Timing

[Terry Davidson]

First of all I resent the comments made by Mr BS. Follow-through is VERY important because a player needs to finish the delivery without having the body jerk. It's a natural result of delivering the cue and accelerating THROUGH AND BEYOND the cueball. This coach believes in follow-through because as has been said you can't possible stop the cue once the cueball is hit because it's a matter of physics. I suppose you could stop the cue but it would sure cause a jerk in the body and result in deceleration in all cases.

[mick farrell]

Lol.

Troll? Most snooker coaches don't have a clue what they are on about - you neither by the sounds of it. The CB cares not one jot what your follow through is like. After approx one thousandth of a second, it's gone. Twirl the cue above your head and hop on one leg if you want.

Not decelerating at contact is more important than peak acceleration.

All proven.

Mr Big Shot is correct on this point in bold. There have be some videos on youtube showing this.

[bolty]

This is why he's such an effective troll, he uses pseudo-facts to encourage poor techniques and approaches. Why the hell would you actually encourage people to disregard a follow-through, when all qualified coaches agree it's imperative for a good cue action? Of course we know the follow through doesn't change how the cue ball moves directly. It doesn't have some magical effect. It's a symptom of cueing well - with good "timing", which is what this thread is about.

I'd sincerely love to see this guy attempt to pot a few balls on snooker table. Bet it's just laughable.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

This is why he's such an effective troll, he uses pseudo-facts to encourage poor techniques and approaches. Why the hell would you actually encourage people to disregard a follow-through, when all qualified coaches agree it's imperative for a good cue action? Of course we know the follow through doesn't change how the cue ball moves directly. It doesn't have some magical effect. It's a symptom of cueing well - with good "timing", which is what this thread is about.

I'd sincerely love to see this guy attempt to pot a few balls on snooker table. Bet it's just laughable.

You're an idiot.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

First of all I resent the comments made by Mr BS. Follow-through is VERY important because a player needs to finish the delivery without having the body jerk. It's a natural result of delivering the cue and accelerating THROUGH AND BEYOND the cueball. This coach believes in follow-through because as has been said you can't possible stop the cue once the cueball is hit because it's a matter of physics. I suppose you could stop the cue but it would sure cause a jerk in the body and result in deceleration in all cases.

Plenty of truly exceptional cueists have poor follow through. It simply does not matter - it's the bit BEFORE contact that you need to concentrate on.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Having a follow through means the cue was accelerating when it made contact, unless you somehow stopped the cue immediately just after contact.. but where the sense or benefit in that? The idea of striking through the ball is a completely standard and observed practice in cue sports.

I'm only saying this for other peoples benefit, as I know a numb-skull like you probably won't be able to understand.

Just for other peoples information, Mr BS is a so called "pool player" and has admitted to have never even played snooker. Why he comes here and argues the toss with just about anyone/anything is a bit of a mystery. But obviously he's more qualified than the likes of Steve Davis, Jimmy White, Ronny O, Ray Reardon etc etc.

You clearly haven't been listening to Steve Davis, then. He knows. Most other pros are as clueless as you, with hendry in particular being totally ignorant of what happens when balls collide. It's painful listening to him.

And 'for other people's information' perhaps you can find where i have 'admitted to have never even played snooker'?

Hurry up, Einstein.

[bolty]

You clearly haven't been listening to Steve Davis, then. He knows. Most other pros are as clueless as you, with hendry in particular being totally ignorant of what happens when balls collide. It's painful listening to him.

Yep, Hendry is clueless. Even 36 ranking wins won't change that. Anyway, I duly appreciate you insinuating I'm on the same level of understanding as most pros.

As for the Steve Davis, this clip took me a couple of minutes to dig up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qntiSZzQ2zw

[j6uk]

First of all I resent the comments made by Mr BS. Follow-through is VERY important because a player needs to finish the delivery without having the body jerk. It's a natural result of delivering the cue and accelerating THROUGH AND BEYOND the cueball. This coach believes in follow-through because as has been said you can't possible stop the cue once the cueball is hit because it's a matter of physics. I suppose you could stop the cue but it would sure cause a jerk in the body and result in deceleration in all cases.

tel for me the physics is a Little different. i see the timing at the end of the shot just as the back of the hand closes so, theres no real need to go through the white more than a couple of inches. and no need to think about jerking. after all the purposeful back swing and gradual acceleration is the prep for a controlled, straight, and well timed hit, at the end of the stroke.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yep, Hendry is clueless. Even 36 ranking wins won't change that. Anyway, I duly appreciate you insinuating I'm on the same level of understanding as most pros.

As for the Steve Davis, this clip took me a couple of minutes to dig up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qntiSZzQ2zw

Towie, huh?

Leave the science stuff for the rest of us - good lad. You stick to the thick stuff.

Still, you're good at googling. Have you spent a couple of minutes finding where I've 'admitted to have never even played snooker'?

You know, 'for other people's information' and that. I would hate to think you're trolling or deliberately misleading people.

[blahblah01]

Follow through is irrelevant, and it is not acceleration that is important, rather, not decelerating.

I agree that the follow through is not the real point, however it is needed as:

Not decelerating needs a follow through?

Accelerating or not decelerating depends on the action wanted from the cue ball?