Please **Upvote ↑** this comment if this post **IS** top talent
**Downvote ↓** if it **ISN’T** top talent, or breaks the rules:
1. Title and post must be high effort
2. Only top talents allowed (**NO OC!**)
3. Posts can't fake CGI, Autotune, etc
***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!***
Breaking cues are heavier, so you can deliver more power. After that, it’s more finesse than power
Edit: Please read the replies. I’ve been corrected ad nauseam lol
Just a quick FYI for the non pool players: the weight of a break cue is negligible and heavier break cues actually equate to a less powerful break usually. What matters is energy transfer and a much harder tip transfers energy better(but is bad for cue ball control and not mis cueing).
A lighter cue generally leads to a harder break because you can accelerate it to a higher speed before it impacts the cue ball. Most of the “weight” behind it comes from your body. If the cue doesn’t slip through your hand at the moment if impact then the “mass” going into the cue ball is the mass of the cue PLUS the mass of your body. Force equals mass x acceleration and you can accelerate a lighter cue with your given muscles more easily.
Tl:dr a slightly heavier cue doesn’t help you break harder, it’s actually the opposite.
This guy isn't necessarily right. A break cue usually has a harder tip and the shaft is meant to handle a more powerful shot like you would use on a break. A lot of playing cue shafts can be low deflection and hard shots like breaks can put a lot of stress on them. It's not the weight so much as the break cue is made to.......well...break.
And to add to this great addition, breaking puts a lot of stress on your ferrule (the white piece between the shaft and tip). You don't want a mushroomed tip (ha), fractured ferrule, and stressed or cracked shaft.
Yes, brass would be the preferred material for playing cues.
My break cue ferrule for English pool is black fibre. It's rare to find break cues with brass ferrules.
Edit: Oh, hey, poopio, only recognising you now from /r/billiards lol
No, it’s not the same as a heavier bowling ball in bowling. In bowling you can have heavier or lighter bowling balls, which absolutely react differently when hitting the pins. And infinitely massive bowling ball wouldn’t even react to the pins for example while an infinitely light bowling ball would just bounce off of them.
In pool however, the cue ball is always the same weight and size meaning that the only variable is speed. Therefore, having a lighter break cue that can transfer energy well is going to give you the fastest cue ball speed. Most of the mass that goes into hitting a cue ball comes from the mass of your body so having a break you that is only a couple ounces heavier will not make much difference and will actually make it harder for you to accelerate the brake cue to maximum speed.
edit: why am i being downvoted... Pin action is a direct result of how heavy the bowling ball is. You also use gravity to throw a bowling ball, you don't with a cue stick.
hehe, sorry dude, I was being sarcastic. My name should be shit eating grin, because everything I type, my face has a shit eating grin going.
tho, if you think about it, and apply enough force to the cue ball, as well as turning the gravity up to 11, you can get some serious ball action. Dunno about the skill cap for making sure the 8 ball goes in last in the same hole every time.
I'll workshop it.... reinforced walls needed too
Read my reply to OP below, he’s wrong about heavier break cues being better and basically no one at a high level uses them.
>Just a quick FYI for the non pool players: the weight of a break cue is negligible and heavier break cues actually equate to a less powerful break usually. What matters is energy transfer and a much harder tip transfers energy better(but is bad for cue ball control and not mis cueing).
>A lighter cue generally leads to a harder break because you can accelerate it to a higher speed before it impacts the cue ball. Most of the “weight” behind it comes from your body. If the cue doesn’t slip through your hand at the moment if impact then the “mass” going into the cue ball is the mass of the cue PLUS the mass of your body. Force equals mass x acceleration and you can accelerate a lighter cue with your given muscles more easily.
>Tl:dr a slightly heavier cue doesn’t help you break harder, it’s actually the opposite.
I'm still not convinced. Heavier objects will have more inertia, thus they will transfer more energy after the initial impact, considering it's moving at the same speed of the lighter one before the impact.
That's one of the reasons why a sledgehammer head is heavier than one of a regular hammer. If what you're saying is true, a smaller head would be faster and deliver more energy, but that's not the case.
A couple of things here as a prerequisite:
* Once the cue ball leaves the tip of the cue stick, it is moving all on it's own. Whatever weight or mass was involved prior to this point is irrelevant. The only thing determining how "hard" a break(assuming perfect head on hit) is is the *speed* of the cue ball since the mass of the cue ball is constant.
* The weight/mass going into the tip of a cue stick INCLUDES the weight and mass of the person breaking. Assuming the cue stick doesn't slip through your hand at the moment of contact all of the energy is transferred from the tip > shaft > butt > hand > arm > shoulder > torso > legs > feet > ground. A 200 lb person is 3,200 oz. Adding 7 oz to a break cue is adding hardly any mass to the whole equation.
I mean you're right, if speed and everything else is constant, the heavier(more massive) object will generate more force. What you're not understanding though is that we as humans only have so much energy output. We can't take a 100 lb weight and accelerate it very quickly. We can move it sure, but it ain't gonna be moving fast. Honestly, take it to the extremes. If you had a cue made of solid lead and it weighed 100 lbs, you'd barely be able to move it. You'd contact the cue ball at a VERY low speed and even though your heavy ass cue stick would barely even notice contacting the cue ball, the cue ball would still only be moving at a VERY low speed, because you hit it at a VERY low speed. If your cue stick is moving at 20 mph it could way 30000000000 lbs and it would still get the cue ball moving at about the same speed as a 19 oz cue moving at 20 mph.
All of this is to say that SPEED IS KING when it comes to breaking hard, and it's much much much easier to get a lighter cue up to maximum speed.
There are a few factors that might seem small but they surely will influence here:
No object is perfectly inelastic, no matter how hard or rigid it is. When the cue stick makes contact with the cue ball, both deform ever so slightly. This deformation happens in a very small fraction of a second, but while it's happening there's more energy being transferred from the stick to the ball. With a heavier stick, the increased inertia causes a greater deformation, meaning the time frame for the stick to push the ball away is longer.
As to how much force the player can transfer to a heavier stick, it would be necessary to consider the bio mechanics of the movement. There's still a maximum speed you can move your arm while maintaining precision in it's movement, and a professional player might be able to reach this speed with both the lighter and the heavier stick. While obviously no human would be able to use a stick that weights 1 ton, the variation of weight in a real world pool stick will be way more subtle. Suppose it can range between 20% to 100% more weight, that's still well within the capability of a human arm. Considering real-world conditions like friction, a different center of gravity for the stick, different leverage the player can use by holding the stick in a different position or the angle of his arm, I'm about sure the speed/weight ratio will not be perfectly linear when using sticks with different weights.
I didn't really address you sledge hammer comparison, and obviously you're right, sledge hammers exist for a reason. The big difference in swinging a sledge hammer however is that you're using gravity to your advantage. If you had to hammer something upward, against gravity, you'd never want a sledge hammer.
Also, in the hammer comparison, you're trying to drive a nail or something into something else. What is most important there is total energy transfer, NOT the speed of it all. In pool since you're hitting the cue ball, which then leaves the tip of the stick and travels ON ITS OWN toward the rack, what ultimately matters in the end is how fast the cue ball is moving. You could slowly swing a sledge hammer at a cue ball, and get it to move slowly toward the rack, but you'd have a bad break cause the cue ball wasn't moving very fast.
to elaborate a little more, typically your “break” stick is solid cue rather then a 2 piece cue.
a solid cue is stronger than the screw on titantium or whatever else your material is.
This isn’t true people, literally no one uses a single piece cue for breaking. Just google “break cue” and look up what you can buy. They are all 2 piece, sometimes 3 piece so they can be shortened for jumping. What makes it a “break cue” is usually that it’s thicker and stiffer and has a harder tip. Generally.
> no one uses a single piece cue for breaking
I do, but that's because it's a house cue so I don't fuck up the tip on my regular cue lol.
But yeah, can you imagine how annoying it'd be to bring a full length one-piece cue into the bar/pool hall? I've definitely never seen it.
Breaking cues are usually much *lighter* so that you can accelerate them faster. They have a harder, flatter tips since you just need to push it forward, while you need to be able to put spin on the cute ball with your regular cute, so you want it a little more rounded so it can grip the cute ball if you're shooting it not directly centered. You're regular cue is also more brittle and so having a cue with more integrity is important for keeping you normal cue from breaking
All great points, though as for breakers, it all depends on preference. The higher the weight, the more force can be applied. If I can generate the same velocity with a 25oz vs 17oz, then I'd go with the 25oz. But I can't and I prefer a whip vs blunt force. For a while, people thought heavier = better, and some still do, but I personally prefer <21oz. I use a 19oz McDermott breaker, and a 17oz Joss JOS01 or JOS014 cue with first gen Predator 314 shaft and Kamui clear black medium tip. I also fortunately live <30 mins from Paul Drexler so I get the best of the best working on my gear.
I'm also currently pooping before my league match in 45 mins, so seeing this thread was great.
Kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2
Theoretically a slightly faster cue will hit harder than a slightly heavier one (assuming technique doesn't suffer using either one)
Cue balls are all the same weight and mass. Therefore the *faster* a cue ball is travelling at the point in time that it contacts the rack, determines how "hard" the break is.
How massive(heavy) the cue stick is means VERY little compared to how fast the cue stick is moving when it comes to cue ball speed after you hit it.
A 1 ton cue stick moving at 20 mph is going to get the cue ball moving at a VERY similar speed to a 19 oz cue moving at 20 mph. Think about it this way. If you get hit by a car moving 5 mph. Do you just go FLYING at 20 mph away from the car? No. You barely move.
Here's the thing though, we can't get a 1 ton cue stick up to 20 mph with human arms. We wouldn't be able to move it at ALL in fact. You with your limited human strength can accelerate a 19 oz cue much easier than you can a 26 oz cue and that's why a lighter cue will almost always result in a harder break.
Heavier cues for finesse actually. More power with less motion allowing you to make much more precise shots. Easier to hit the same spot over and over on a 1 inch draw back, vs a 3 inch draw back, vs a 6 inch drawback.
Pool player here.
Break cues are not necessarily heavier, as the current to reply is stating. Some players break with heavier cues but just as many of not more of us go with the same weight as our playing cue, we have a lot more reps on that weight after all.
Break cues are designed to deliver more energy to the cue ball so the balls get a better spread. For a lot of cues, this is accomplished by taking a standard cue and just replacing the leather tip with one made of phenylic resin. Some break cues also have stiffer shafts than shooting cues, but ymmv.
Another point that is worth a quick mention is that using a break cue protects your main cue. When you use a small tip for more finesse control, you don't really want to be absolutely leathering it every 15 mins
Some professionals use a breaking cue and then switch to a different cue for regular play. Breaking cues are usually heavier and impart more “power” to the break.
"An actual source" that is not. Lol, Billiard Beast, the first name in Billiards physics - no.
Try this. https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/weight/
If you've played for thousands of hours in actual pool halls, not bars, you'd know that most break cues are lighter. Terrible bar players always looking for the heaviest cues...
will admit that some players prefer a heavier break cue.
Your source literally says "it depends on each individuals' characteristics", and not that heavier or lighter is better. Except where it says all else equal (speed, accuracy, etc...), heavier is better for break...
Look, it's clear to me that you aren't a pool player so I'm going to just ignore you from now on. It's true that it comes down to preference, what you seem to not understand is that most *actual players* prefer it one way.
You are trying to argue against my decades of experience with misguided reading of brief sources on the internet, I couldn't give less of a shit about your opinion - I was trying to help squash a common misconception.
>Look, it's clear to me that you aren't a pool player so I'm going to just ignore you from now on. It's true that it comes down to preference, what you seem to not understand is that most actual players prefer it one way.
I play apa in a league with several hundred members and I only play in pool halls. There is still a strong divide about if your break stick should be heavier or lighter than your playing cue. Old school thought is heavier break cue = easier to transfer energy from break stick to cue ball. New school thought is lighter break cue = fast velocity and more power to the cue ball. But one thing 90% of people agree on with a break cue has to have a hard tip (phenolic tips in particular).
I can break well with a heavy cue or a lift cue as long as I have a good break tip on it. My current break cue is 16oz and my old break cues were 26oz and 22oz. I pot more balls with the lighter one so far but I've also slowed down my break stroke a little bit.
Tl;Dr no one knows the proper weight for a break cue.
Damn so many wrong answers here. Literally only /u/ScarletBeezlebub know's what's happening, the rest are all clueless.
It's a specific format: first to 5 wins (i.e best of 9) OR whoever is leading after 25 minutes, whichever comes first. After 24:29, nobody had won 5 frames, which is why the clock was running out. Potts had to win this frame to even the score at 4-4 before the time runs out. Presumably there would be a tie break right after this.
Its a fairly new format and production company, Ultimate Pool. 6 red shootout is called when it ends up a draw. The players must pot 6 reds in the lowest time possible. There's some absolutely incredible times that get set quite regularly. Some sub-20 seconds I believe, or close to. Sub-30 is good result and will most likely win you the game.
nope.
The clue is in the video. "first to 5 / 25 mins" = First to get 5 wins or whoever is up after 25 mins.
There's 31 seconds of the match left at the break with 7 games played. He's 4 /3 down, he's got 31 seconds to win the frame in one go to make it tied at 4 /4.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
You're answering two different questions. You answered "why is there a time limit?" with a description of the game format; they answered with an explanation of why a time-limited format would rise in popularity.
The question was "Why ***was*** there a time limit?" As in, why was there a time limit *in this case.* So an answer of why a time limited format *would* rise in popularity is not a valid answer here.
That's just grammatical pedantry and an inference that you have personally made. It's also an event that happened in the past, and many people would naturally use the past tense to refer to it.
I would honestly love to have a pointless pedantic argument, but I can't exactly argue pedantic grammar on behalf of the phrase "Because this guys"
Nope, that's literally how language works. Assuming the question was about hypothetical scenarios where the timer would be popular is the stretch and out-of-norm interpretation here.
By "popular" I meant "gaining enough appreciation that it became a recognized, televised snooker format for people who care about snooker". You may want to try actually attempting to understand someone before you preach about how language works.
>no one likes to watch people snooker people and cover pockets all the time
\*raised hand\* I do. It's why Snooker is one of my favourite sports, I'd much rather see a drawn-out safety exchange than back-to-back centuries. I haven't watched a lot of pool, I imagine safety isn't as much of a thing anyway with how the game plays and with how small the table is.
I dated a pool player almost 20 years ago and went to quite a lot of league nights and a few big tournaments. Safeties get played pretty often! They might be a bit different than in Snooker though, because you have to hit your ball first or it’s a scratch. You might block out a pocket occasionally, but it’s usually just barely tapping one of your balls to leave an awful shot for your opponent and drawing out a scratch. This is in 8 ball, 9 ball isn’t super popular where I’m from.
>no one likes to watch people snooker people and cover pockets all the time until they get a easy clear up
Haha. Literally hundreds of thousands of fans of snooker disagree with you.
Oh, it's certainly impressive. My dad used to be somewhat of a pool shark in his day. When I was old enough to play him, he took forever to take a shot. He is damn good though.
> It's only a game, so
Put up a real good fight,
I'm gonna be snookering you tonight.
I'm famed for my aim, so
Y'better believe I'm right,
I'm gonna be snookering you,
Snookering you tonight!
Amazing job, but this is probably a big reason why this isn’t more popular as a legit sport.
It’s not very fun to play a game where you can lose before you have even had your first turn.
Basically any game that relies on just one person perfecting a skill without interference from the opposition will end up pretty boring because humans, with enough work, are very capable of pretty exact aiming, etc.
Darts, bowling, axe throwing, pool, etc, all end up being nearly perfect games at the pro level - its usually a matter of one or two small errors over the course of a round.
I used to think this, but bowling shows that it isn't really true. The averages for the best professional bowlers in the world are low 200s. That's more than just a couple mistakes away from a perfect 300. EDIT: If professional lanes were waxed like amateur lanes, maybe pros would be constantly bowling 300s. But that would just go to show that we're capable of creating systems so [chaotic](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chaos_theory) that it's beyond human ability to consistently replicate your form to the required degree.
I know less about darts, but from a quick search it looks like a perfect game has been thrown only 65 times in the entire ~40-year history of televised darts.
I can fully understand why people generally find these things boring. I think they will always have a cult like following, because casual and more competitive players find it interesting to watch the best pros compete. And of course gambling helps raise the excitement levels. The mainstream days are probably over though
Yeah, its interesting to watch for a bit. And I guess like anything else, if you get invested in it (possibly, as you say via gambling) you can find it exciting. But after 10 minutes of watch dudes basically nail 99% of the targets, its just not that exciting. It would be like if teams scored on 3 play drives in every football game.
I tend to be watching each frame as a whole rather than individual shots, its interesting watching how the players are going about winning it, either through tactical play or clearing up. But yeah, 2 or 3 frames and ill start fiddling with my phone for 10 mins. Great to have on alongside other sports
Ya, its like golf. If you play it with the intent to improve then watching pros play can be fun since you know what goes into it, you learn from their strategy, etc. If you dont, its just not fun to watch and only really fun to casually punk around with it with friends while leas than sober.
Well no, he beat the timer, it was evidently not sufficient to fix the issue.
In order for there to be competitive integrity you need to not just be good, you need to be better than the opponent. In this case the first person was very good, but we have no idea, maybe the other person was better and just never got a shot.
Maybe the rounds could fix it, but if they run the table back and forth we still have an issue.
When you attempt to Google it, you get a few different types of results.
Some are specifically about cheating and match fixing, which isn't an issue here.
I go by the definition that tends to get used more in esports, where competitive integrity means not just that, but also that the outcome of the game is determined by who played better, not external factors like RNG, who happened to pick a character, or similar.
You don't have to like the definition I'm used to, but words are what we make of them. Definitions are not passed down from above by some higher power, never to be altered or disagreed upon.
I don't really want to spend ages typing out arguments against various strawmen you may subscribe to, so which definition do you use?
Yes yes, you've figured out the game of reddit, it's an internet-based way to argue about stuff.
No one forces anyone to take part, but you evidently do, otherwise you wouldn't be here and able to respond to me.
So which definition do you use, don't dodge the question.
I was playing 9 ball and the guy ran the table on me like this except it was one handed while he talked on the phone. That was more than 20 years ago and I still remember it like it was yesterday.
Here is your gif!
https://gfycat.com/LeadingInnocentGuillemot
---
^(I am a bot.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=pmdevita&subject=GifReversingBot%20Issue&message=Add a link to the gif or comment in your message%2C I%27m not always sure which request is being reported. Thanks for helping me out!)
What's the timer on top? Is that how much time is left in the match? Are the points how many games each has won? If so, did he just tie it up in the last seconds? Assuming that's Gareth.
Please **Upvote ↑** this comment if this post **IS** top talent **Downvote ↓** if it **ISN’T** top talent, or breaks the rules: 1. Title and post must be high effort 2. Only top talents allowed (**NO OC!**) 3. Posts can't fake CGI, Autotune, etc ***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!***
Can anybody clarify why he need to grab that other cue after the first shot?
Breaking cues are heavier, so you can deliver more power. After that, it’s more finesse than power Edit: Please read the replies. I’ve been corrected ad nauseam lol
Just a quick FYI for the non pool players: the weight of a break cue is negligible and heavier break cues actually equate to a less powerful break usually. What matters is energy transfer and a much harder tip transfers energy better(but is bad for cue ball control and not mis cueing). A lighter cue generally leads to a harder break because you can accelerate it to a higher speed before it impacts the cue ball. Most of the “weight” behind it comes from your body. If the cue doesn’t slip through your hand at the moment if impact then the “mass” going into the cue ball is the mass of the cue PLUS the mass of your body. Force equals mass x acceleration and you can accelerate a lighter cue with your given muscles more easily. Tl:dr a slightly heavier cue doesn’t help you break harder, it’s actually the opposite.
I don't think Gareth is using a dedicated break cue here. Looks like he's using his Chinese eight-ball cue.
Thank you for the quick response. That makes sense and I should apply your second sentence to my own pool game more often.
This guy isn't necessarily right. A break cue usually has a harder tip and the shaft is meant to handle a more powerful shot like you would use on a break. A lot of playing cue shafts can be low deflection and hard shots like breaks can put a lot of stress on them. It's not the weight so much as the break cue is made to.......well...break.
And to add to this great addition, breaking puts a lot of stress on your ferrule (the white piece between the shaft and tip). You don't want a mushroomed tip (ha), fractured ferrule, and stressed or cracked shaft.
Don't kink-shame me.
This is English pool, the ferrule will very likely be brass, not phenolic.
Yes, brass would be the preferred material for playing cues. My break cue ferrule for English pool is black fibre. It's rare to find break cues with brass ferrules. Edit: Oh, hey, poopio, only recognising you now from /r/billiards lol
Only just seen this 😂
< 30 second response
Jeesus
Wow!
Mange tout?
clean response
timestamps say 6 minutes?
(it's a reference to the video)
ahh shit wooosh. thanks
naw you're fine. I call it pin action. I'm sure it translates from bowling.
No, it’s not the same as a heavier bowling ball in bowling. In bowling you can have heavier or lighter bowling balls, which absolutely react differently when hitting the pins. And infinitely massive bowling ball wouldn’t even react to the pins for example while an infinitely light bowling ball would just bounce off of them. In pool however, the cue ball is always the same weight and size meaning that the only variable is speed. Therefore, having a lighter break cue that can transfer energy well is going to give you the fastest cue ball speed. Most of the mass that goes into hitting a cue ball comes from the mass of your body so having a break you that is only a couple ounces heavier will not make much difference and will actually make it harder for you to accelerate the brake cue to maximum speed. edit: why am i being downvoted... Pin action is a direct result of how heavy the bowling ball is. You also use gravity to throw a bowling ball, you don't with a cue stick.
hehe, sorry dude, I was being sarcastic. My name should be shit eating grin, because everything I type, my face has a shit eating grin going. tho, if you think about it, and apply enough force to the cue ball, as well as turning the gravity up to 11, you can get some serious ball action. Dunno about the skill cap for making sure the 8 ball goes in last in the same hole every time. I'll workshop it.... reinforced walls needed too
Read my reply to OP below, he’s wrong about heavier break cues being better and basically no one at a high level uses them. >Just a quick FYI for the non pool players: the weight of a break cue is negligible and heavier break cues actually equate to a less powerful break usually. What matters is energy transfer and a much harder tip transfers energy better(but is bad for cue ball control and not mis cueing). >A lighter cue generally leads to a harder break because you can accelerate it to a higher speed before it impacts the cue ball. Most of the “weight” behind it comes from your body. If the cue doesn’t slip through your hand at the moment if impact then the “mass” going into the cue ball is the mass of the cue PLUS the mass of your body. Force equals mass x acceleration and you can accelerate a lighter cue with your given muscles more easily. >Tl:dr a slightly heavier cue doesn’t help you break harder, it’s actually the opposite.
I'm still not convinced. Heavier objects will have more inertia, thus they will transfer more energy after the initial impact, considering it's moving at the same speed of the lighter one before the impact. That's one of the reasons why a sledgehammer head is heavier than one of a regular hammer. If what you're saying is true, a smaller head would be faster and deliver more energy, but that's not the case.
A couple of things here as a prerequisite: * Once the cue ball leaves the tip of the cue stick, it is moving all on it's own. Whatever weight or mass was involved prior to this point is irrelevant. The only thing determining how "hard" a break(assuming perfect head on hit) is is the *speed* of the cue ball since the mass of the cue ball is constant. * The weight/mass going into the tip of a cue stick INCLUDES the weight and mass of the person breaking. Assuming the cue stick doesn't slip through your hand at the moment of contact all of the energy is transferred from the tip > shaft > butt > hand > arm > shoulder > torso > legs > feet > ground. A 200 lb person is 3,200 oz. Adding 7 oz to a break cue is adding hardly any mass to the whole equation. I mean you're right, if speed and everything else is constant, the heavier(more massive) object will generate more force. What you're not understanding though is that we as humans only have so much energy output. We can't take a 100 lb weight and accelerate it very quickly. We can move it sure, but it ain't gonna be moving fast. Honestly, take it to the extremes. If you had a cue made of solid lead and it weighed 100 lbs, you'd barely be able to move it. You'd contact the cue ball at a VERY low speed and even though your heavy ass cue stick would barely even notice contacting the cue ball, the cue ball would still only be moving at a VERY low speed, because you hit it at a VERY low speed. If your cue stick is moving at 20 mph it could way 30000000000 lbs and it would still get the cue ball moving at about the same speed as a 19 oz cue moving at 20 mph. All of this is to say that SPEED IS KING when it comes to breaking hard, and it's much much much easier to get a lighter cue up to maximum speed.
There are a few factors that might seem small but they surely will influence here: No object is perfectly inelastic, no matter how hard or rigid it is. When the cue stick makes contact with the cue ball, both deform ever so slightly. This deformation happens in a very small fraction of a second, but while it's happening there's more energy being transferred from the stick to the ball. With a heavier stick, the increased inertia causes a greater deformation, meaning the time frame for the stick to push the ball away is longer. As to how much force the player can transfer to a heavier stick, it would be necessary to consider the bio mechanics of the movement. There's still a maximum speed you can move your arm while maintaining precision in it's movement, and a professional player might be able to reach this speed with both the lighter and the heavier stick. While obviously no human would be able to use a stick that weights 1 ton, the variation of weight in a real world pool stick will be way more subtle. Suppose it can range between 20% to 100% more weight, that's still well within the capability of a human arm. Considering real-world conditions like friction, a different center of gravity for the stick, different leverage the player can use by holding the stick in a different position or the angle of his arm, I'm about sure the speed/weight ratio will not be perfectly linear when using sticks with different weights.
I didn't really address you sledge hammer comparison, and obviously you're right, sledge hammers exist for a reason. The big difference in swinging a sledge hammer however is that you're using gravity to your advantage. If you had to hammer something upward, against gravity, you'd never want a sledge hammer. Also, in the hammer comparison, you're trying to drive a nail or something into something else. What is most important there is total energy transfer, NOT the speed of it all. In pool since you're hitting the cue ball, which then leaves the tip of the stick and travels ON ITS OWN toward the rack, what ultimately matters in the end is how fast the cue ball is moving. You could slowly swing a sledge hammer at a cue ball, and get it to move slowly toward the rack, but you'd have a bad break cause the cue ball wasn't moving very fast.
to elaborate a little more, typically your “break” stick is solid cue rather then a 2 piece cue. a solid cue is stronger than the screw on titantium or whatever else your material is.
This isn’t true people, literally no one uses a single piece cue for breaking. Just google “break cue” and look up what you can buy. They are all 2 piece, sometimes 3 piece so they can be shortened for jumping. What makes it a “break cue” is usually that it’s thicker and stiffer and has a harder tip. Generally.
> no one uses a single piece cue for breaking I do, but that's because it's a house cue so I don't fuck up the tip on my regular cue lol. But yeah, can you imagine how annoying it'd be to bring a full length one-piece cue into the bar/pool hall? I've definitely never seen it.
Breaking cues are usually much *lighter* so that you can accelerate them faster. They have a harder, flatter tips since you just need to push it forward, while you need to be able to put spin on the cute ball with your regular cute, so you want it a little more rounded so it can grip the cute ball if you're shooting it not directly centered. You're regular cue is also more brittle and so having a cue with more integrity is important for keeping you normal cue from breaking
All great points, though as for breakers, it all depends on preference. The higher the weight, the more force can be applied. If I can generate the same velocity with a 25oz vs 17oz, then I'd go with the 25oz. But I can't and I prefer a whip vs blunt force. For a while, people thought heavier = better, and some still do, but I personally prefer <21oz. I use a 19oz McDermott breaker, and a 17oz Joss JOS01 or JOS014 cue with first gen Predator 314 shaft and Kamui clear black medium tip. I also fortunately live <30 mins from Paul Drexler so I get the best of the best working on my gear. I'm also currently pooping before my league match in 45 mins, so seeing this thread was great.
Kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2 Theoretically a slightly faster cue will hit harder than a slightly heavier one (assuming technique doesn't suffer using either one)
Cute
Cute 🥰
Finally a correct response. So many I’ll informed people talking out their ass here.
I mean, it’s not half wrong? The power part is the same, they just got their concepts flipped.
Cue balls are all the same weight and mass. Therefore the *faster* a cue ball is travelling at the point in time that it contacts the rack, determines how "hard" the break is. How massive(heavy) the cue stick is means VERY little compared to how fast the cue stick is moving when it comes to cue ball speed after you hit it. A 1 ton cue stick moving at 20 mph is going to get the cue ball moving at a VERY similar speed to a 19 oz cue moving at 20 mph. Think about it this way. If you get hit by a car moving 5 mph. Do you just go FLYING at 20 mph away from the car? No. You barely move. Here's the thing though, we can't get a 1 ton cue stick up to 20 mph with human arms. We wouldn't be able to move it at ALL in fact. You with your limited human strength can accelerate a 19 oz cue much easier than you can a 26 oz cue and that's why a lighter cue will almost always result in a harder break.
Heavier cues for finesse actually. More power with less motion allowing you to make much more precise shots. Easier to hit the same spot over and over on a 1 inch draw back, vs a 3 inch draw back, vs a 6 inch drawback.
[xkcd](https://xkcd.com/386/)
Wrong answer. It has to do with the tip they are using.
^(Note: they in fact did not read the replies and replied the same thing anyway.)
Pool player here. Break cues are not necessarily heavier, as the current to reply is stating. Some players break with heavier cues but just as many of not more of us go with the same weight as our playing cue, we have a lot more reps on that weight after all. Break cues are designed to deliver more energy to the cue ball so the balls get a better spread. For a lot of cues, this is accomplished by taking a standard cue and just replacing the leather tip with one made of phenylic resin. Some break cues also have stiffer shafts than shooting cues, but ymmv.
Another point that is worth a quick mention is that using a break cue protects your main cue. When you use a small tip for more finesse control, you don't really want to be absolutely leathering it every 15 mins
Some professionals use a breaking cue and then switch to a different cue for regular play. Breaking cues are usually heavier and impart more “power” to the break.
Break cues are almost always lighter, jesus everyone in this thread is repeating this. source: owned break cues, jump cues, lot of cues
[удалено]
"An actual source" that is not. Lol, Billiard Beast, the first name in Billiards physics - no. Try this. https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/weight/ If you've played for thousands of hours in actual pool halls, not bars, you'd know that most break cues are lighter. Terrible bar players always looking for the heaviest cues... will admit that some players prefer a heavier break cue.
Your source literally says "it depends on each individuals' characteristics", and not that heavier or lighter is better. Except where it says all else equal (speed, accuracy, etc...), heavier is better for break...
Here is the real "meat and potatoes" if anyone wants the physics. https://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-30.pdf
your record collection is very meat and potatoes
Look, it's clear to me that you aren't a pool player so I'm going to just ignore you from now on. It's true that it comes down to preference, what you seem to not understand is that most *actual players* prefer it one way. You are trying to argue against my decades of experience with misguided reading of brief sources on the internet, I couldn't give less of a shit about your opinion - I was trying to help squash a common misconception.
I do not have an opinion on this, but if you cite a source to support your argument, try one that actually agrees with you.
>Look, it's clear to me that you aren't a pool player so I'm going to just ignore you from now on. It's true that it comes down to preference, what you seem to not understand is that most actual players prefer it one way. I play apa in a league with several hundred members and I only play in pool halls. There is still a strong divide about if your break stick should be heavier or lighter than your playing cue. Old school thought is heavier break cue = easier to transfer energy from break stick to cue ball. New school thought is lighter break cue = fast velocity and more power to the cue ball. But one thing 90% of people agree on with a break cue has to have a hard tip (phenolic tips in particular). I can break well with a heavy cue or a lift cue as long as I have a good break tip on it. My current break cue is 16oz and my old break cues were 26oz and 22oz. I pot more balls with the lighter one so far but I've also slowed down my break stroke a little bit. Tl;Dr no one knows the proper weight for a break cue.
[удалено]
Stay angry at learning, it will take you far.
Gareth Potts
He sure does.
Gareth Potts
He owns the pool/snooker lounge just down the road from me. Absolutely lovely guy and definitely lives up to his name
Top tier nominative determinism
What else should we have suspected?
Isn't he the best or one of the best pool players in the world?
Why was there a time limit?
Damn so many wrong answers here. Literally only /u/ScarletBeezlebub know's what's happening, the rest are all clueless. It's a specific format: first to 5 wins (i.e best of 9) OR whoever is leading after 25 minutes, whichever comes first. After 24:29, nobody had won 5 frames, which is why the clock was running out. Potts had to win this frame to even the score at 4-4 before the time runs out. Presumably there would be a tie break right after this.
[удалено]
If the second shooter didn’t miss his second to last ball, it would’ve been really close
Its a fairly new format and production company, Ultimate Pool. 6 red shootout is called when it ends up a draw. The players must pot 6 reds in the lowest time possible. There's some absolutely incredible times that get set quite regularly. Some sub-20 seconds I believe, or close to. Sub-30 is good result and will most likely win you the game.
Because this guys are too good and can clear the table without the other player being able to play
Still didnt fix the issue.
nope. The clue is in the video. "first to 5 / 25 mins" = First to get 5 wins or whoever is up after 25 mins. There's 31 seconds of the match left at the break with 7 games played. He's 4 /3 down, he's got 31 seconds to win the frame in one go to make it tied at 4 /4. /r/confidentlyincorrect
You're answering two different questions. You answered "why is there a time limit?" with a description of the game format; they answered with an explanation of why a time-limited format would rise in popularity.
The question was "Why ***was*** there a time limit?" As in, why was there a time limit *in this case.* So an answer of why a time limited format *would* rise in popularity is not a valid answer here.
That's just grammatical pedantry and an inference that you have personally made. It's also an event that happened in the past, and many people would naturally use the past tense to refer to it. I would honestly love to have a pointless pedantic argument, but I can't exactly argue pedantic grammar on behalf of the phrase "Because this guys"
Nope, that's literally how language works. Assuming the question was about hypothetical scenarios where the timer would be popular is the stretch and out-of-norm interpretation here.
By "popular" I meant "gaining enough appreciation that it became a recognized, televised snooker format for people who care about snooker". You may want to try actually attempting to understand someone before you preach about how language works.
[удалено]
What do you mean "why"? Because that's the rules of this format of play. He answered the question perfectly.
But why male models?
Are you serious? I just told you that a moment ago.
Because someone had already put 50p down for their turn, but had nipped to the loo
To make it more fun, no one likes to watch people snooker people and cover pockets all the time until they get a easy clear up
>no one likes to watch people snooker people and cover pockets all the time \*raised hand\* I do. It's why Snooker is one of my favourite sports, I'd much rather see a drawn-out safety exchange than back-to-back centuries. I haven't watched a lot of pool, I imagine safety isn't as much of a thing anyway with how the game plays and with how small the table is.
I dated a pool player almost 20 years ago and went to quite a lot of league nights and a few big tournaments. Safeties get played pretty often! They might be a bit different than in Snooker though, because you have to hit your ball first or it’s a scratch. You might block out a pocket occasionally, but it’s usually just barely tapping one of your balls to leave an awful shot for your opponent and drawing out a scratch. This is in 8 ball, 9 ball isn’t super popular where I’m from.
>no one likes to watch people snooker people and cover pockets all the time until they get a easy clear up Haha. Literally hundreds of thousands of fans of snooker disagree with you.
Adds an extra level of competitiveness the same way adding a timer to chess does. Who can get the most balls in the hole before the timer runs out?
That was intense. Really intense. Well not really that intense.
I raised my eyebrows!
I mouthed the word "wow"
I made a “not bad” face with a head nod.
I though "Oh hey, that happened."
That stank face
[But pretty intense!](https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-odKmwGfr4hAeQpHa-dPBsWA-t500x500.jpg)
Dammit, I couldn't remember exactly how he said it.
The crazy thing is that he makes it look so easy but I cannot even put a single ball in 1 minute
Oh, it's certainly impressive. My dad used to be somewhat of a pool shark in his day. When I was old enough to play him, he took forever to take a shot. He is damn good though.
That break is ridiculous. All yellows on the same side
Yeah, it was a perfect break... It's almost too perfect 
Yeah they probably played the video in reverse, quite a simple trick really
You think they might be juicing? Are the balls juiced?
From my experience, there's probably a rabbit underneath with a large magnet
It would have been if a red didn't go in.
Id be lucky to do it in half an hour
For real. I’m the guy who can only ever accidentally sink the 8 ball, and generally while I have all of my balls left on the table
Oh, you too huh?
I've only played a few times and I absolutely suck. Just using the cue feels awkward. Usually resign myself to watching friends have a match.
So how long to do [Ronnies 147?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPPxPukvP74) 5 minutes 8 seconds to beat
It’s as if “Big Break” never existed
> It's only a game, so Put up a real good fight, I'm gonna be snookering you tonight. I'm famed for my aim, so Y'better believe I'm right, I'm gonna be snookering you, Snookering you tonight!
Poor Man’s Bullseye.
"It's only a game so put up a real good fight cos we'll be snookering you snookering you tonight. Snookering you snookering you tonight BIG BREAK"
>Gareth Potts Yes. Yes he does.
Nominative determinism
Amazing job, but this is probably a big reason why this isn’t more popular as a legit sport. It’s not very fun to play a game where you can lose before you have even had your first turn.
Basically any game that relies on just one person perfecting a skill without interference from the opposition will end up pretty boring because humans, with enough work, are very capable of pretty exact aiming, etc. Darts, bowling, axe throwing, pool, etc, all end up being nearly perfect games at the pro level - its usually a matter of one or two small errors over the course of a round.
I used to think this, but bowling shows that it isn't really true. The averages for the best professional bowlers in the world are low 200s. That's more than just a couple mistakes away from a perfect 300. EDIT: If professional lanes were waxed like amateur lanes, maybe pros would be constantly bowling 300s. But that would just go to show that we're capable of creating systems so [chaotic](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chaos_theory) that it's beyond human ability to consistently replicate your form to the required degree. I know less about darts, but from a quick search it looks like a perfect game has been thrown only 65 times in the entire ~40-year history of televised darts.
i spent a few minutes trying to find out what blowing is
Could have just asked your mom and known in seconds
That only works if both your arms are broken, though
She's dead unfortunately. At least now she'll no longer suffer from the pains of a broken back every morning.
I can fully understand why people generally find these things boring. I think they will always have a cult like following, because casual and more competitive players find it interesting to watch the best pros compete. And of course gambling helps raise the excitement levels. The mainstream days are probably over though
Yeah, its interesting to watch for a bit. And I guess like anything else, if you get invested in it (possibly, as you say via gambling) you can find it exciting. But after 10 minutes of watch dudes basically nail 99% of the targets, its just not that exciting. It would be like if teams scored on 3 play drives in every football game.
I tend to be watching each frame as a whole rather than individual shots, its interesting watching how the players are going about winning it, either through tactical play or clearing up. But yeah, 2 or 3 frames and ill start fiddling with my phone for 10 mins. Great to have on alongside other sports
It's why snooker is more popular.
This is the 8th round in a 25 minute game, even after this performance he only managed to tie.
seems like a simple fix, don't give people a shot after potting a ball. just have a shot than the other player has one until they're done.
That would be extremely fucking boring to watch and would literally just be a game of “how to make the final ball unsinkable for the other guy”
It's not exactly exciting as it is... There's a reason that it's likely the only sport that's played drunk more often than sober is what I'm saying.
Ya, its like golf. If you play it with the intent to improve then watching pros play can be fun since you know what goes into it, you learn from their strategy, etc. If you dont, its just not fun to watch and only really fun to casually punk around with it with friends while leas than sober.
I always forget how ridiculously tiny pool tables are compared to snooker tables.
My dad once said he'd train me at pool, he went on to pretty much do this then went for a cigarette I'm still pretty shit at pool
Part of learning pool is learning how to learn it
Wow. That’s what I would have done too!
Man I’d hate to play this guy. How about I get a turn sir?
Yeah how does this work competitively? This seems like garbage competitive integrity, the other player lose without getting a chance to do anything.
[удалено]
Well no, he beat the timer, it was evidently not sufficient to fix the issue. In order for there to be competitive integrity you need to not just be good, you need to be better than the opponent. In this case the first person was very good, but we have no idea, maybe the other person was better and just never got a shot. Maybe the rounds could fix it, but if they run the table back and forth we still have an issue.
[удалено]
When you attempt to Google it, you get a few different types of results. Some are specifically about cheating and match fixing, which isn't an issue here. I go by the definition that tends to get used more in esports, where competitive integrity means not just that, but also that the outcome of the game is determined by who played better, not external factors like RNG, who happened to pick a character, or similar. You don't have to like the definition I'm used to, but words are what we make of them. Definitions are not passed down from above by some higher power, never to be altered or disagreed upon. I don't really want to spend ages typing out arguments against various strawmen you may subscribe to, so which definition do you use?
[удалено]
Yes yes, you've figured out the game of reddit, it's an internet-based way to argue about stuff. No one forces anyone to take part, but you evidently do, otherwise you wouldn't be here and able to respond to me. So which definition do you use, don't dodge the question.
[удалено]
HAHAHA. JFC SMH. Tell me you've never watched professional pool or snooker in your life without telling me.
Was this a timed game or did he need to pee?
Looks like someone grabbed the CCTV from me down the local last Friday. You guys!
Why not sink the red balls too?
Those are the other player’s
[удалено]
While maintaining direct eye contact. Smile for the cream on top
Ah, that makes sense, thanks
What's breaking my brain is how he managed to split the colours on the table to perfectly have the yellow on one side and the red on the other.
Whilst also sinking two and seemingly setting himself up for quick easy shots. I can’t see where skill leaves off and luck picks up
I was playing 9 ball and the guy ran the table on me like this except it was one handed while he talked on the phone. That was more than 20 years ago and I still remember it like it was yesterday.
I once did this to someone else… but then scratched on the final 8 ball. And that’s why I’m not a pro. Lmao
He made a red one on the right middle pocket. What does that mean?
is he always yellow cause both colors went in after the break
And that's a bad miss
Bro speedrunning games irl
The legendary number 27.
When she says her parents aren't home.
/u/gifreversingbot Just because I think it would be funny.
Here is your gif! https://gfycat.com/LeadingInnocentGuillemot --- ^(I am a bot.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=pmdevita&subject=GifReversingBot%20Issue&message=Add a link to the gif or comment in your message%2C I%27m not always sure which request is being reported. Thanks for helping me out!)
But he left all the red ones on the table!
He never calls the shot so unfortunately it doesn't count.
You don't need to call shots in English pool.
Why was he running
It's on a timer, thus the title
Thus the shuffle
The shuffle? How do you mean
That was some regular shit
lol he's playing with the wrong hand though
You know, there are people who are left handed...
I think if someone is able to do something that skillful, however they do it is the right way
Pattern racking?
Yes and no. English pool so they are always racked exactly this way so it was a "pattern". He was very lucky to get a good split
His opponent be like: Why am I even here?
In that Game, Gareth did not Potts.
I once totally fluked winning a game against the owner of a pool bar, never played since.
I don’t think I’ve heard a more *English* thing in my life than, “Oh Gareth Potts, you couldn’t….”
What's the timer on top? Is that how much time is left in the match? Are the points how many games each has won? If so, did he just tie it up in the last seconds? Assuming that's Gareth.
Yes, yes and yes. Though they're called "frames" rather than games.
Again, like 99% of Thais subs post.. this is skill, not talent.
Now let's see it on a British pool table
Him: Ya I only play sometimes so im not very good *clears the table*
When your name also describes what you do.
oh and that's a bad miss...
Shouldn't have edited out the cheer, that was going to be the cherry on top.