touch your chest and not

Ratta said:
Hm- maybe a matter of vocabulary now (for me)--

isn t the point where you have the highest acceleration also the point where you have the highest velocity?

thank you in advance Bob :-)
Click to expand...

I'll take an attempt at this question. Not necessarily. The point where you are at peak acceleration is the moment of the highest rate of change in speed, whereas peak velocity is simply the moment where the object is moving the fastest.

Peak acceleration and velocity can theoretically occur at the same time if you accelerate up to contacting the white ball. But I think some/many strokes might coast at peak velocity with no further acceleration for a few millimeters before contact. I remember seeing an acceleration test a while back where this was the case. You can also hit the ball at peak velocity but accelerate faster near the middle of the stroke than at the end.

I would think it is ideal however to accelerate to the moment of impact to optimize the efficiency of the stroke.
 
Last edited:
Roscue said:
Hey Rick, it's good to read being on the right track!

If I understand your commentary correct, you do endorse CJ Wiley's statement that the cue should be hitting the object ball on it's highest acceleration?

After reading that post made by CJ Wiley, I paid some attention to different professional pool and snooker players (Shane van Boening, Niels Feijen, John Higgins to name a few). It looks like all those players are indeed hitting the CB when the speed of the cue has reached a peak.

I think AZ is the right place to discuss any kind of techniques that relates to cuesport..
Click to expand...

I think in time you may find that your last statement is unfortunately false. Why do you think there are almost no Pros posting on AZB

There are some shots that I actually 'die' the cue into the ball & then let my wrist get it through the ball.

But for the most part, yes, I agree with CJ that the cue should be accelerating into contact & not de-accelerating. I think it is difficult to reach & maintain a peak fixed velocity without de-accelerating if one is not accelerating.

As was said, timing is important. When one has good timing one usually has a good stroke.

If one immediately takes off in a low 1st gear & powers all the way to contact one MIGHT wind up over hitting shots.

So it's sort of like taking off slowly in 2nd. gear & building speed 'slowly' until the speed reaches that where the 2nd. gear can really give acceleration. Naturally this all happens very quickly in real time. (There are some big trucks that drivers almost never use 1st. gear as they can't clutch it right so that the truck does not buck)

I think that is what CJ meant by 'the most acceleration at contact' or however it was exactly that he said it.

It's sort of like over stroking in distance so one does not have a 'no stroke' like Allen Hopkins.

A pro golfer makes a full swing actually turning so much that their back is to the target... but the start back to the ball is from the feet, knees, hips, waist... & then when the hands are in the slot they can fired as hard as they want.

Most amateurs get to the top of the back swing & fire as hard as they can from there.

I hope that gives YOU a better picture. If you have any questions, please PM me.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS Remember, everyone does not make the same type of stroke as you & I. Always keep that in mind when reading or listening to what others say. They are most probably talking about a swing or stroke that is different than yours.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Some started a whole crap pile when they were trying to put CJ down.
I haven't seen anyone on here trying to put him down. Only correct his misstatements. So, why are you making a statement like that?
Many seemed to not understand what CJ said when he was here OR... they just wanted to give him guff for ulterior reasons.
Or, they were just trying to get him to say things correctly.
If the highest acceleration is before contact then the cue & tip would be decelerating as it makes contact or possibly moving at a steady rate of speed. IF at a steady rate of speed IT will be different than if it is accelerating.

To treat contact as a rigid solid force collision is a mistake that rather many make & many seem to follow.
I have seen several careful studies that have been done that state that you are wrong in what you are saying. You say you have 3 years of physics, and are very nitpicky on wording. So, why use two different terms interchangeably, and what studies do you have to show us that what you are saying is correct?
There are many small techniques that add in the actual playing of the game but apparently this is NOT the place to discuss them.

As I've already told you, you're on the right track.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Click to expand...

Waiting for the proof of your statements. :wink:
 
FWIW, if you watch CJ Wiley, or understand what he is saying, your game will improve.

CJ knows what he is talking about.

He may communicate on a level that some people on here can't understand, but he was one of the best pool players in the world and has tons of knowledge. I'm sure he can still beat most anybody who ever comes on here to participate in discussions. People that don't like what he is saying or don't believe it don't have to...that is their choice.
 
Neil said:
Waiting for the proof of your statements. :wink:
Click to expand...

Is this your first post back? Perhaps management will take note.

Regardless it's the same old same old same.

I need to & will modify my sig line.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS Where is the PROOF to ALL of YOUR statements? Never mind, what you call 'proof' is nothing but you restating your suppositions in a slightly different manner. You have no idea what real proof is... nor the truth of matters either.
 
Last edited:
Some that haggled CJ did so for no other reasons than jealousy & fear of losing their AZB 'stature'.

They could not care less about how many enjoyed him being here & having the chance to garner his insights. They are purely selfish individuals regardless of the false face front that they put on.

They've done the same & do the same with any & all Pro Players.

You would think management would rather have some Pro Players posting on what probably is the most significant pocket billiards forum rather than that of those type of individuals.

Forum moderation does a decent job given the imbalance of material to personnel, but you would think some focus regarding Pros would be in order.

Anyway, I for one certainly miss CJ being here.

Best Wishes for ALL.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Is this your first post back? Perhaps management will take note.

Regardless it's the same old same old same.

I need to & will modify my sig line.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS Where is the PROOF to ALL of YOUR statements? Never mind, what you call 'proof' is nothing but you restating your suppositions in a slightly different manner. You have no idea what real proof is... nor the truth of matters either.
Click to expand...

Take note of what? That someone dared to ask you to provide proof of what you are stating? You say you want to discuss, but as soon as you are asked to, you put people on ignore. By your post here, and the one after the one I quoted, it's very clear you are only here to stir things up, not discuss anything about technique at all.

Nobody ran off CJ. He has even stated such. He left because his market dried up, period. Maybe you should work on getting some actual facts before you go making up things and blaming others.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
If I am required to get involved between the two of you, it will not end well.
Click to expand...

What is there to get involved in? Are we not allowed to politely ask him for any proof of what he is stating? I'm trying to discuss things with him, to gain an understanding of where he is coming from with his declarative statements that go 180 degrees from what most instructors teach. What is he basing his statements on? Instructors have charts, tests, diagrams, studies, and thousands of students to back up what we state. Why should we dismiss all of that for what he states as being opposite to what we teach just because he says so. I'm simply asking for some kind of proof so as to make a determination on what to believe. Just simple polite discussion. I don't understand why just asking him a few questions, he feels that he must report me. He states there is no discussion allowed here anymore, well, I think I see why.
 
Neil said:
What is there to get involved in? Are we not allowed to politely ask him for any proof of what he is stating? I'm trying to discuss things with him, to gain an understanding of where he is coming from with his declarative statements that go 180 degrees from what most instructors teach. What is he basing his statements on? Instructors have charts, tests, diagrams, studies, and thousands of students to back up what we state. Why should we dismiss all of that for what he states as being opposite to what we teach just because he says so. I'm simply asking for some kind of proof so as to make a determination on what to believe. Just simple polite discussion. I don't understand why just asking him a few questions, he feels that he must report me. He states there is no discussion allowed here anymore, well, I think I see why.
Click to expand...

The two of you have a history.
I've long since grown tired of your drama, so go for it. If you believe I have any patience left, test it.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
The two of you have a history.
I've long since grown tired of your drama, so go for it. If you believe I have any patience left, test it.
Click to expand...

Dave, I'm not trying to test anything. I'm being 100% serious here, I am strictly trying to have him back up his statements. That is all. It's not my fault that he wants to already start throwing insults at me and calling me names. I'm not after that at all. That's on him, not me. I am simply trying to get at the facts of pool, period.
 
Neil said:
Dave, I'm not trying to test anything. I'm being 100% serious here, I am strictly trying to have him back up his statements. That is all. It's not my fault that he wants to already start throwing insults at me and calling me names. I'm not after that at all. That's on him, not me. I am simply trying to get at the facts of pool, period.
Click to expand...

The antagonistic relationship you two share will see you both to the door if it continues.
 
Dave...Not for nothin', but Neil has knowledge and experience as a pool teacher, and contributes positively here all the time. Rick brings nothing to the discussion but drama and obstinance.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
 
Actually his first post back was last evening and it was directed to someone else, and in a way myself.

Neil can disagree with me and I take it like a man.

A lesson for you to learn.



ENGLISH! said:
Is this your first post back? Perhaps management will take note.

Regardless it's the same old same old same.

I need to & will modify my sig line.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS Where is the PROOF to ALL of YOUR statements? Never mind, what you call 'proof' is nothing but you restating your suppositions in a slightly different manner. You have no idea what real proof is... nor the truth of matters either.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Glad to see you changed your mind about the drivel you almost posted. (Yeah I was able to read it until you changed your mind) Guess that is the key to why you are not banned permanently.

Sure the tread was going along fine until three people showed up. It really went south for you when you were asked to prove something.


If you got something to say... say it. You obviously are reading posts from those you claim to have on ignore.



ENGLISH! said:
------------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
Tony...Notice how quick Rick is to up his post count...even posting nothing at all? LOL 17000 posts in less than two years. I can't think of any other poster here with that kind of post count in that short amount of time! Yikes...when do he actually find time to PLAY pool? I'm guessing not often! :rolleyes:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Tony_in_MD said:
Glad to see you changed your mind about the drivel you almost posted. (Yeah I was able to read it until you changed your mind) Guess that is the key to why you are not banned permanently.

Sure the tread was going along fine until three people showed up. It really went south for you when you were asked to prove something.


If you got something to say... say it. You obviously are reading posts from those you claim to have on ignore.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
Tony...Notice how quick Rick is to up his post count...even posting nothing at all? LOL 17000 posts in less than two years. I can't think of any other poster here with that kind of post count in that short amount of time! Yikes...when do he actually find time to PLAY pool? I'm guessing not often! :rolleyes:



Scott Lee

http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...



Those that have nothing to say speak the loudest.

kind of applies to Rick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top