Question about follow thru

[kollegedave]

I think you misunderstood what I said. As far as not limiting your follow through...you are preaching to the choir. The poster originially asked (I think) how far through the ball should he go on most shots. And since I think you are right that follow through is related to "speed" then most shots don't require much of either. However, a long draw shot would.

Basically, I think you and I agree.

Actually, i think that the follow through should correlate with the stroke speed.
If you are using a fast stroke for a long draw shot, you don't want to try and "limit" your follow-through to just 5-6", for that would be "putting the brakes" on your stroke so to speak.
If i were to try to keep my follow-through the same on every shot, i would be worrying about that, and not the shot it self. As if we should have to worry

 

[Jon]

I think you misunderstood what I said. As far as not limiting your follow through...you are preaching to the choir. The poster originially asked (I think) how far through the ball should he go on most shots. And since I think you are right that follow through is related to "speed" then most shots don't require much of either. However, a long draw shot would.

Basically, I think you and I agree.

What can i say, great minds think alike

 

[kollegedave]

The force applied to the cue ball is equal to the mass of the stick multiplied by its acceleration (hence the saying accelerate through the ball). F=MA. In the case of a pool cue the mass is relatively constant (18-20 oz.) The force applied to the ball is therefore essentially directly proportional to the acceleration through the ball. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to understand what acceleration is and how to generate it. Acclerlation is a measure of the rate velocity increases. If the cue strikes the cue ball (at 0 m/s) but its velocity continues to increase (acceleration), then if would seem that the strike in question would continue, as the cue would sort of catch up to the ball it just struck. Perhaps, a microscopic double hit.

Force exerted on the cue ball is essentially dependent on a time measurement in acceleration. If time is to matter in this scenerio, why would it matter but to describe or provide information on the time in which the cue is in contact with the cue ball?

If one attempts to strike the cue ball and stop his cue right after his stopping point, then the follow through is small and I would suggest so is the action on the cue ball. Conversely, it would seem that if the follow through were longer, then the action on the cue ball would be greater. Why? if not that the follow through provides some benefit. If the follow through does provide a benefit, then why if not that it applies a force for a longer period of time?

kollegedave

I think you're making a false assumption. How does a longer follow through imply the cue stays on the cue ball longer?

-djb

 

[Jimmy M.]

I am wondering what should happen in your grip hand during the follow thru of a stroke. Is the cue supposed to slap the palm of your hand, or should it not touch the palm of your hand? Also, on a normal speed shoot, how many inches thru the cueball should your tip follow thru?

I'm no instructor, but I think the answer to both questions is that there shouldn't be a conscious effort to force any results. Your cue will follow through, naturally, a certain distance. Of course, you can have some bad habit that abrubtly stops the cue on the follow through (or the opposite), but if you aren't doing anything goofy in your stroke, then the cue will come to rest at a point that is natural for your stroke [if you allow it to]. The same with your grip. If you're holding the cue in the palm of your hand already, then there won't be any "slapping". If you're holding it loosely, I suppose it "could" slap your palm, but I wouldn't recommend trying to force it to do so. If you try to force your grip to do something on the follow through, it's likely that you'll end up twisting your wrist, or tighting your grip, or doing some other motion that you don't want to be doing. If you have a chance, watch Efren's grip during his stroke - or any of the other pros. *Most* of them keep a consistent grip all the way through their stroke.

 

[DoomCue]

The force applied to the cue ball is equal to the mass of the stick multiplied by its acceleration (hence the saying accelerate through the ball). F=MA. In the case of a pool cue the mass is relatively constant (18-20 oz.) The force applied to the ball is therefore essentially directly proportional to the acceleration through the ball. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to understand what acceleration is and how to generate it. Acclerlation is a measure of the rate velocity increases. If the cue strikes the cue ball (at 0 m/s) but its velocity continues to increase (acceleration), then if would seem that the strike in question would continue, as the cue would sort of catch up to the ball it just struck. Perhaps, a microscopic double hit.

Force exerted on the cue ball is essentially dependent on a time measurement in acceleration. If time is to matter in this scenerio, why would it matter but to describe or provide information on the time in which the cue is in contact with the cue ball?

If one attempts to strike the cue ball and stop his cue right after his stopping point, then the follow through is small and I would suggest so is the action on the cue ball. Conversely, it would seem that if the follow through were longer, then the action on the cue ball would be greater. Why? if not that the follow through provides some benefit. If the follow through does provide a benefit, then why if not that it applies a force for a longer period of time?

kollegedave

How would you account for the movement of the CB if acceleration is zero or near zero (which is what acceleration should be if you contact the CB when the forearm is vertical)? And just what does "accelerate through the CB" mean, anyway? Does the cue stick really "accelerate through the CB"?

-djb

 

[Jon]

Well, who says that EVERYBODY'S forearm is exactly vertical at contact?
This is an topic that has no answer, if everybody was the same size, had the same stance/stroke/bridge length/grip/grip placement etc. then there could be a possible answer.

 

[DoomCue]

Well, who says that EVERYBODY'S forearm is exactly vertical at contact?

I don't know - I've never heard anybody say that. Have you?

I asked kollegedave, "How would you account for the movement of the CB if acceleration is zero or near zero (which is what acceleration should be if you contact the CB when the forearm is vertical)?" I should rephrase that to, "How would you account for the movement of the CB if acceleration OF THE CUE is zero or near zero (which is what acceleration OF THE CUE should be if you contact the CB when the forearm is vertical)?"

Kollegedave has postulated that contact time is increased with increased follow through, and hence more spin is applied because force is time-dependent. My question was meant to provoke a little more thought - if acceleration is zero (velocity is constant), then force is zero. Somehow, though, the CB still moves. How can that be?

-djb

 

[fxskater]

This is like the trickshot that I saw where someone had a guard on his hand and the cue ball and object ball something like 1/8" apart and used the table to stop the stroke while making the ball and drawing back to make another ball without fouling.

Exactly, i have used this method before, letting my hand hit the table to limit follow through, although i try not to use that on anything requireing any type of force at all, as it WILL break your hand/finger. This is exactly how you can demonstrate that follow-thru is meaningless, the only reason for it is to prevent engaging muscles to stop the momentum of the cue and your arm going forward before actual contact is made.

Here is the drill.

Set up a shot where the cueball is about 45 inches from the edge of the table, shooting away from that edge. Basicly you want to set up so that your hand hits the table about a millimeter after contact. Now set up a ball straight in. Stroke it in SOFTLY with tops, then do the same with bottoms, same with center. Can you make the cueball do what you want? If you are committing and letting your hand hit the table, you shouldn't see any negative affect of no follow through. You will see the negative effects of having a friggin sore hand though. RE-READ MY FIRST POST.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW FAR THROUGH THE CUE BALL THE TIP GOES, JUST DO WHAT IS NATURAL. Make sure you are not putting the brakes on your stroke to limit follow through.

Grip questions are hustler tricks. Which brings me to ask, were you gambling with someone that mentioned the length of your follow through and your hand slapping the cue? He was trying to MAKE YOU THINK about things that don't matter while you are stroking.

Next time you are in a tough match with someone ask them the same questions you just asked us!! I'm sure if you can really make him think about it it will knock a ball or 2 off his 9-ball game.

 

[kollegedave]

Important for this post is the idea that acceleration does not require an INCREASE in speed, only a CHANGE in speed or direction.


I am not sure that if the arm is vertical at the instant it contacts the cue ball, then it follows that the acceleration of the cue is zero. Here is how I understand it. If the cue ball is not moving, then it cannot have velocity or acceleration...that is, until struck by the cue. Thus, the cue can be accelerated until and through the cue ball. "Accelerate through the cue ball" means that from the instant the contact occurs between the cue ball and cue, the player is making an attempt to increase the velocity of the cue for each unit of time. If the cue is moving faster than the ball, then the length of contact must be increased.

I do not think it is proper to accept that the acceleration of the cue is zero at the vertical point, because the motion is not frozen there. The cue has had its velocity increased from 0 at the end of the back swing to ever increasing values as it travels forward. Thus, the instant after vertical the cue should be travelling faster than it was at the instant it was at vertical. Therefore, acceleration has occurred.

Doom, do you not think the length of follow through has an effect on cue ball action?

I should rephrase that to, "How would you account for the movement of the CB if acceleration OF THE CUE is zero or near zero (which is what acceleration OF THE CUE should be if you contact the CB when the forearm is vertical)?"

Kollegedave has postulated that contact time is increased with increased follow through, and hence more spin is applied because force is time-dependent.

This portion of your post is really interesting...

"question was meant to provoke a little more thought - if acceleration is zero (velocity is constant), then force is zero. Somehow, though, the CB still moves. How can that be?"

First, I don't think velocity can be constant. Perhaps, theoretically in can, but a person would have a hard time producing a comepletely constant velocity. Second, anytime the cue ball moves it is accelerated. It goes from zero to some value until friction begins to accelerate it to a stop. At no point (maybe for a very small amount of time) is velocity constant; the cue ball is always being acclerated until it is at zero, because the velocity is always changing. Third, even if velocity was constant at impact, some acceleration would occur in the cue as it would be slowed down from impact for a VERY short amount of time. Hence, I described the impact that has a long follow through as a microscopic double bit.

Doom, it seems evident that you disagree with me here. I am interested in hearing what what benefit you think the follow through provides (if any)?

kollegedave

 

[stolz2]

forarm

2 pros that stand out in my head that have there back grip hand just forward from vertical at contact of cue ball is Archer and Strickland. I switched from contacting the cue ball at vertical to contacting just after parallel and i like the hit, it seems like i keep the cue a little straighter like this. Do most players contact at vertical with there forarm straight up and down, or just after?

Mack

 

[DoomCue]

Important for this post is the idea that acceleration does not require an INCREASE in speed, only a CHANGE in speed or direction.


I am not sure that if the arm is vertical at the instant it contacts the cue ball, then it follows that the acceleration of the cue is zero. Here is how I understand it. If the cue ball is not moving, then it cannot have velocity or acceleration...that is, until struck by the cue. Thus, the cue can be accelerated until and through the cue ball. "Accelerate through the cue ball" means that from the instant the contact occurs between the cue ball and cue, the player is making an attempt to increase the velocity of the cue for each unit of time. If the cue is moving faster than the ball, then the length of contact must be increased.

I do not think it is proper to accept that the acceleration of the cue is zero at the vertical point, because the motion is not frozen there. The cue has had its velocity increased from 0 at the end of the back swing to ever increasing values as it travels forward. Thus, the instant after vertical the cue should be travelling faster than it was at the instant it was at vertical. Therefore, acceleration has occurred.

Doom, do you not think the length of follow through has an effect on cue ball action?

I should rephrase that to, "How would you account for the movement of the CB if acceleration OF THE CUE is zero or near zero (which is what acceleration OF THE CUE should be if you contact the CB when the forearm is vertical)?

"question was meant to provoke a little more thought - if acceleration is zero (velocity is constant), then force is zero. Somehow, though, the CB still moves. How can that be?"

First, I don't think velocity can be constant. Perhaps, theoretically in can, but a person would have a hard time producing a comepletely constant velocity. Second, anytime the cue ball moves it is accelerated. It goes from zero to some value until friction begins to accelerate it to a stop. At no point (maybe for a very small amount of time) is velocity constant; the cue ball is always being acclerated until it is at zero, because the velocity is always changing. Third, even if velocity was constant at impact, some acceleration would occur in the cue as it would be slowed down from impact for a VERY short amount of time. Hence, I described the impact that has a long follow through as a microscopic double bit.

Doom, it seems evident that you disagree with me here. I am interested in hearing what what benefit you think the follow through provides (if any)?

kollegedave

I do disagree with you. Long follow through or short, I don't believe there's any effect whatsoever on spin. The only benefit of a follow through is an increase in consistency of stroke. Let the cue come to a natural stop. There's no reason to waste energy trying to stop it, and there's no reason to try to control it. Let it be natural.

As for your use of physics to demonstrate your point, I think you're missing some things. I'm going to have to pick apart this specific paragraph: "I do not think it is proper to accept that the acceleration of the cue is zero at the vertical point, because the motion is not frozen there. The cue has had its velocity increased from 0 at the end of the back swing to ever increasing values as it travels forward. Thus, the instant after vertical the cue should be travelling faster than it was at the instant it was at vertical. Therefore, acceleration has occurred."

First, acceleration, as you've said before, is delta vee, change in velocity. If there's no change, there's no acceleration. An object in motion can have zero acceleration. A car running 60 mph on cruise control is at zero acceleration (but its VELOCITY is still 60 mph) and it's definitely not frozen in motion.

Second, the cue doesn't continue to positively accelerate as it moves forward. It starts from zero velocity, accelerates, reaches a top velocity, then negatively accelerates back to zero. At any point in time during the stroke, the cue can be in one of three states of acceleration - positive (velocity is increasing), negative (velocity is decreasing), or zero (velocity is constant). In mathematical terms, this means that the slope of the velocity curve is increasing during positive acceleration, decreasing during negative acceleration, and the point where slope is zero is when velocity is no longer changing. The point where slope is zero is the top of the velocity curve. During the stroke, as the forearm approaches vertical, it is accelerating. Once it reaches vertical, acceleration is zero. Once the forearm has passed vertical, it is negatively accelerating. If the cue did positively accelerate throughout the entire time period we call a stroke, then why does the cue come to a stop at the end of the stroke? Positive acceleration means velocity is increasing, so how can the cue start from rest and end at rest if velocity is ever-increasing? Answer: it can't, the cue must go through all 3 states of acceleration.

So what's really at work here? What causes the cue ball to move or spin if acceleration is zero and therefore force is zero?

Hint: think "momentum"

-djb

 

[kollegedave]

I think your analysis is right on, but I have a couple observations and questions.

It appears that you think the best success in force application will occur when the cue does what is "natural". I think this is a completely valid and intelligent method that is likely to lead to good results.

However, doesn't your analysis of stroke acceleration POST-contact of the cue ball depend entirely on whether someone has taken this "natural" approach. That is to say, it appears that your theoretical stroke is constantly losing velocity while mine is constantly gaining velocity. Your theoretical stroke is constantly losing velocity because it takes a "natural" path to the cue ball. As I understand it, in your scenerio, gravity helps to increase the velocity of the cue towards the cue ball pre contact, having its peak velocity at contanct, and as the cue levels out it begins to lose velocity. Why can't the player operate on the cue such that it continues accelerating through the ball rather then having the cue perform this "natural" function of losing velocity at its level point?

You asked, "If the cue did positively accelerate throughout the entire time period we call a stroke, then why does the cue come to a stop at the end of the stroke?"

The cue comes to a stop because your body cannot continue indefinitely. There is a limit to how far your elbow will go past vertical or how far your shoulder will drop.

I am fairly certain you will still disagree with me, but I am interested to hear why. You may end up changing my understanding. BTW, I don't think I studied momentum in physics (at least not as deeply as force), is there an equation to describe it, and if there is and you know it, would you mind telling me? I am in law school now, and it has been a long time since high school physics.

kollegedave

I do disagree with you. Long follow through or short, I don't believe there's any effect whatsoever on spin. The only benefit of a follow through is an increase in consistency of stroke. Let the cue come to a natural stop. There's no reason to waste energy trying to stop it, and there's no reason to try to control it. Let it be natural.

As for your use of physics to demonstrate your point, I think you're missing some things. I'm going to have to pick apart this specific paragraph: "I do not think it is proper to accept that the acceleration of the cue is zero at the vertical point, because the motion is not frozen there. The cue has had its velocity increased from 0 at the end of the back swing to ever increasing values as it travels forward. Thus, the instant after vertical the cue should be travelling faster than it was at the instant it was at vertical. Therefore, acceleration has occurred."

First, acceleration, as you've said before, is delta vee, change in velocity. If there's no change, there's no acceleration. An object in motion can have zero acceleration. A car running 60 mph on cruise control is at zero acceleration (but its VELOCITY is still 60 mph) and it's definitely not frozen in motion.

Second, the cue doesn't continue to positively accelerate as it moves forward. It starts from zero velocity, accelerates, reaches a top velocity, then negatively accelerates back to zero. At any point in time during the stroke, the cue can be in one of three states of acceleration - positive (velocity is increasing), negative (velocity is decreasing), or zero (velocity is constant). In mathematical terms, this means that the slope of the velocity curve is increasing during positive acceleration, decreasing during negative acceleration, and the point where slope is zero is when velocity is no longer changing. The point where slope is zero is the top of the velocity curve. During the stroke, as the forearm approaches vertical, it is accelerating. Once it reaches vertical, acceleration is zero. Once the forearm has passed vertical, it is negatively accelerating. If the cue did positively accelerate throughout the entire time period we call a stroke, then why does the cue come to a stop at the end of the stroke? Positive acceleration means velocity is increasing, so how can the cue start from rest and end at rest if velocity is ever-increasing? Answer: it can't, the cue must go through all 3 states of acceleration.

So what's really at work here? What causes the cue ball to move or spin if acceleration is zero and therefore force is zero?

Hint: think "momentum"

-djb

 

[woody_968]

Long follow through or short, I don't believe there's any effect whatsoever on spin. The only benefit of a follow through is an increase in consistency of stroke.

Tap Tap Tap

 

[Rod]

Originally Posted by DoomCue
Long follow through or short, I don't believe there's any effect whatsoever on spin. The only benefit of a follow through is an increase in consistency of stroke.

Tap Tap Tap

Along with that i'll add, learning speed is one of the most difficult aspects of pool. Most normal shots speed is reached (or should be, IMO) before the tip makes c/b contact. So no acceleration is apparent. If there is acceleration you still have muscle at use (may be slight or quite a lot). With lower level players it is quite common. They hit "at" rather than gradually reaching desired speed and letting the cue natrually go through.

Rod

 

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DoomCue
Long follow through or short, I don't believe there's any effect whatsoever on spin. The only benefit of a follow through is an increase in consistency of stroke.



Along with that i'll add, learning speed is one of the most difficult aspects of pool. Most normal shots speed is reached (or should be, IMO) before the tip makes c/b contact. So no acceleration is apparent. If there is acceleration you still have muscle at use (may be slight or quite a lot). With lower level players it is quite common. They hit "at" rather than gradually reaching desired speed and letting the cue natrually go through.

Rod

If anyone still cares... Allison Fischer I believe states accelerating through the ball is key for consistency. Without getting into the argument of whether "X" great shooter can really explain what they are doing properly, I do have an experiment for all to try that may shed useable light on "accelerating through the ball."

Think of the tennis match "ooof!" sound. Basically, inhale on the backswing, pause, then exhale on the forward stroke.... I think it makes follow-through and "going through the cueball" and coming to a natural stop so much easier and more Shakespearian-ly simple than all the words we roomful of monkeys can generate. Try it out, and see if it clarifies your ideas any on stroke execution.

 

[Cue Crazy]

A old timer when I was young called this forward draw. It seems to me that the snap in My stroke has a whole lot to do with It. I can use it to stop the ball with top english on short shots, or snap it to the point the ball almost draws, but moving forward. I use it for breakout shots to get alittle extra punch to clear them out for the next shot like most people here probably can.

Yeah, I can follow through more on some shots when required if that is how that paticular shot should be played for position on the next shot. On the other side I can also snap with a shorter stroke when I need to, which would probably be speed, so I guess I see It both ways, each point seems valid, depends on the shot.

Tonight I played on a table with poor, thick felt, & dead rails that seemed impossible to draw the lenth of the table on using bottom english, unless close to the object ball, after coming from a table that was fast, and I could draw a lenth and a half on. I had to survive mostly on forward draw to get me position on the next shot, because It was the only thing working for Me. Was a interested match to say the least. The guy ran the first rack out, then I ran the second one, scratched the cue after pocketing the 8, and then he was on the hill, and I still needed 4. I hate when that happens, but It forced Me to dig deep, and adapt quickly.

My basic consistent stroke is a mix of both speed and follow to me. The amount of snap and shortening the stroke up seems to inscrease cue ball speed after contact in some cases.

 

[randyg]

Cue Crazy: Can you really stop your cueball using top english?????randyg

 

[pooltchr]

Going back to the original question, is follow-through an independent part of the stroke, or just the result of finishing the stroke? I believe the latter is true, so if you have a short bridge distance on a shot, your stroke will finish with less "follow-through" distance. A longer bridge/stroke should result in a longer follow-through distance. As long as you finish your stroke as randyg pointed out with your grip hand coming up to your chest, the amount of follow through is going to be correct for that particular shot.
My follow through is going to be different on a very soft shot, but if I finish my stroke, I know it was correct for that shot.
Steve

 

[randyg]

Pooltchr: Extremely well stated....SPF-randyg

 

[Rackin_Zack]

A old timer when I was young called this forward draw. It seems to me that the snap in My stroke has a whole lot to do with It. I can use it to stop the ball with top english on short shots, or snap it to the point the ball almost draws, but moving forward. I use it for breakout shots to get alittle extra punch to clear them out for the next shot like most people here probably can.

Yeah, I can follow through more on some shots when required if that is how that paticular shot should be played for position on the next shot. On the other side I can also snap with a shorter stroke when I need to, which would probably be speed, so I guess I see It both ways, each point seems valid, depends on the shot.

Tonight I played on a table with poor, thick felt, & dead rails that seemed impossible to draw the lenth of the table on using bottom english, unless close to the object ball, after coming from a table that was fast, and I could draw a lenth and a half on. I had to survive mostly on forward draw to get me position on the next shot, because It was the only thing working for Me. Was a interested match to say the least. The guy ran the first rack out, then I ran the second one, scratched the cue after pocketing the 8, and then he was on the hill, and I still needed 4. I hate when that happens, but It forced Me to dig deep, and adapt quickly.

My basic consistent stroke is a mix of both speed and follow to me. The amount of snap and shortening the stroke up seems to inscrease cue ball speed after contact in some cases.

I can unequivocally guarantee that you are not getting draw hitting above center, no matter how much you "snap" the cue/stroke. What you are doing when "snap" the cue is you think you're hitting above center but you're really dipping the tip to center or below. If you were hitting above center and stopping the ball you'd be defying the laws of physics, in which case you'd win a Nobel Prize if you could explain it...lol.