Timing

[lee brett]

I was showing Joey A the other day how to time the ball properly, it's how you contact the cue ball as smooth as possible, so that the cue ball moves as smooth as possible without it jumping, hopping etc... Watch the most natural players play and how they hit the cue ball, touch and feel and hitting the ball sweet.

What creates power? TIMING not hitting the ball harder to make it draw lots, yes you have to accelerate a little more but its how sweet you make the contact

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

An accelerometer study -- I think from the same team that brought us the amazing Austrian slo-mo billiard video -- showed that acceleration was nearly constant during the forward part of the stroke for at least one kind of shot.

Another hand-wavy theory suggests that hitting the ball at the peak of the speed curve (when there is zero acceleration) is the most efficient and speed-accurate way to hit the ball. There is some very limited data to suggest that good players sometimes do this.

Would either method affect the CB one way or the other as long at the impact velocities were the same? How about a stroke that is decelerating upon impact? That's supposed to be real bad, but if the impact velocity is the same, shouldn't the CB react the same way as with an accelerating stroke?

 

[justadub]

CJ has been talking about "an accelerating stroke" since he joined the forum. I have asked twice for a laymans explanation, with no response. While I believe you folks are indeed describing it here, would any of you care to try and dumb it down for those like me?

I think I'm getting it, based on Lee's description of the slower back stroke versus the quick jabbing stroke....if that is the consensus, could it be expounded on?

Thanks.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

CJ has been talking about "an accelerating stroke" since he joined the forum. I have asked twice for a laymans explanation, with no response. While I believe you folks are indeed describing it here, would any of you care to try and dumb it down for those like me?

I think I'm getting it, based on Lee's description of the slower back stroke versus the quick jabbing stroke....if that is the consensus, could it be expounded on?

Thanks.

It just means that the cue is continuing to pick up speed throughout the entire forward stroke. Kind of like when you step on the gas and the car continues to increase speed. Easy to do in a car, not as easy as it sounds during a cue stroke, apparently.

 

[randyg]

Could you expand on this a bit?

Ken

Hi Ken

Sure. In Pool School we try to match up a student's template to their body size. Then we check for their timing.

TIMING: When the cue tip strikes the cue ball in the intended position with the intended speed with the intended angle of approach.

No one teaches this better than Scott Lee and his fellow Instructors.

randyg

 

[Slasher]

Would either method affect the CB one way or the other as long at the impact velocities were the same? How about a stroke that is decelerating upon impact? That's supposed to be real bad, but if the impact velocity is the same, shouldn't the CB react the same way as with an accelerating stroke?

If you decel it will often pull your stroke off line, it has no affect on the cueball.
Usually accompanied by clenching the grip.

If you want to test what bad timing feels like, address the cue ball a few inches further back than you usually do. Now your not striking the cue ball at the same position along your stroke.
Stance and setup are key to getting your timing back, all IMHO of course.

 

[swest]

I see threads all the time about mechanics - how to draw a ball, follow-through correctly, elbow drops, grip and all the other things I have no real interest in - but very little on how to time a ball properly.

Once you have good fundamentals, how do you improve your timing?

When I read the OP, I wasn't sure that I understood what question he was really asking: "... how to time a ball properly."

But then everyone went off discussing it like it was obvious what he meant.

Could we get a clarification from the original poster?

Also, w.r.t. knowing that I decelerated during my stroke, I can tell that this happened in the same way that I would tell it in my golf swing. When I decelerate, the ball doesn't go as far as I want or expect it to smile for a given backswing.

This usually happens to me when I am trying to apply conscious thought at the precise moment that I am making my stroke (oddly enough, the same way it happens in golf). I second-guess myself, allow my conscious mind to take over from my subconscious, and say, "No! That's too hard.", or, "You (subconscious mind) don't know what you're doing, let me (conscious mind) do it!", or something like that, and then underhit the shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sloppy Pockets:
Would either method affect the CB one way or the other as long at the impact velocities were the same? How about a stroke that is decelerating upon impact? That's supposed to be real bad, but if the impact velocity is the same, shouldn't the CB react the same way as with an accelerating stroke?

Yes, if you hit the CB at the same spot, speed and angle the results will be the same whether your stick is accelerating, coasting or decelerating (and whether you follow through or not).

Slasher:
If you decel it will often pull your stroke off line, it has no affect on the cueball.
Usually accompanied by clenching the grip.

I agree, except I think deceleration isn't the cause - hitting the CB at the wrong part of the swing, tightening the grip, not following through, etc. are the causes and deceleration is another effect (along with inaccurate stroke) of those bad practices.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

sweat:
...w.r.t. knowing that I decelerated during my stroke, I can tell that this happened in the same way that I would tell it in my golf swing. When I decelerate, the ball doesn't go as far as I want or expect it to () for a given backswing.

How do you know it's not something else, like an inaccurate hit?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Also, w.r.t. knowing that I decelerated during my stroke, I can tell that this happened in the same way that I would tell it in my golf swing. When I decelerate, the ball doesn't go as far as I want or expect it to smile for a given backswing. ... .

OK, that works for someone who has enough experience to know how far the ball should go, but what about for beginners who have no idea how hard they should hit the ball to get it to go twice across the table and definitely have not figured out how to do that with least effort. I think it is hard for them to know what they are doing wrong if it is something as hard to measure as the exact instant when they start slowing the cue down.

 

[swest]

How do you know it's not something else, like an inaccurate hit?

pj
chgo

Well, when I wrote that, I was thinking about some very specific situations that come up in my own game. Usually it's a shot that I may have never had to shoot before, or certainly hadn't practiced at all. And for those specific errors, I think I've done enough self assessment immediately after to pinpoint the root cause, and it's this second-guessing, with resultant deceleration.

Speaking for myself, I have calibrated my backswing to produce the amount of force I expect for a given shot given a consistently accelerating forward stroke coming out of the backswing. Of course, I could just as well have calibrated against a 'decelerating' stroke, but I don't think it would be as easy to develop consistency in that case (as I think others have pointed out).

Of course, as you have already corrected me in another thread, the only requirement to produce the desired outcome is that the cue tip be travelling at 'X' feet-per-second when it contacts the cue ball, whether it is accelerating or decelerating. Nevertheless, I think, at least for me, that it is easier to produce consistency when I am on the acceleration side of that curve.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

OK, that works for someone who has enough experience to know how far the ball should go, but what about for beginners who have no idea how hard they should hit the ball to get it to go twice across the table and definitely have not figured out how to do that with least effort. I think it is hard for them to know what they are doing wrong if it is something as hard to measure as the exact instant when they start slowing the cue down.

This is the point I've been working toward. I think "deceleration" might be a red herring that distracts from the problems that can be more easily understood and addressed.

pj
chgo

 

[Okie]

Hi Ken

Sure. In Pool School we try to match up a student's template to their body size. Then we check for their timing.

TIMING: When the cue tip strikes the cue ball in the intended position with the intended speed with the intended angle of approach.

No one teaches this better than Scott Lee and his fellow Instructors.

randyg

Thanks for the response Randy! I appreciate it!

Intended position? forearm 90 degrees to the floor?
Intended angle? tip traveling as close to parallel to the slate as possible for the given shot?
Intended speed? Hmmm...hard time dialing this in with timing and not just feel.

My apologies for being a bit thick. I promise I am working on it though. Lee here can attest to my poor timing/rhythm. Also, I haven't forgotten pool school in Dallas. Just don't have that much cash to drop on it at this time.

Ken

 

[swest]

OK, that works for someone who has enough experience to know how far the ball should go, but what about for beginners who have no idea how hard they should hit the ball to get it to go twice across the table and definitely have not figured out how to do that with least effort. I think it is hard for them to know what they are doing wrong if it is something as hard to measure as the exact instant when they start slowing the cue down.

Agreed.

I think I have been unwittingly basing my own thinking about this accelerating stroke subject on what may be a flawed premise (beyond the more fundamental flaw - longer contact of tip with cue ball - of which I have already been disabused). Let me explain.

I have imagined that the curve associated with the velocity of the cue tip during a stroke by a 'typical' player has a shallower average slope on the acceleration side and a steeper average slope on the deceleration side (assuming no cue ball in the way to swiftly decelerate the cue). Given that assumption, I have concluded that I would have more room for error on the acceleration side than the deceleration side. Does that make sense?

So, now I'm wondering whether the two (average) slopes are the same (except for sign) or not?

I'll post a graph of the curve I had imagined (as soon as I find one). Of course, I had no empirical data to go on, just my own thoughts.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...I think, at least for me, that it is easier to produce consistency when I am on the acceleration side of that curve.

Yes, I've heard that's the most consistent speed profile, and I know it helps avoid other stroke mistakes that can cause inaccuracy (jerking, gripping, not following through).

pj
chgo

 

[swest]

This graph is completely unrelated to pool, but the red line illustrates a speed curve to demonstrate the acceleration/deceleration profile I imagined, and on which I was kinda basing my thought process:

 

[Neil]

Would either method affect the CB one way or the other as long at the impact velocities were the same? How about a stroke that is decelerating upon impact? That's supposed to be real bad, but if the impact velocity is the same, shouldn't the CB react the same way as with an accelerating stroke?

If you want to hit the cb at 10mph, it doesn't matter if you are accelerating or decelerating at contact if you hit it at 10mph. The problem arises, when you set your subconscious to hit at a certain speed, and then you decelerate, your subconscious gets confused. And, then good luck trying to control your speed on the table.

If you consistently use an accelerating stroke, it is much easier to put into your subconscious the results of the stroke and the speed, and then duplicate it, or adjust as needed.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This graph is completely unrelated to pool, but the red line illustrates the acceleration/deceleration profile I imagined, and on which I was kinda basing my thought process on:

Technically, that is probably a speed curve rather than an acceleration curve. You are accelerating as long as the speed is rising.

This article http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-06.pdf has a plot of an actual shot. It is of speed versus position rather than speed versus time. The negative part of the plot shows the backstroke. The sharp drop in speed is when the tip hits the ball.

 

[swest]

Technically, that is probably a speed curve rather than an acceleration curve. You are accelerating as long as the speed is rising.

This article http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-06.pdf has a plot of an actual shot. It is of speed versus position rather than speed versus time. The negative part of the plot shows the backstroke. The sharp drop in speed is when the tip hits the ball.

Yes, speed curve. Sorry for the lack of rigor.

 

[swest]

Technically, that is probably a speed curve rather than an acceleration curve. You are accelerating as long as the speed is rising.

This article http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-06.pdf has a plot of an actual shot. It is of speed versus position rather than speed versus time. The negative part of the plot shows the backstroke. The sharp drop in speed is when the tip hits the ball.

Also, the curve I posted was meant to illustrate [my imagination of] the relationship between acceleration and deceleration in the absence of cue ball impact. Which is why I was referring to the acceleration 'side' of the curve vs. the deceleration 'side' of the curve.