So you admit it was adolescent defensiveness.
pj
chgo
SVB's Break
- Thread starter av84fun
- Start date
So you admit it was adolescent defensiveness.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
No...the following is what I posted.
"If a pitcher used ALL the leverage available to him EXCEPT he did not cock and release his wrist, then I would imagine that his fast ball speed would erode by half.
I said "I IMAGINE" Patrick...that was not a BOLD assertion. Why do you insist on continuing this harrassment? This was a thread about the dynamics of the break to which several members contributed very interesting comments.
Why have you decided to wreck this thread?
Conversation here was cordial and productive, including my first response to you, until you derailed your own thread.
Have you ever been in counseling? Seriously.
pj
chgo
Among the reasons I introduced the use of the wrist into the discussion is the fact that Byrne, in Advanced Techniques (1990) said to forget about the wrist...loose or stiff makes no difference he wrote.
While he is one of my pool author heroes, I never bought that statement because a stiff wrist would, by definition, inhibit the length of the back stroke but nevertheless, that's what he said.
Capelle, on the other hand, in Play Your Best 9 Ball, in a much more recent edition (2002) states, at page 49..."A major source of power comes from whipping your cue through the cue ball with a perfectly timed snapping of the wrist a split second prior to contact."
He then goes on to attribute Bustamente's "primary souirce of power" on his break to his "supplest wrist in pool."
Finally, Koehler, in Upscale 9 ball states (without explaining the physics) that cue stick ENERGY increases by a factor of more than 2 with cue stick speed. (He states a 20% increase in cue speed translates to a 44% increase in cue energy).
Given that Accu-Stats clocked Strickland and Archer in the 1990s at break speeds of around 25 mph, then a mere 2.5 mph (10%) increase in cue SPEED would translate into more than 20% greater cue ENERGY which is a BIG deal.
I don't have a radar gun at home but it doesn't strain the imagination to assume that a well-timed SNAP an instant before impact (and THAT would be the "trick") would certainly generate an added 2.5 mph.
Maybe that's why the break is called "The Snap"....Ya think? (-:
I would be especially interested if anyone knows of any actual studies done on this topic. I haven't been able to find any.
Regards,
Jim
While he is one of my pool author heroes, I never bought that statement because a stiff wrist would, by definition, inhibit the length of the back stroke but nevertheless, that's what he said.
Capelle, on the other hand, in Play Your Best 9 Ball, in a much more recent edition (2002) states, at page 49..."A major source of power comes from whipping your cue through the cue ball with a perfectly timed snapping of the wrist a split second prior to contact."
He then goes on to attribute Bustamente's "primary souirce of power" on his break to his "supplest wrist in pool."
Finally, Koehler, in Upscale 9 ball states (without explaining the physics) that cue stick ENERGY increases by a factor of more than 2 with cue stick speed. (He states a 20% increase in cue speed translates to a 44% increase in cue energy).
Given that Accu-Stats clocked Strickland and Archer in the 1990s at break speeds of around 25 mph, then a mere 2.5 mph (10%) increase in cue SPEED would translate into more than 20% greater cue ENERGY which is a BIG deal.
I don't have a radar gun at home but it doesn't strain the imagination to assume that a well-timed SNAP an instant before impact (and THAT would be the "trick") would certainly generate an added 2.5 mph.
Maybe that's why the break is called "The Snap"....Ya think? (-:
I would be especially interested if anyone knows of any actual studies done on this topic. I haven't been able to find any.
Regards,
Jim
Patrick Johnson said:
That statement is, of course, false on its face....just as false as your statment just a few posts ago in which you stated..."But I won't respond to your adolescent defensiveness any more. Strictly the topics."
And equally as false as the NUMEROUS times you have stated that you have put me on ignore...only to continue your tirades within days and sometimes within hours.
Your insinuation of mental instability on my part is duly noted.
And I trust that it will also be noted that I have not responded to you with ANY personal insults which I trust will not be interpreted as any sign of weakness but rather because I do not wish to risk being banned from this forum by specific disobeience to Mr. Wilson's fair warnings of only several days ago to both of us.
I would suggest that such restraint is a sign of maturity not the adolescence of which you accuse me.
Regards,
Jim
I don't mean to insinuate that - I mean something more like emotionally obsessive (whatever that might mean). You'll probably consider this an insult, but that's really how your reactions to me look (at least to me).
pj
chgo
LOL. Sounds like it was about 15 years ago, doesn't it?JCIN said:
Patrick Johnson said:
Kind of reminds me of the old joke about hallway sex for married people.
When you first get married you have sex all over the house.
After a few years just have sex in the bedroom.
Eventually you just pass each other in the hallway and say "F$@K you."
That's pretty much what it all boils down to already, but we're still striving for that level of efficiency in our communications.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Patrick, as has been the case for quite some time now, you have been demonstrably compulsive in your attacks against me and seem literally incapable of restraining yourself. The following is what led to your destruction of this thread.
You posted a polite enough opinion contrary to mine regarding the importance of the wrist snap and then added the following at the end of your post.
You
[NOTE: This isn't a poke at av84fun. Lots of people believe the wrist snap theory - I used to.]
Your POINT was unmistakable that you thought my view was wrong and that yours was correct but you cited no set of facts or any noted authority to support your opinion.
I responded, equally politely regarding what I thought you missed re: your above-mentioned opinion. And then I added the same sort of parenthetical remark as you did...
Me
[note: This isn't a poke at Patrick. Lots of people, including me, evolve opinions without supporting facts...although I try to be less inclined to do so than some.]
My POINT was merely to point out what I stated above...that you disagree with me and "lots of people" as well but that your views were merely your opinion and that you had not provided any supporting data or expert views in support.
That statement of a simple truth launched you on the following TIRADE of ad hominem attacks....
Therefore, irrefutably, you responded with such childishly unrestrained emotion because I IMPLIED...without naming you personally, that I am more impressed by conclusions that are supported by FACTS and/or noted authorities and that your views were based on neither.
THAT is what set you off on your insulting tirade.
Now...bottom line....I CHALLENGE YOU....I DEFY YOU...to quote any remark posted by me in this thread prior to your "pointless crap" post that was a personal insult to you justifying such ad hominem attacks as
pointless crap...adolescent defensiveness...emotional obsession...mental disorder requiring counseling...etc.
POST ANY SUCH QUOTE or look within yourself to contemplate why it is that your post history with me is so compulsively unrestrained that you cannot manage to keep your own word when you wrote...
"But I won't respond to your adolescent defensiveness any more. Strictly the topics."
...and the less than one hour later, you did exactly what you said you would not.
YOU are the one who is clearly demonstrating EXTREME excess sensitivity and a serious inability to restrain your emotions and to abide by the rules of this forum.
Apparently, you don't take Mr. Wilson's warning to you as I take his to me.
Jim
av84fun:
[snip lengthy rehash]
OK, you've had your say. Let's let it go for the sake of others who are understandably tired of all this.
pj
chgo
[snip lengthy rehash]
OK, you've had your say. Let's let it go for the sake of others who are understandably tired of all this.
pj
chgo