Defying the laws of physics

[Slasher]

Proof that snooker coaches can defy the laws of physics.
Even with a squishy golf ball.

When the clubface collides with the ball it's total contact time is approximately just under 1/2 Millisecond = 400 Microseconds = 0.0004 Seconds = 400/1,000,000 = 4/10.000 Second and the peak force applied to the ball can be as high as 4000 pounds.

1000 Mmilliseconds is equivalent to 1 (one) Second. This was very consistent with different clubs. This was measured with a camera that had 22,000 frames per second.

https://youtu.be/6TA1s1oNpbk

[Big Splash!]

Which laws of physics are you referring to and what has this to do with snooker coaches?

This is a mumbo jumbo thread lacking coherence or any train of thought.

[itsnoteasy]

I don't get what the point in knowing all this is slasher, do you think Steve Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan, Joe Davis, the list is endless knew or gave two hoots about this, sometimes doing is better than knowing.

[Big Splash!]

I don't get what the point in knowing all this is slasher, do you think Steve Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan, Joe Davis, the list is endless knew or gave two hoots about this, sometimes doing is better than knowing.

It's to do with his lack of knowledge about follow-through. He believes you don't need one to hit the ball well. Of course, he's right, you don't but when you do accelerate the cue really well, as in my Judd Trump Thread Test, you naturally follow on, or through the shot because you can't stop the cue and you don't want to. The man who can accelerate the cue at 100mph and brake it on the point of contact hasn't been born and never will. That's why the best players also have a lot of follow through, a consequence of great hand speed.

Sometimes, if the CB is close to the OB, we don't want to follow through. I've jabbed the bottom of the CB and achieved 6ft of screw with almost no follow through by raking the cue high in the air. But that won't get me back to baulk because I'm losing cue speed as soon as I begin to brake and if played every shot like that my breaks would be 16 or so. LOL.

[PatBlock]

....when you do accelerate the cue really well, as in my Judd Trump Thread Test, you naturally follow on, or through the shot because you can't stop the cue and you don't want to. The man who can accelerate the cue at 100mph and brake it on the point of contact hasn't been born and never will. That's why the best players also have a lot of follow through...

Exactly. And of course it doesn't apply exclusively to snooker, just about every sport you could think of has follow through as a basic prerequisite. It's necessity is self evident, or to put it another way, it's a no-brainer.

-

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I don't get what the point in knowing all this is slasher, do you think Steve Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan, Joe Davis, the list is endless knew or gave two hoots about this, sometimes doing is better than knowing.

Steve Davis most definitely gives two hoots about this sort of thing.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Exactly. And of course it doesn't apply exclusively to snooker, just about every sport you could think of has follow through as a basic prerequisite. It's necessity is self evident, or to put it another way, it's a no-brainer.

-

The point being, and one that is consistently missed around here, is the cue ball couldn't give a flying f*ck what the cue does after impact. It simply makes no difference at all. Whatever happens after that squillienth of a second when the tip comes into contact with the ball is entirely irrelevant.

[itsnoteasy]

The point being, and one that is consistently missed around here, is the cue ball couldn't give a flying f*ck what the cue does after impact. It simply makes no difference at all. Whatever happens after that squillienth of a second when the tip comes into contact with the ball is entirely irrelevant.

Where has this idea come from, who on here has ever said you can effect the cue ball once you have hit it?
I don't believe Steve Davis had any interest whatsoever ever in physics when he was winning six world titles.

[markz]

Where has this idea come from, who on here has ever said you can effect the cue ball once you have hit it?
I don't believe Steve Davis had any interest whatsoever ever in physics when he was winning six world titles.

No way has anyone gone down the physics route to learn the game and become a century maker. It's all about putting the work in on the table not in a text book.

[itsnoteasy]

No way has anyone gone down the physics route to learn the game and become a century maker. It's all about putting the work in on the table not in a text book.

Unless you can colour them in, I know Ronnie hasn't

[PatBlock]

The point being, and one that is consistently missed around here, is the cue ball couldn't give a flying f*ck what the cue does after impact. It simply makes no difference at all. Whatever happens after that squillienth of a second when the tip comes into contact with the ball is entirely irrelevant.

Technically you're right of course, but practically, you need follow through to achieve the desired result.

-

[Big Splash!]

Technically you're right of course, but practically, you need follow through to achieve the desired result.

-

Same in any sport, you hit through the ball. Same in martial arts and boxing, kick or punch through the person. In snooker, some players measure the amount of screw they want to imply by aiming at a certain point beyond the ball. They use the length of follow through as a guide to acceleration and force without thinking about these two things. If you wanted to knock your wall down with you car, you wouldn't break before you hit it. Ok, you'd still knock some bricks out but if you really want to wipe it out, keep accelerating and go as far through as you can. Now obviously, the CB is made of solid phenolic resin, so we don't have to worry about destroying the balls and if we stroke it well, we'll only leave chalk on the cloth and not destroy it. Smooth, uniform acceleration = maximum force on the contact point. Players have proved this over many decades.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No way has anyone gone down the physics route to learn the game and become a century maker. It's all about putting the work in on the table not in a text book.

If it's only table time, why aren't we all century makers?

Think about it.

[markz]

If it's only table time, why aren't we all century makers?

Think about it.

Most players not happy with doing the simple things well, too busy confusing themselves with things that hold them back and never learning the right way to approach the game.

[Big Splash!]

If it's only table time, why aren't we all century makers?

Think about it.

Less talent and **** technique.