power vs. speed on the break

shinigami said:
I think that's his weakness by default...they can't critique any other part of his game. His break is by no means...weak.


He breaks right around 17-20mph. It's nothing like his peers but then again, he manages to win A LOT.

The fact is, the break has to be viewed from both sides. You want it to be a weapon. Everybody wants to break 30mph, make 4 balls and have position on the 1. However, there's a trade off and if you're scratching a lot, that weapon of yours is going to be your albatross.

If you scratch 25% of the time, I don't care if you're averaging 3 balls on the break, your break stinks. If you NEVER scratch on the break and only manage to pocket a ball on the break 30% of the time, you're going to find yourself in the hunt to win far more games.


In sum, I think examining MPH is a waste of time. Track your scratch average if you want REAL improvement.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
He breaks right around 17-20mph. It's nothing like his peers but then again, he manages to win A LOT.

The fact is, the break has to be viewed from both sides. You want it to be a weapon. Everybody wants to break 30mph, make 4 balls and have position on the 1. However, there's a trade off and if you're scratching a lot, that weapon of yours is going to be your albatross.

If you scratch 25% of the time, I don't care if you're averaging 3 balls on the break, your break stinks. If you NEVER scratch on the break and only manage to pocket a ball on the break 30% of the time, you're going to find yourself in the hunt to win far more games.


In sum, I think examining MPH is a waste of time. Track your scratch average if you want REAL improvement.

I agree, and speaking of tracking, it'd be nice if we had some nice statistics on breaks such as pocketing % on the break, % of breaks won, % of 9 ball in on the break, % scratch on the break, % pushouts after the break, etc.
 
dave sutton said:
thanks for the input guys

my opinion was lighter was faster.

then the guy with the 24oz cue come in and tells me i couldnt be more wrong.

funny
I think you're looking for an answer that applies universally to all players. There is none. The reason is that each player has an arm mass that is specific to him or her, and this can't be ignored. If it could be ignored, then the answer would be 6 oz for everyone, as Shaft indicated. There isn't even any single weight that is best at all tip offsets. If the optimum for a center-ball hit for a particular player was, say, 18 oz, the optimum at a large tip offset for the same player would be about 13 oz.

The physics of it is straightforward enough, and there is a formula. But the problem is trying to determine the characteristics of a specific player's arm to plug into the formula. In lieu of that, you can try out different cue weights while keeping other variables such as tip hardness as constant as possible. Unless you have an unusually light or heavy arm, the best weight will likely be around 20 oz or so, judging from what players have found to have worked well for them. It's not really that important to get it within an ounce, or even two or three.

General statements such as "light is best" or "heavy is best" or "17 oz is best" or "22 oz is best" are simply wrong.

Jim
 
Last edited:
this was discussed before and it ended somewhere in a stalemate.

anyway, I needed to review my physics some months ago to find the most convincing answer.

the answer is both. FORCE = MASS X ACCELERATION !!!

to prove my point, here are some examples:

* breakshot outcome is the same
3 (m) x 2 (a) = 6
2 (m) x 3 (a) = 6
6 (m) x 1 (a) = 6
1 (m) x 6 (a) = 6

* mass is a factor
10 (m) x 2 (a) = 20
2 (m) x 9 (a) = 18

* speed is a factor
9 (m) x 2 (a) = 18
2 (m) x 10 (a) = 20

both mass and acceleration are factors in one's breakshot.
both factors affect the outcome of the breakshot providing that the variables are constant.

in real life scenario:
the problem is , mass is constant while acceleration varies in every individual. an individual with a weak break can use a heavier cue inorder to compensate for the lack of acceleration inorder to produce the same force, thereby producing a better break for the weak breaker. while a person with a powerful or faster break can produce the same outcome with a lighter cue. see the first example.
 
Last edited:
shinigami said:
I agree, and speaking of tracking, it'd be nice if we had some nice statistics on breaks such as pocketing % on the break, % of breaks won, % of 9 ball in on the break, % scratch on the break, % pushouts after the break, etc.


I think we do. ACCU STATS by Pat Fleming
 
randyg said:
I think we do. ACCU STATS by Pat Fleming


Well, I think what would be a more interesting study for many of the members here are statistics broken out by skill level. That is to say, obviously if a professional player scratches on the break against another professional player, probability suggests the result will be a loss of game. Also obvious, if a D player scratches on the break against another D player, the result may not have any statistical significance. Hence, if you're playing against a D, feel free to swing for the fences.

The interesting question is, at what skill level do you begin to see a significant difference in winning percentage when the breaker scratches? I would argue the cusp is probably B class players but that's only from general observation.
 
The Science of Pocket Billiards

According to this book, the lighter cue is the winner. 18 - 19 oz provided the fastest tip speed that was transferred into cueball velocity the most efficiently.

I personally break better with my playing cue, which is 19 oz(or 19 1/4 with my other shaft)

The main thing here is that even the lightest 16 oz cue is at least 2 1/2 times the weight of the cueball. It only takes around 2x the weight for the weight curve to falloff that effects power.

As I recall, several male and female subjects were tested in this experiment and even the most musclebound did best in the 19 oz range.
 
eyesjr said:
According to this book, the lighter cue is the winner. 18 - 19 oz provided the fastest tip speed that was transferred into cueball velocity the most efficiently.

I personally break better with my playing cue, which is 19 oz(or 19 1/4 with my other shaft)

The main thing here is that even the lightest 16 oz cue is at least 2 1/2 times the weight of the cueball. It only takes around 2x the weight for the weight curve to falloff that effects power.

As I recall, several male and female subjects were tested in this experiment and even the most musclebound did best in the 19 oz range.


this is if we talk about speed. but what about the force?
 
To also add one other thing.

Are these calculations able to compensate for squirt/deflection and the balance of the cue. After all the human arm is not robotic and I've not seen very many cues that equally distribute a large amount of weight throughout.

In short, are these calculations only accurate in a perfect theoretical environment?
 
depends on how strong you are. if you are weak, you will move a lighter cue faster than a heavy cue. if you are strong, you will probably move both at the same speed.
 
Just to throw my two cents in here:

I'm a pretty strong guy, nowhere near as jacked as I want to be, but still in the upper levels of strength for your average guy off the street (I'm 6'0 180 and 20 yo).

I decided to experiment with the weight of the cue as a factor in breaking this summer using house cues that my friends set up in random order from 17-23oz. I tried to stay as purposefully ignorant to the cue weight as possible, but since I shoot with 18.5-19oz cues, I had a general idea of what I was holding during the experiment.

In echoing an earlier post, my results were largely the same regardless of the weight difference in terms of breaking success. I didn't have a spedometer but I "measured" the success of each break by spread, consistency and number of balls pocketed. I know I went about this in a very unscientific way, but my general conclusion is that, at least for me, the weight of the break cue really doesn't matter. I currently break with an 18oz cue and generally like to grab a 19oz or lighter house cue to break with when I'm traveling with just a 1x1, but I don't think it would make much of a difference if I used something in the mid 20's either.

Although I can't say for sure for players of different sizes, I don't think that the weight difference would matter much for most players in general either (staying within the bounds of common cue weights - we're not talking about 40 ouncers here). When you think about how the weight of the cue is applied (again, referring to the ubiquitous f=ma equation) the difference in ounces is rather minute because we A) use a bridge, lessening the burden on our arm that is doing the propelling (the dominant arm) and B) we move the cue a relatively short distance. If you're not following me, think about how heavy your cue feels when you're practicing your stroke vs. how heavy it feels holding it with one hand swinging it side to side. We don't ever encounter this movement in pool (unless you have an Earl Strickland length fuse =P) and by comparison I think that the difference in cue weight is really exposed as almost insignificant.

If you want to take the physics out of context, then sure, all things remaining the same the heavy cue will win out every time with the same acceleration - that much is obvious. But as things get heavier, there is a naturally greater resistance to movement that must be overcome - it takes longer to accelerate than a lighter object of the same dimensions. For a bigger guy like me, this shouldn't be a problem, the heavier cue should still win out, but think about the parameters of pool for a second. How much room do you actually have to accelerate in a break shot? On top of that, how many (or, perhaps more appropriately, how few) muscles and how much weight actually goes into a proper shooting motion?

Like most pool players though, I'm only an innate physicist - the subject is far from my strongest suit (not to mention the fact that I haven't studied it in three years). Like I said at the beginning, this is just my two cents. It may be that this weight indifference only applies to people built like me. However, given our disagreements with practically everything debatable in pool and the lack of a concrete answer on this topic despite all of the discourse, I'm more inclined to believe that once again, it's probably just personal preference. :D
 
dave sutton said:
what do the science guys say

has anyone done this?

do you generate more MPH at impact by throwing a lighter cue faster or a heavier cue slower?

its the classic question.

is 18oz better then 22oz

all being equal. not looking for position or scratching ...JUST MPH

Ask Cory Deuel....that settles it !!
 
I usually think of it this way:

Who would break thru a wall stronger and harder, Juggernaut at a slow speed or Captain America at a fast speed?
 
I would guess that the ideal cue weight for break speed would vary by individual based on how well they are able to accelerate various cue weights, and by the mass/weight of their arm. I'm also inclined to believe that in general the smaller guys would benefit slightly from lighter cues, and heavier guys would benefit slightly from heavier cues, with the ideal weights being in the 18-20 oz range.
 
Neil said:
I seriously doubt that anyone has ever done some kind of chart to see what difference a couple of MPH makes in the spread. I'm sure it really is very small.

I feel that one would be much better off making sure they have a good rack, and then making sure they hit the head ball squarely. If you don't hit the head ball dead on, you are loosing force anyway. And on a lot of tables, you get a better spread NOT hitting them as hard as you can.

I agree with Neil here. Technique is more important than cue weight.

I stand by the math and the physics that says for the same arm force applied over the same stroke distance, the lighter cue wins, but the difference in energy is - at most - 8%. (However, even 4% could be the difference between a ball falling or hanging in the pocket.)

The next question is - can you get more finesse from a lighter cue? Does a surgeon operate with a razor-sharp scalpel or a razor-sharp axe?

I do believe lighter cues are harder to hit well with at first, but does the mass of a heavy cue make it difficult to wield on the "touch shots?" I am not accomplished enough to know, but I am trying to train myself with a light cue. That's my choice, your choice is fine for you.
 
Shaft said:
I agree with Neil here. Technique is more important than cue weight.

I stand by the math and the physics that says for the same arm force applied over the same stroke distance, the lighter cue wins, but the difference in energy is - at most - 8%. (However, even 4% could be the difference between a ball falling or hanging in the pocket.)

The next question is - can you get more finesse from a lighter cue? Does a surgeon operate with a razor-sharp scalpel or a razor-sharp axe?

I do believe lighter cues are harder to hit well with at first, but does the mass of a heavy cue make it difficult to wield on the "touch shots?" I am not accomplished enough to know, but I am trying to train myself with a light cue. That's my choice, your choice is fine for you.

this is more turning out to be a FINESSE VS. POWER kind of thing !!!

btw, why are bowling balls (for tenpin) have weight variety? I use a 9er and I know why. :thumbup:
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
He breaks right around 17-20mph. It's nothing like his peers but then again, he manages to win A LOT.

The fact is, the break has to be viewed from both sides. You want it to be a weapon. Everybody wants to break 30mph, make 4 balls and have position on the 1. However, there's a trade off and if you're scratching a lot, that weapon of yours is going to be your albatross.

If you scratch 25% of the time, I don't care if you're averaging 3 balls on the break, your break stinks. If you NEVER scratch on the break and only manage to pocket a ball on the break 30% of the time, you're going to find yourself in the hunt to win far more games.


In sum, I think examining MPH is a waste of time. Track your scratch average if you want REAL improvement.

Seems to me that both are important. If you can break harder than the next guy without scratching more you have an advantage. Efren's weak break is a disadvantage, but he makes up for it (and then some) with superior playing ability.

pj
chgo
 
it truly is a personal thing, the physics say so.

The ultimate thing that determines how the balls break is the impact point and the speed of the cue ball. If a cue ball is propelled at 35 mph and hits the rack in the same exact position with same english, it doesn't make a difference whether it was hit by a 30 oz cue or a 12 oz cue.

Each person will be able to hit his/her maximum speed with highest precision with different cues based on length, weight, tip size / type, etc. It is ultimately up to each person to discover what cue optimizes the combination of accuracy and speed/power.

Ultimately, most cues reside in that spectrum where a cue isn't so light that we can move it so fast that our accuracy is impossibly compromised, or it isn't so heavy that it can't be propelled forward fast enough because of it's weight and the limits of our muscles.
 
Well,

The weight of the ball, and the velocity of the ball is all that matters. A pea at 5 mph wont hurt you, while a train will. Most people misunderstand-the cueball has a fixed weight, and therefore it is weight and velocity that compute. A 20 mph cueball, whether struck with a 21 oz dufferin or with a 7 oz jump cue, has the same energy.

Hail Mary Shot said:
this is if we talk about speed. but what about the force?
 
Back
Top