getting through the ball

[barrywhite]

Once again you are conflating the mechanics of the arm with CB reaction. You cannot generate the required cue speed without following through you will hurt yourself. But this has nothing to do with the CB reaction.

So you're refusing the challenge? Tell you what, get anyone you like, even a Canadian pro to screw the CB back as far as Judd without going through the ball. If your theory holds. If following through has nothing to do with CB reaction then you will able to screw back with going through then won't you?

And without follow through you'll miss the pot as well. Follow through delivers the force in the most efficient and smooth way. That's why players do it. The RESULTS speak for themselves. You know, empirical results?

[cally]

Yes, but as a human player it does matter. You know, we're human. We can't hit the ball as you suggest. We have to hit through it to get the correct stroke. so, it does matter.

Your thinking tomuch i nto it imo

[Philthepockets]

So you're refusing the challenge? Tell you what, get anyone you like, even a Canadian pro to screw the CB back as far as Judd without going through the ball. If your theory holds. If following through has nothing to do with CB reaction then you will able to screw back with going through then won't you?

Okay, I see that you haven't ciphered what I am saying so let's just end it here as it is clearly not something you want to understand and are clouded by you confirmation bias.
BTW the video is coming my inner child can't resist

[itsnoteasy]

Go ahead, post the video, crush my world. I welcome being proved wrong, I'm here to learn. Now, you put the red ball about 12 inches down from the middle bag and about three inches off the cushion on the right hand side of the table, looking down the table from the baulk end. The cue ball is in the D where you want, then you get down down and whack it at the bottom as hard as you can and screw back in and out of baulk..............whilst potting the ball. And you need to do this on a table with proper pockets, not 9-ball pockets. SO it needs to be done with high accuracy as well.

If your theory holds.

Of course, Judd has great timing and really strokes through the ball so that the force is delivered uniformly to the plane of the ball, thus keeping it on the correct shot line. But you don't need to do that because you only need brute force at the right contact point. So whack away my friend and upload that video. And remember, no cueing through the ball on the video, you don't believe in that.

Barry the point isn't how much more reaction Trump gets than me or you, it's how much difference it would make to TRUMP, if he went through the ball at differing speeds with different cues and tip sizes, that's the only way you get a half decent comparison. Or do you not agree that it would make any difference to him at all and he could do the same at half speed,with a 13 oz cue and an 11 mm tip? That's what is being discussed, speed , mass ,etc , you have to assume the technique is the same otherwise you are not playing the EXACT same shot.

[barrywhite]

Barry the point isn't how much more reaction Trump gets than me or you, it's how much difference it would make to TRUMP, if he went through the ball at differing speeds with different cues and tip sizes, that's the only way you get a half decent comparison. Or do you not agree that it would make any difference to him at all and he could do the same at half speed,with a 13 oz cue and an 11 mm tip? That's what is being discussed, speed , mass ,etc , you have to assume the technique is the same otherwise you are not playing the EXACT same shot.

I do understand what you're saying bud but previously 9-ball said that following through the ball had nothing to do with spin. I want him to prove this with evidence.

Yes, the bigger the tip, less screw. Lighter cue, less screw but also there's a limit as to how much a player can accelerate a very heavy cue, so there's a tipping point. This is about 18oz for most players, and that's part of the reason why most pros won't use 19+oz.

[barrywhite]

Okay, I see that you haven't ciphered what I am saying so let's just end it here as it is clearly not something you want to understand and are clouded by you confirmation bias.
BTW the video is coming my inner child can't resist

Good good, and remember, no going through the ball, follow through is irrelevant.

[Philthepockets]

Good good, and remember, no going through the ball, follow through is irrelevant.

You are misquoting me and you know it, stop being deceitful.

[barrywhite]

You are misquoting me and you know it, stop being deceitful.

Nope, you said only force and contact point are important and follow through is irrelevant. So you won't need that in your video. For your theory to hold, all you have to do is punch the bottom of the CB really hard with as much force as Judd would apply or even more if you like. Can't be difficult to pot that ball down the rail and screw back doing this can it? I can screw back punching the bottom of the ball with loads of force, about six feet. But I can screw back many times that distance with follow through and less force. But you've poo pooed this, so go ahead, punch the ball as low as you like with as much force as you can muster using as heavy a cue as you like.

Unless you're now saying it's important to follow through to generate spin? Because I know it's not a by-product because I've analysed the variables at play that you haven't.

What you still don't understand is the importance of the application of force, not merely the Q of the force itself. Force can be blunt, it can be dynamic, you don't get this.

[itsnoteasy]

We can't not follow through( if that's not a double negative) otherwise we will probably be decelerating to come to a stop, but mathematically say one inch past the contact point( it will be a lot less) the cue ball has left and all the follow through has now no effect on the shot, as I said we can't do that as humans but I bet a machine could generate spin but stop just past the point the cue ball leaves the cue.just out of curiosity I would like to see it tried.

[Ramon]

Yes, but as a human player it does matter. You know, we're human. We can't hit the ball as you suggest. We have to hit through it to get the correct stroke. so, it does matter.
Your thinking tomuch i nto it imo

common sense, imo

[Philthepockets]

Nope, you said only force and contact point are important and follow through is irrelevant. So you won't need that in your video.

Okay one last time for those that were held back last semester.
You cannot generate enough cue speed for a table length deep screw without following through simply to prevent personal injury.
Follow through has nothing to do with the CB reaction it is simply a product of speed/mass/point of contact.
I am done
yours
Kermit

[Ramon]

Okay one last time for those that were held back last semester.
You cannot generate enough cue speed for a table length deep screw without following through simply to prevent personal injury.
Follow through has nothing to do with the CB reaction it is simply a product of speed/mass/point of contact.
I am done
yours
Kermit

agree with speed part .
but mass ?? I do'nt think u need a heavy cue to make a scrwback shot .
look at this guy . He scrws the ball back with a 14 OZ cue ( video ) . belive me, I have seen players who could'nt play this kind of shots with a 20 OZ cue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35p5I0dtidU

[Philthepockets]

agree with speed part .
but mass ?? I do'nt think u need a heavy cue to make a scrwback shot .
look at this guy . He scrws the ball back with a 14 OZ cue ( video ) . belive me, I have seen players who could'nt play this kind of shots with a 20 OZ cue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35p5I0dtidU

Ramon, sorry my friend cue weight/mass does play a part, it is a product of the physics there really is no getting around it it is fact. Using players as examples to explain the physical theory does not work, too many uncontrolled variables.

[Ramon]

Ramon, sorry my friend cue weight/mass does play a part, it is a product of the physics there really is no getting around it it is fact. Using players as examples to explain the physical theory does not work, too many uncontrolled variables.

well, this one is controlled variabe . I just wish u knew who that player is !!
anyway , not going in to that , at the moment.
I have also seen a video from Nic B (snooker coach), he States, that no matter whether you play with a 20 OZ cue or the 16 OZ one.
can'nt find it at the moment. gonna give it try to find that video.
Not saying , i do'nt believe u . just it's realy strange for me.
sorry about that .

[Philthepockets]

well, this one is controlled variabe . I just wish u knew who that player is !!
anyway , not going in to that , at the moment.
I have also seen a video from Nic B (snooker coach), he States, that no matter whether you play with a 20 OZ cue or the 16 OZ one.
can'nt find it at the moment. gonna give it try to find that video.
Not saying , i do'nt believe u . just it's realy strange for me.
sorry about that .

Ramon, I know there are some people on this board that are smarter than Newton but give him a chance.

Newton's second law of motion pertains to the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced. The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. The acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. As the force acting upon an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is increased. As the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is decreased.

I might add that a much much heavier cue may take much longer to accelerate resulting in less cue speed at contact, the reason 9 ball breaker cues are not 20 lbs