Watching Hawkins play 3C was like watching a Blacksmith hammer out a piece of pig iron.
'Finesse' was a Not word in his vocabulary.
Last edited:
STROKE TIMING … A Complete MythBusting Study of Stroke Acceleration Effects
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
'Finesse' was a Not word in his vocabulary.
dquarasr
Registered
I'm gonna be "that guy", Mr. Pedantic, aka Mr. Argumentative. I am channeling my justnum.
Let's try some math. Let's make some assumptions as we go.
OK, let's say a stroke is medium speed, say, 10 MPH. I'll provide calculations for lower stroke speed too.
Let's assume that 1/5 of that forward speed can be transferred to a swooping lateral tip motion. Let's also assume that the miscue limit of a cue ball is where a striped ball's color meets the white. I measured a ball, and it's 5/8", or 0.625".
OK, so let's assume that with a side swoop of 1/5 the forward speed of the cue, laterally it is 2 MPH (the cue tip travels 2 MPH sideways at CB contact), on a medium forward stroke of 10 MPH (considering a pro shoots medium at half break speed), that means for the tip to travel 0.625", it takes 0.0178 to travel the sideways distance from CB center to miscue limit. (I can do the calculations of what side swoop speed would be at maximum given a 6" stroke, and a 0.625" lateral movement, which provides two sides of a triangle, but my brain would hurt looking up the appropriate sin/cos/tan/etc. tables for such a triangle. So I'll overestimate it as 1/5 forward speed.)
I fail to understand how anyone can reasonably control the cue contact point swooping within 0.0178 seconds.
Let's assume that the forward speed is even less; let's make it only 5 MPH, so the cue swoop is only 1 MPH laterally. Then the swoop window balloons to a still nearly instantaneous 0.0355 seconds.
Is it really possible a swoop, traveling at 1 MPH laterally, with a 0.0.355 second window to hit it perfectly at the miscue limit, can consistently add additional controllable spin, compared a straight stroke at the miscue limit? Or is is entirely possible that most if not all swoop happens after tip contacts the CB?
Please, someone correct my math. I genuinely want to be wrong because so many highly respected people here say it's possible to swoop to good effect.
Let's try some math. Let's make some assumptions as we go.
OK, let's say a stroke is medium speed, say, 10 MPH. I'll provide calculations for lower stroke speed too.
Let's assume that 1/5 of that forward speed can be transferred to a swooping lateral tip motion. Let's also assume that the miscue limit of a cue ball is where a striped ball's color meets the white. I measured a ball, and it's 5/8", or 0.625".
OK, so let's assume that with a side swoop of 1/5 the forward speed of the cue, laterally it is 2 MPH (the cue tip travels 2 MPH sideways at CB contact), on a medium forward stroke of 10 MPH (considering a pro shoots medium at half break speed), that means for the tip to travel 0.625", it takes 0.0178 to travel the sideways distance from CB center to miscue limit. (I can do the calculations of what side swoop speed would be at maximum given a 6" stroke, and a 0.625" lateral movement, which provides two sides of a triangle, but my brain would hurt looking up the appropriate sin/cos/tan/etc. tables for such a triangle. So I'll overestimate it as 1/5 forward speed.)
I fail to understand how anyone can reasonably control the cue contact point swooping within 0.0178 seconds.
Let's assume that the forward speed is even less; let's make it only 5 MPH, so the cue swoop is only 1 MPH laterally. Then the swoop window balloons to a still nearly instantaneous 0.0355 seconds.
Is it really possible a swoop, traveling at 1 MPH laterally, with a 0.0.355 second window to hit it perfectly at the miscue limit, can consistently add additional controllable spin, compared a straight stroke at the miscue limit? Or is is entirely possible that most if not all swoop happens after tip contacts the CB?
Please, someone correct my math. I genuinely want to be wrong because so many highly respected people here say it's possible to swoop to good effect.
How far up a shaft does the impact shock wave travel before the ball has left the tip?
Who is saying the swoop gives a player more sidespin than a straight stroke at the miscue limit?
It’s just a thing that certain players prefer to do - address the ball at center, draw the cue back straight, then stroke forward at an angle. Many pros do/have done this. I sometimes do it.
dquarasr
Registered
I suppose it was me, in post 53, where I extrapolated from sixpack’s post regarding “extra” draw, and other threads here on AZB I have seen debating why swoop adds sidespin.
I found a reference for the speed of impact wave propagation through wood to be around 3,000 m/s. Tip contact duration at impact is about 1.5 ms. So doing the math, and ignoring the tip material potentially slowing the wave a bit, the impact shock wave travels 4.5 m (almost 15 feet) by the time the CB leaves the tip - or at least it would, if the cue was that long.
Last edited:
Even though I know that I can’t increase tip contact time, I still find trying to do so tends to encourage me to accelerate into the ball better.
If swooping is giving them more spin, it’s because they’re hitting the CB further out from center when doing it.
Decelerating usually pulls the tip off the intended path, smooth acceleration keeps the tension out of the arm and grip, helping the cue to go through as intended.
Obviously I am not Dr Dave but I was having a casual conversation with one of the leading instructors of the day, now gone, a few years back. Talking about an almost full table length cut shot at almost 90 degrees I executed it on my first try. I also exaggerated my followthrough all the way to the joint.
He asked what the extended followthrough did. I told him it wasn't what it did, it was what it kept me from doing. He tried the same shot a half-dozen times or so with a conventional stroke without success. Didn't change my mind. The extended followthrough wasn't necessary, however it did no harm and prevented a few things that could cause the shot to miss.
My first post of 2024. The fireworks just went off!
Hu
I have to take issue w that. Apologies in advance. This is only my opinion. My hands are huge. Small mm shafts move around more in my bridge hand and are harder for me to control vs larger ones. I must tighten up my hand to eliminate lateral movement which as we all know can cause numerous probs. I like larger tip sizes for the sighting capabilities they provide as well. I can visualize where I'm hitting the cue ball better with a larger object vs a smaller one. I'm not performing brain surgery, just trying to put a ball in the hole. And I've been told I have a sweet stroke. But that was by other players and we all know they never tell a lie!!
I have to take issue w that. Apologies in advance. This is only my opinion. My hands are huge. Small mm shafts move around more in my bridge hand and are harder for me to control vs larger ones. I must tighten up my hand to eliminate lateral movement which as we all know can cause numerous probs. I like larger tip sizes for the sighting capabilities they provide as well. I can visualize where I'm hitting the cue ball better with a larger object vs a smaller one. I'm not performing brain surgery, just trying to put a ball in the hole. And I've been told I have a sweet stroke. But that was by other players and we all know they never tell a lie!!
For those interested, an open bridge solves these sorts of issues and offers many other advantages:
This GREAT lil vid by PGA putting guru Brad Faxon is quite telling. Much if not all of it also applies to pool stroke. Players that try to force/manufacture a follow-thru will learn something here. Long-to-short is better than short-to-long. Trying to force/extend the stroke is no good.
Last edited:
skiergd011013
Well-known member
anyone notice how De luna spins the cue with his fingers during his entire stroking process?
16:15 in the video
16:15 in the video
Some players do this (probably subconsciously) as part of their routine to make sure their grip hand is relaxed before the stroke (and to remind them to keep it relaxed during the stroke).
Last edited:
Seen LOTS of players do this 'spinning' stuff. Most are not even aware of it.
It's about 3" per millisecond (the transverse wave, not the compression wave down the axis). So for off-center hits, if the contact time approaches 2 millisecond, the distance approaches 6".
Theoretically.
SeniorTom
Well-known member
In reference to open or closed bridge, I feel very uncomfortable with a closed bridge and use an open bridge almost 100% of the time. It feels unnatural using a closed bridge, and also restricting to my stroke. I feel my accuracy goes way down when I used a closed bridge. I have rather large hands, and I am getting a bit older, so my fingers are a bit stiffer and don't like to wrap around in a closed bridge that much.
I guess, Millions of 3C players around the World have been doing it wrong for over 125 years!
BTW, also 98% of Pool players from the 20th Century. I don't question 'Snooker' players, "I" think they feel the 'Open' bridge is helpful due to the size of the CB and object balls, hence the smaller tip size on Super stiff shafts.
Last edited:
to my eye he did not spin the cue on his back stroke or forward stroke