I like it better by my definition of pause. But the first sentence is trivial. Why even mention it?td873 said:
pause before pulling the trigger?
- Thread starter 9ballprodigy
- Start date
td873 said:
I agree the second is a counterexample. But the patent one is not. That person uses pause correctly, or else there'd be no reason to say the pause is crucial to control. Pause means pause as opposed to no pause.
My experience is you have to look hard to find an assertion like the second one here. In google if you type "everybody pauses" and "golf swing" you get exactly two hits: yours above and the Billiards Digest discussion ;-).
You find many, many more people using pause in the usual way. (i.e., it's a good idea to pause at the top of the swing).
[...]
I really don't know. I suspect they'd be confused and ask you to clarify whether you meant pause.
[...]
I think Mizerak has a non-zero pause is far from clear. If you said that to a roomful of pool players and then asked them to write down what they thought you meant, I think their understandings would be all over the map. If you instead said Mizerak has no pause, I think every single person would know what you meant.
Just for the record - I am in the physics camp and do not believe that everyone pauses at the end of the backswing.mikepage said:
However, there were 2 reasons for my continued devil's advocacy:
Point (1): the "other" camp will not abandon their position when there is at least some support somewhere. Repeatedly (albeit accurately) pointing out that their position is wrong redoubles their efforts. Even when such efforts fly in the face of convention, reason, or empiric evidence.
Point (2): In the future, when this comes up again (and it will) - there will be a thread we can point to and not have to hear both sides of the argument again and again.
And, as a final point before this thread dies a well deserved death (at leat my part will
) - I agree with Mike that it can be harmful to teach that everyone has a "pause." Some students will take this to mean that they should pause (aka Allison) or else they are not playing correctly. Instructors of all levels should be particularly aware that not all students should have or use a pause. In fact, some will NOT be able to play with a pause. And if they believe that all players have a pause, they may try to incorporate one and lose months or years of development - or develop bad habits that would not have otherwise manifested themselves. -td
JAL...also please refer to the comments I posted from the physics professor and co-author of a very similar article which, ironically enough, had to do with the collision of pool balls.
You will note that in his learned opinion, unless the opposing force causing the reversal of direction (in a one dimensional plane i.e. straight back and forth) is "infinate" there is, in fact, a momentary stop when the object changes directions.
Since there is no such thing as an "infinate force" in the real world as we know it, then in the real world, there IS a tiny stoppage at the moment of reversal of direction contrary to what others seem to believe.
I would also note that those who seem to believe that no such stop exists must (I suppose) rely on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which holds that even given "ideal" measurment technology, no matter can reach "absolute zero" velocity due to the inability to achieve absolutely perfect measurement. In otherwords, the measurement is "smeared" and cannot ever be proven to have reached "absolute zero."
So, (I imagine) the theory goes that a pool cue cannot STOP when it reverses direction because NOTHING EVER comes to a complete, absolute stop according to Heisenberg.
However, one quantum physicist stated "note also that the product of the Heisenberg uncertainties, are of the order 10−35 joule-seconds, which is so small that the uncertainty principle has negligible effect on objects of macroscopic scale, despite its importance for atoms and subatomic particles."
Since human beings and cue sticks are certainly macroscopic and not microscopic, or sub-atomic systems, the Heisenberg uncertainty does not apply and the most advanced scientific instruments known to man...and which would surely be accepted as fact...say in a court of law...would show that when a body reverses direction in a one dimensional plane it reaches a velocity of zero FOR A MEASURABLE BUT TINY INCREMENT OF TIME before attaining velocity in the opposite direction.
But as for the pool stroke, a REAL pause...which I define as "an intentional stoppage of motion for at least one second" at the back of the pool stroke allows for CRITICAL benefits, including providing time for the eye to focus on its EXACT intended target uninterrupted by the distraction of cue stick motion. (and motion is a HUGE distraction to eye focus as my pilot training proves....other aircraft which have little or no RELATIVE motion..such as is the case when they are coming straight at you, are VERY difficult to see but when there IS relative motion, the eye is "distracted" toward them.)
The pause is therefore, beneficial so long as the player does not use that 1 second moment to do bad things such as:
1. Tense the muscles (they can just as easily be relaxed during that second as tensed up) or relatedly;
2. Mash down with the grip hand or;
3. Move any body parts (they can as easily be made to remain in place as to move...in fact more easily remain motionless than to overcome inertia and move)
then the benefits of the pause at the back are so obvious as to suggest that all those who are not playing championship pool should at least try to incorporate the pause...as defined.
NOTE: The only exception to the above would (IMHO only) be the player who states..."I virtually never miss a reasonably makable shot and am not a champion becuase of knowledge issues (routes/patterns/safties/kicks etc.) and/or CB direction/speed issues." (for example, even a player who never misses a reasonably makable shot can leave him/herself with a not reasonably makable shot due to errors in CB direction/speed.)
BUT....if you know how to aim and still miss, then stroke mechanics MUST be the culprit. Of course, human beings are not machines and will make mistakes from time to time but the idea is to reduce MECHANICAL mistakes to the lowest minimum and the pause at the back is believed to lead to minimizing such mistakes by quite a number of our most respected teachers and championship players.
FINALLY...it seems to me that we mortals should elect to copy the SIMPLIST mechanics employed by championship players and not the most complicated mechanics...such as those used by Reyes/Bustamante etc. because those players have very nearly superhuman eye/hand/body control.
Regards,
Jim
You will note that in his learned opinion, unless the opposing force causing the reversal of direction (in a one dimensional plane i.e. straight back and forth) is "infinate" there is, in fact, a momentary stop when the object changes directions.
Since there is no such thing as an "infinate force" in the real world as we know it, then in the real world, there IS a tiny stoppage at the moment of reversal of direction contrary to what others seem to believe.
I would also note that those who seem to believe that no such stop exists must (I suppose) rely on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which holds that even given "ideal" measurment technology, no matter can reach "absolute zero" velocity due to the inability to achieve absolutely perfect measurement. In otherwords, the measurement is "smeared" and cannot ever be proven to have reached "absolute zero."
So, (I imagine) the theory goes that a pool cue cannot STOP when it reverses direction because NOTHING EVER comes to a complete, absolute stop according to Heisenberg.
However, one quantum physicist stated "note also that the product of the Heisenberg uncertainties, are of the order 10−35 joule-seconds, which is so small that the uncertainty principle has negligible effect on objects of macroscopic scale, despite its importance for atoms and subatomic particles."
Since human beings and cue sticks are certainly macroscopic and not microscopic, or sub-atomic systems, the Heisenberg uncertainty does not apply and the most advanced scientific instruments known to man...and which would surely be accepted as fact...say in a court of law...would show that when a body reverses direction in a one dimensional plane it reaches a velocity of zero FOR A MEASURABLE BUT TINY INCREMENT OF TIME before attaining velocity in the opposite direction.
But as for the pool stroke, a REAL pause...which I define as "an intentional stoppage of motion for at least one second" at the back of the pool stroke allows for CRITICAL benefits, including providing time for the eye to focus on its EXACT intended target uninterrupted by the distraction of cue stick motion. (and motion is a HUGE distraction to eye focus as my pilot training proves....other aircraft which have little or no RELATIVE motion..such as is the case when they are coming straight at you, are VERY difficult to see but when there IS relative motion, the eye is "distracted" toward them.)
The pause is therefore, beneficial so long as the player does not use that 1 second moment to do bad things such as:
1. Tense the muscles (they can just as easily be relaxed during that second as tensed up) or relatedly;
2. Mash down with the grip hand or;
3. Move any body parts (they can as easily be made to remain in place as to move...in fact more easily remain motionless than to overcome inertia and move)
then the benefits of the pause at the back are so obvious as to suggest that all those who are not playing championship pool should at least try to incorporate the pause...as defined.
NOTE: The only exception to the above would (IMHO only) be the player who states..."I virtually never miss a reasonably makable shot and am not a champion becuase of knowledge issues (routes/patterns/safties/kicks etc.) and/or CB direction/speed issues." (for example, even a player who never misses a reasonably makable shot can leave him/herself with a not reasonably makable shot due to errors in CB direction/speed.)
BUT....if you know how to aim and still miss, then stroke mechanics MUST be the culprit. Of course, human beings are not machines and will make mistakes from time to time but the idea is to reduce MECHANICAL mistakes to the lowest minimum and the pause at the back is believed to lead to minimizing such mistakes by quite a number of our most respected teachers and championship players.
FINALLY...it seems to me that we mortals should elect to copy the SIMPLIST mechanics employed by championship players and not the most complicated mechanics...such as those used by Reyes/Bustamante etc. because those players have very nearly superhuman eye/hand/body control.
Regards,
Jim
S
Snoogi
Guest
Probably it's about high time the lexicographers ammend the dictionaries..
av84fun, I did read your post and apologize for ignoring it. But a lot of interesting stuff has been said and I just wanted to sneak in my take. Man, it's getting scholarly around here!av84fun said:
My impression was that the professor was treating it as a classical problem and leaving it at that. Whatever his specialty, he must be infinitly more versed in quantum theory than I am, so if he were to explicitly say that the balls (or anything) can come to an absolute and dead stop according to quantum mechanics, I would bow my head in deference.
My comments are based only on a miniscule understanding. Werner Heisenberg wrote a book called "Physics and Philosophy" which I read about 30 years ago. If I remember correctly, the whole point of the book was to put forth, for popular consumption, the standard or "Copenhagen" interpretation of the subject. And I believe the essence of it is that the uncertainty or ambiguity of such things as position/velocity, energy/time etc., is built into the very nature of things, and not a measurement problem.
True, many expositions present the uncertainty principle as a measurement problem (ie, the act of measuring disturbs whatever it is your trying to measure), but I think the Copenhagen interpretation goes further and says that in principle, these variables are intrinsically not well-defined in the classical sense. A good explanation, as well as can be had anyway, can be found in Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality", which is a somewhat humorous and sarcastic look at the various interpretations of quantum mechanics.
As you point out, the effects on macroscopic objects are extremely small. But they are still there, and in principle prevent us from saying that something is ever moving at exactly any velocity, including zero. (It would help to cool the cue down to absolute zero, but even that wouldn't do it.)
But maybe Mike Page's colleague will have me eating some crow (or he'll do the deed himself).
I think you make some interesting points. Maybe it's been said already, but do you have any idea how many pros do use a pause in the sense that you mean it above?av84fun said:
Jim
Jal said:
Wow, this thread has got some legs. After the above quote, I'm afraid someone will now explain the nature of the Bose-Einstein Condensate.
S
Snoogi
Guest
With due respect to the scientists, I fully agree that everything in this world involves science, but every game/sport has its own set of rules, we can't go around trying to arbitralily rule every sport under science. My very first lesson, the very first booklet that my coach slammed on my head "How To Play Pool Right", a thin one approved and published by BCA, inside is Set Pause Finish. This is being taught to millions of poolplayers worldwide. Trying to prove a simple pause is not a scientific pause will only confuse the rest of the world. BCA is the largest billiard body in the world, it will take a lot more than just this thread alone to upsurge the word 'pause'.Neil said:
I make a suggestion, why not those who feel like they're challenged come out with their own words, then let the BCA committee consider and decide rather than go on debating about 'English'..do bear in mind we're in the context of pool..
Allison's pause on Direct Tv vs Youtube
I have been watching Allison on Direct TV (tivo). I merely set it on sports & then pool & get 4-5 tournaments recorded per day. Her pause is much easier to observe on my TV screen than on Youtube. She also varies the number of practice strokes as a function of the difficulty of the shot. Her technique is far better than trying to use the same number of practice strokes on each shot as some books advise. Valerie Vallereal (sp?) uses the latter technique & gave it as a tip while she was being smeared by Allison. Vallereal was also very inconsistent.
gregoryg said:
I have been watching Allison on Direct TV (tivo). I merely set it on sports & then pool & get 4-5 tournaments recorded per day. Her pause is much easier to observe on my TV screen than on Youtube. She also varies the number of practice strokes as a function of the difficulty of the shot. Her technique is far better than trying to use the same number of practice strokes on each shot as some books advise. Valerie Vallereal (sp?) uses the latter technique & gave it as a tip while she was being smeared by Allison. Vallereal was also very inconsistent.
mikepage said:
We DO use clear, accurate, common language...language that is clearly understood and applied by our students. If you don't like it and don't want to use it...please DON'T!
If you want us to 'show reverance' for something we perhaps don't happen to agree with (old school ideas)...sorry, but that's not likely to happen!I'm done here Mike...I won't argue this with you or anybody else anymore...period. As for my use of some terminology...you have not taken a lesson from me, so you haven't the slightest idea what I say, or how it is implied for the student to use (or not use). When you have, perhaps you'll have a better understanding of what I'm doing and saying...and why I choose to do it that way (successfully).
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Last edited:
Jal said:
I agree.
[...]
I have that book, a little paperback.
That's funny. I once wrote a description of cooling a cue to absolute zero in another newsgroup (in 1999). Here it is.
***************************
(someone else said)
> Look at it this way; if you could instantly take
> your stick to absolute zero, there would be no molecular movement
> and without that there could be no physical change. Hey, I didn't
> take that course in cryogenics for nothing! Didn't help my game
> much. It's a cool subject, though.
(and I replied)
warning: physics follows
There are many ways to state the second law of thermodynamics. That the
absolute zero of temperature is unattainable is one of them. But let's
suppose we try anyway, and let's suppose we cool down our cue slowly
instead of instantly and watch what happens. "Temperature" is
more-or-less a word for the average kinetic energy (energy of motion) of
the atoms that make up the cue. So as we lower the temperature, we lower
the kinetic energy of the atoms on average and energy must leave the cue
(be given off).
The first interesting thing we see as we lower the temperature is that
the amount of energy released by the cue for each successive degree drop
is about the same. Classical physics in fact says that the amount of
energy released for each successive degree of temperature drop should be
*exactly* the same all the way down to absolute zero. The exact amount of
energy released for each degree (called the specific heat capacity) is
characteristic of the cue.
But it doesn't take long until we see something is wrong. As we look
more carefully we see that the amount of energy given off for each
successive degree drop in temperature starts to get less and less. And as
we get, say, halfway to absolute zero, the energy given off for a
one-degree temperature drop is *much* less. At first we might think this
apparent violation of the laws of classical physics is a mistake, so we
might do the experiment over again to make sure. It's not a mistake. In
fact this experimental observation--which seemed to defy
explanation--drove people crazy around the turn of the century. With
characteristic brilliance, it was none other than Albert Einstein who
explained it (right about the same time he wrote his first stuff on
relativity in 1905). And to explain it, Einstein involked the idea that
the atoms of the cue, which vibrate back and forth as though they're
connected to one another by little springs, could--for some unknown
reason--only vibrate with certain energies. This was a "quantum" idea
twenty years before the birth of quantum mechanics.
As we get closer and closer to the absolute zero of temperature, the
heat capacity (energy given off for each degree drop) gets less and less
and is approaching zero as the temperature itself approaches zero.
Here--close to absolute zero--is where we notice another interesting
thing. An atom being still (i.e., "vibrating" with *no* energy) is *not*
one of those certain allowed energies. Try as we might, we can *never*
get a cue atom to have less than a certain minumum energy of vibration.
This is what Ron called the zero-point energy. So at absolute zero, at
the coldest of cold, even if we could get there, the atoms would not be
still.
**********************************
I'm pretty sure Mike Page's colleague thinks your description is accurate. I can usually get his attention, being that he's married to my brother in law's sister.
I defer to your scientific expertise, but you seem to be agreeing with me that movement doesn't occur except over a span of time. And you seem to agree that this doesn't mean the object is stopped (although I was careless on that point). In other words, you seem to agree that movement and stillness only have meaning over spans of time, which is my (somewhat muddled) point.mikepage said:
Do I read you right on that?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
OK this is a little subtle. Movement requires a time interval. Moving doesn't.
What calculus allows us to do is talk about a rate of movement using no time interval. So we can say that at a specific time--no interval at all--the object is moving at such and such meters per second or whatever.
So at an instant of time, you can say where an object is, x. You can say how fast it's going (including stopped), dx/dt. And you can say what it's acceleration is, d(dx/dt)/dt.
The essence of calculus is just this issue, making the conceptual leap between movement over a time interval and a sense of moving at an instant of time.
Thanks Mike. That fellow Einstein did get a couple of things right....we'll have to grant him that.mikepage said:
I wasn't unsuspicious that it was actually you who wrote the paper, but some uncertainty remains even in this. I would ask for more details, but I fear my mathematical chops wouldn't be up to the read. However, if you feel it contains lessons that are somewhat relevant and are itching for someone to ask....mikepage said:
Jim
