What is meant by "Pop" the cue ball?

If I read his post right he says it jumps back which to me mean a hop.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it his post.
That's how I interpreted it also (...although, I don't have much luck with this in 9-ball - for 1 on the spot (usually play 192 - 3 past the headstring), I'm going to cut break and look for the wing ball down and shape on the 1, and 9 on the spot - I am obviously gonna cut break and play the 1 into the middle looking for the 2)

I am only looking to hit the headball dead on in 8/10 ball formats on the American table... Chinese-8 I am playing to hit the headball full with some draw, maximum power and hoping for the best (drawing to top cushion, the ball often finds it's way back to the centre)... the nature of the table/pockets, means that the speed I'm using with 4 or 4.25" American pockets simply doesn't cut it... Second ball break works for me occasionally on C8 tables, but I'm not particularly comfortable with it.
 
Last edited:
To me, popping the ball is hitting ball dead center, dead on….the back pressure of 9 balls forces the cue ball to jump back.
...(as pt109 said above) it bounces back even without the hop
If I read his post right he says it jumps back which to me mean a hop.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it his post.
I thought "hitting ball dead center, dead on" means with no "caroming" upward. Maybe he'll clarify.

In fact, some breaks that I consider to be non-hopping actually have a small hop as the CB rebounds off the head ball - but only because the CB hopped a little on its way to the rack, causing it to hit the head ball at a small downward angle, but "square" so it rebounds at the same shallow angle, not more upward.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Well as far off track as this "pop" conversation has gotten let me add , down south it is "Coke ", orange Coke, sprite coke, root beer Coke .
Can't afford any of that where I come from... I just stick to the regular old 'council pop' from the tap :)

Also, don't think it's off topic? discussing the context and use of the word in many contexts it is used :)
 
That's not something to try for - it wastes power. If the CB hits the head ball more square, the force caroming the CB up can instead be moving OBs.

pj
chgo
Correct. I'm trying to develop that stroke so FAQ science for that. I think what it does do is when properly struck, the cue ball hops away from re-collisions and stays centerish table.
 
Correct. I'm trying to develop that stroke so FAQ science for that. I think what it does do is when properly struck, the cue ball hops away from re-collisions and stays centerish table.
Yes, I was not disputing the physics/energy transfer. Simply the practicality of the resulting layout, and predictability of the outcome. A small hop back saves you a lot of mystery.
 
Yes, I was not disputing the physics/energy transfer. Simply the practicality of the resulting layout, and predictability of the outcome. A small hop back saves you a lot of mystery.
It can be real treacherous too until you get it right. If I take a chip swing at it I'm usually ok. Any more force and it goes south; even pulled a neck muscle the other night. It's a mystery akin to power draw lol. Love it when it works though.

Sigelish is a bigger mystery. Pop - hit harder?
 
It can be real treacherous too until you get it right. If I take a chip swing at it I'm usually ok. Any more force and it goes south; even pulled a neck muscle the other night. It's a mystery akin to power draw lol. Love it when it works though.

Sigelish is a bigger mystery. Pop - hit harder?
I've got the pace dialled in, a smooth, solid 3/4 of my max power stroke. I tried really giving it the maximum treatment... Nearly killed a few people with the Cueball a couple of times... Not the most reliable method for me :ROFLMAO: but now it's all in stroke. Feeling quite happy with it.

As for the Sigel-ish, was trying to work out what he meant by that... I think someone up top hit the nail on the head... Assuming they were playing some kind of stun/follow, and the mention of 'pop' refers to that moment of stun before the follow takes?
 
I've got the pace dialled in, a smooth, solid 3/4 of my max power stroke. I tried really giving it the maximum treatment... Nearly killed a few people with the Cueball a couple of times... Not the most reliable method for me :ROFLMAO: but now it's all in stroke. Feeling quite happy with it.
Got lots to go with it. Using my player with a former Tiger medium. (clicky hard now) I have a break cue with a phenolic tip but that's probably premature. Don't want to break anything either.

As for the Sigel-ish, was trying to work out what he meant by that... I think someone up top hit the nail on the head... Assuming they were playing some kind of stun/follow, and the mention of 'pop' refers to that moment of stun before the follow takes?
Didn't buy the stream. Gotta guess. Hoping he does more commentary. He got that world beater insight.
 
I think he was talking about stunning the CB over off of the rail on a near straight angle. Hit it very full and very fast to get the most CB movement from the slight angle.
Coz the full strike at power produces a different reaction after the first strike.

CB/ ob1 cling together longer than with a roll, so the hit pointt at sliding speed is different than Rolling speed.

Different aim point + different speed + sliding CB make for a different outcome.
 
Yes, but (as pt109 said above) it bounces back even without the hop - actually farther back, and with greater control.

I think the hop on the break should be avoided - an easy way to get a square hit on the head ball without changing your stroke speed is to lower the butt (cue more level) and/or move the CB a little farther away.

pj
chgo
I disagree on trying to avoid the hop. The hop is a result of a good hit. It has to be, or else something went wrong. Like anyone else, I’ve hit the balls square without the pop and with the pop. With the hop has always resulted in a good break, It’s just basic physics that if you hit the cueball with elevation (and there always is elevation) then it will hop.

I could theorize all I want on this, like if the cue hits too flat then it tends to only have a linear or planar transfer of energy, which might suffice in 9-ball. But maybe some z-axis force is needed to get the center balls out of the triangle rack. But whatever the case, for me if I just execute the break stroke well and the cue ball hops back, the rack likes to explode. If I catch it flat and the cueball doesnt hop, there is a noticeable difference on how the rack doesnt come apart.

We’d be better of examining why a hopped break results in better spreads rather than trying to avoid it for theoretical reasons.
 
We’d be better of examining why a hopped break results in better spreads rather than trying to avoid it for theoretical reasons.
I think we need to confirm which break results in better spreads before deciding which one is only theoretical.

pj
chgo
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
If we saw the ball layout when he said the shot, we should know exactly what he was referring to.
My guess is that you're spot on in that its a slight angle that you want to make sure you get enough on it to get off the rail.

Earl says this a lot in his commentary he does on YouTube.

"Now you amateurs and weekend players, you wanna really pop this one...yeah, like that...see how he did that???"
 
I think we need to confirm which break results in better spreads before deciding which one is only theoretical.

pj
chgo
I think many of us have confirmed over the years the observation that the break with the hop consistently results in a better spread. For me it’s never been close. But as I aslo said, a flatter break with no hop signifies that something went wrong with my break stroke. I suppose someone could focus on that last sentence, but I dont why anyone would bother.
 
I think many of us have confirmed over the years the observation that the break with the hop consistently results in a better spread.
I think "many of us" have "confirmed" the opposite - that's why we need data.

We know the CB hops more with more power; maybe that's why your hopping break spreads better than your non-hopping break. But does it spread better than everybody's non-hopping break? I think we can get a non-hopping break with the same power if we do it right - and more of that power will be delivered to the rack.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
I think "many of us" have "confirmed" the opposite - that's why we need data.

We know the CB hops more with more power; maybe that's why your hopping break spreads better than your non-hopping break. But does it spread better than everybody's non-hopping break? I think we can get a non-hopping break with the same power if we do it right - and more of that power will be delivered to the rack.

pj
chgo
Honestly, I only read you as the only person suggesting to avoid hopping, and I can't understand where you're getting your opinion aside from "it seems theoretically correct." I've seen you break. It's just like anyone else.
 
I

We know the CB hops more with more power; maybe that's why your hopping break spreads better than your non-hopping break. But does it spread better than everybody's non-hopping break? I think we can get a non-hopping break with the same power if we do it right - and more of that power will be delivered to the rack.

pj
chgo

So this is the crux of it. You'd have to do something that isn't natural to "do it right" and get the power you're thinking. The cue stick must clear the rail, and therefore must be angled. A solid hit with power must hop if solid with power are achieved. Any break that doesn't hop clearly has less power and/or less solid hit. Please someone show me a big break hit solidly that didn't hop and spreads better or even as well.
 
Back
Top