getting through the ball

[Philthepockets]

Do you mean to say MW used the scientific proof to improve his cues?

[Philthepockets]

Life is experiential, you can either play snooker or you can't. If you can you'll understand the importance of getting through the ball and the relevance of tips, chalk, grip, acceleration to the development of spin. If you're a pool boy wacker, there's really no hope.

And you still haven't elucidated your background in physics either.

Do you mean to say MW used the scientific proof to improve his cues?

[barrywhite]

Please provide your peer reviewed evidence for your claims.
Yous truly
Kermit

Ok, I think we've established you have no qualifications in physics nor competence in explaining such. Back to 9-ball chum.

Draw and Squirt indeed. :biggrin-new:

[Philthepockets]

Of course they're not your views, you aren't a scientist, you have no qualifications in science or engineering! Did you know that 20% of research papers are made up, did you know that 30% of science papers turn out to be false positives/negatives? Did you know that most researchers make huge assumptions or as we say ceteris parabus, so they can reduce the explanatory factors to a few variables that can be modelled? Because they can't model every variable? And that's exactly what they can't do, model every variable that occurs in a snooker shot, so they reduce it to F, M and A for the simple folk. What they're explaning is probably only 50% of the truth.

Maybe you should ring up Nick Barrow and Terry Griffiths and tell them to stop coaching as they do not have a Phd in physics.

[cally]

Don't feed the troll...

[pottr]

getting through the ball

None of this matters.

You can't measure any of this during a frame.

Hit the ball, pot the ball and put the white where you want it.

Measure the success of your method by your results.

[Ramon]

You couldn't possibly hit the ball that hard without follow through. without decelerating the cue tremendously and not change how the ball reacts. The reason you need to hit through the ball and follow through is about fluency of the stroke. Really, The follow through is just continuing the momentum of the complete stroke.. That's what's important.

+10 to this .

[Philthepockets]

Don't feed the troll...

I simply can't help myself

[barrywhite]

Do you mean to say MW used the scientific proof to improve his cues?

No, he used experiment and design and development. There is no such thing as scientific proof. If you were a scientist you'd know that!

Mathematicians are still arguing whether numbers really exist. Hawkins argued against the idea of Bosons until they were recently discovered. There is no such thing as proof given science is still a very young discipline operated by posh chimps with relatively small IQs and those are the ones at 150+ I'm talking about.

[barrywhite]

None of this matters.

You can't measure any of this during a frame.

Hit the ball, pot the ball and put the white where you want it.

Measure the success of your method by your results.

Exactly, snooker like life is experiential. If he thinks he can simply screw back by punching the bottom of the ball with the same force you'd apply by stroking through it, let him try!

[pottr]

getting through the ball

Oh Barrywhite... You brighten my day

You are exclusively desperate

Legend in his own living room

[barrywhite]

Maybe you should ring up Nick Barrow and Terry Griffiths and tell them to stop coaching as they do not have a Phd in physics.

Nic Barrow and TD wouldn't profess to be an exper in a subject they don't have qualifications in like you! And they'd tell us to stroke through the ball with acceleration anyway. TD has said as much on this forum kermit.

[barrywhite]

Oh Barrywhite... You brighten my day

You are exclusively desperate

Legend in his own living room

Well at least you haven't toys out the pram and quit the forum again. :biggrin-new:

[Philthepockets]

No, he used experiment and design and development. There is no such thing as scientific proof. If you were a scientist you'd know that!

Mathematicians are still arguing whether numbers really exist. Hawkins argued against the idea of Bosons until they were recently discovered. There is no such thing as proof given science is still a very young discipline operated by posh chimps with relatively small IQs and those are the ones at 150+ I'm talking about.

"experiment and design" lol you mean reduce end mass as per Predators Iron Willy experimental findings.
I should have said Scientific Theory
http://www.livescience.com/21491-wha...of-theory.html

[Ramon]

The tip is in contact for approx 1/1000th of a second which means the CB is long gone, the only physics that matter are speed, mass and contact point. The lower the point of contact the higher mass of a heavier cue and the speed at which it is struck the more torque applied. Once this is understood it becomes clear why players with all kinds of techniques can get equal reactions from the cue ball, simply because none of it matters in the end. From the cue action antics of Alex Higgins to the machine like action of Murphy if they both hit the ball at the same point at the same speed with the same mass they will get the same reaction.
Anything else related to feel timing etc is simply a matter of how that player generates teh speed and how accurate they strike the cue ball.
Simple experiment for all you players out there. Play a series of deep screw shots the way you normally do, assuming you play like most of us and look at the object ball last note your results. Now play the same series of shots and look at the cue ball last and watch your tip hit the ball, report back.

Are u saying if sumone ( who's strong just like a body builder ) and he has never pick up a cue in his life ,, pick up a 21 OZ cue an hit the CB just right under the center. Can make a scrwback shot ???? and the CB rolls back to his drction ???
Is this your theory ?