zero.
Bob Jewett said:
OK now this is creepy.
When I just read Snorks post I was going to reply comparing to a car going from zero to 60 and passing thru 30 mph. Yes, even the same numbers!
I'm glad I scrolled down first though, because I didn't think of the clever shifting at 30 part...
but what if i have an automatic transmission? would i be going zero if i was going thirty?
DCP
DCP
This would be funny if you were joking. It's pretty funny anyway.
pj
chgo
Williebetmore said:
Right...in a way. As I have noted in my posts, whether there is some sub-atomically small pause/stop when objects reverse in one dimensional motion, has nothing to do with pool. Only a meaningful, intentional pause...or no intentional pause is relavent.
The rest is just a sub-topic that is interesting to some.
Regards,
Jim
9ballprodigy said:
i read an article on mika immonen who said he saw alison fisher doing ths and decided to put it into his game. he said he had good results
Bob Jewett said:
For the car to pass from 29.999999999999 mph to30.0000000001 mph
it MUST achieve 30.0000000 mph.
As I noted in an earlier post...and assuming the most sensitive instrument and the most minute increment of time...an accelerating body cannot simply SKIP any increment of time in an ascending or descending series of increments.
In addition, if the car is at 30 mph for no measurable increment of time, then...all other things being equal...it would be at NO OTHER, measurable increment of time either. You can't single out 30mph and say that it was at that speed for no measurable quantity of time but was at all or a few other increments of time in the series between .000001 mph and 60.00000 mph.
Therefore, it follows that if your thesis was true, then the car could go from zero to 60 mph without achieving ANY speed for ANY length of time.
I think I will bow out of this discussion now because I have contributed all I have to contribute but I would certainly be interested in your reply (which I mentioned in essence in another post) regarding the thesis that accelerating or decellerating bodies just can't skip increments of speed.
Even a baseball hitting a brick wall at 90 mph will slow to zero by passing every measurable increment of time and it will do so by becoming compressed in the front while the back moves at a greater speed.
I suppose one could pose the "indestructible force meeting the immovable object" thesis but there are no such forces or objects in the known universe so that would be pointless...and no wisecracks about this whole topic being pointless. A few of us think it is interesting enough to post.
(-:
Regards,
Jim
2 second pause equals quiet eyes.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1206/segments/1206-1.htm
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1206/segments/1206-1.htm