Tip size or why so big?
tony mathews
want to share some observations and ideas.
I think that the important consideration with regards to comparing tip
sizes across different cue sports is the ball diameter/tip diameter
ratio. I'll list a few:
Snooker - Average tip size - 10.0 mm
Ball diameter - 53.97 mm (Aramith Super Crystalates)
Bd/Td = 5.397:1
3 Cushion - Average tip size - 11.75 mm (varies from 11.5 and 12.0 mm)
Ball diameter - 60.32 mm (2.375" ball)
Bd/Td = 5.133:1
Pool - Average tip size - 12.5 mm (from some recent pro data)
Ball diameter - 57.15 mm
Bd/Td = 4.57:1
With Snooker, the requirements for precision in potting is very high.
With 3C the requirement for tip contact precision is very high.
But why are pool cue tips so large?
Or perhaps another question is why are Snooker cue tips so small? About
2 years ago I asked Robert Byrne about squirt and Snooker. His feeling
was that squirt was irrelevant to Snooker since most of the top players
stick to the center axis of the cue ball, and they can hit the center of
the ball with great precision. This seemed reasonable to me at the time.
But since that time I have come to question this conventional wisdom.
In a conversation with Steve Davis, he revealed that his Snooker cue
uses a very thin wall Brass Ferrule (ie: thinner than the norm). His
explanation for this was for reduced squirt (the English don't call it
"squirt" they refer to this as a form of "throw" - go figure!). In
another conversation with Cliff Thorburn he emphasized the importance of
a low squirt cue for his Snooker game. When I built a cue for Jim Whych,
the first shots he tried with the various shafts that I made were shots
with extreme side spin to test for squirt. The consensus was that any
cue can pot balls with center ball, but how a cue reacts to side spin is
a way to differentiate various cues.
Since a Snooker ball is smaller diameter (94% of pool diameter) and has
less mass (83%) you would expect more squirt for a typical cue on the
Snooker table than on a pool table. See Ron Shepards' "Everything you
always wanted to know about squirt" paper for an explanation of why this
might be.
So this explains the small tip diameter for Snooker. 3C requires precise
tip placement, so this explains why the 3C tip is so small. But why
don't pool players prefer a smaller tip?
If we use the same Bd/Td for Snooker and apply it to pool balls we get a
tip diameter of -10.6 mm. Use the 3C ratio and we get - 11.13 mm.
So why not use 12 mm or smaller for pool? (I do btw but I digress).
And why don't we see the small short ferrules on pool cues like we see
on 3C and Snooker cues?
I recently received an E-mail that described a pool cue that Mike Massey
uses (made by Ray Schuler). This cue has a 1/4" long ferrule with a hole
bored 6" up the end (like the Predator). This cue has very, very low
squirt. Bob Jewett has no ferrule at all (presumably for squirt
considerations as well).
So what would be wrong with a pool cue with a 12 mm tip diameter, and a
very short ferrule? Is it just tradition?
From my review of the tapes from Cardiff, and from comments of players
that were there, the trend in pro pool players is towards smaller tip
diameters and shorter ferrules.
What do people think about this?
Any comments or ideas?
Tony
(too much time to think up here, not enough time to play)
Glenn Godsey
>........
>So why not use 12 mm or smaller for pool? (I do btw but I digress).
>
I have been thinking of reviving an old Dufferin tipless snooker shaft and
trying it for pool.
But, I read Allison Fisher's comment when asked about using a snooker cue for
pool: " No. I don't recommend that. The snooker cue is too thin in the ferrule
and tip. I would recommend moving up to a 12 or 13 mm tip and maybe an 18 or 19
oz cue but that is just a personal preference."
I remember reading on the Seybert's discussion board that one player swears by a
17 oz snooker cue for powerful breaks.
So, Tony, what are your opinions after your experience with a smaller tip?
Best regards,
Glenn Godsey
tony mathews
Karen Corr plays with a Predator shaft with a 12mm tip. Alex Pagulyan has a Predator with a 12 mm (or 12.25 mm) tip. Robert Byrne plays pool with a 12 mm tip (it is his 3 cushion cue I know). Paul Thornley swears by a 12 mm tip.
I'd say that compared to Snooker, 12 mm cannot be considered small. But for most pool players this is a tiny tip size.
My currect personal cue has a 12mm tip with a dime curvature (MH Moori) and a 1/2" long thin wall yellow micarta ferrule. The squirt is about the same as a Predator, without the hollow portion in the front. So the cue feels more solid when you hit a ball. The shaft is also more conical somewhat (the taper is from 12 mm at tip to 13.5 mm at 12" from the tip) so the vibration experienced after a shot is minimal (this is just what I prefer).
My experience? Works fine! I feel that I can determine the contact point on the cue ball with greater precision than with a 13 mm tip. Since the curvature is the same, I get no additional spin, or no more or less inadvertant spin than if I used a 13 mm tip with the same curvature. In other words same results with the challenge draw shot (so no more spin). I prefer the solid feel present without the hollow end portion. And the thin wall through ferrule (without the soft plastic cap) provides a solid feedback through the solid tenon. Is it better? Well it is different. Better for me, maybe not for some tastes.
So why do it?
Several reasons - 1) I get low squirt without the hollow end in the shaft. I think that this gives me more feedback or at least different feedback.
2) I get more tip placement precision. This means that I get the spin that I intended more often than not. (or that's the theory anyway!).
How small can you go?
Cliff Thorburn and Steve Davis play with a 11.5 mm tip and find no problems playing 9 ball. With a conical taper this is still enough shaft to get adequate stiffness.
Could or should we go smaller?
I've tried a select Ramin shaft (stiffer than Maple or Ash for similar density) at 11 mm and the stiffness is similar to a 12 mm maple shaft. A graphite reinforced shaft could be made even smaller. At some point there would be a point of diminishing returns.
But seeing Steve Davis play precision position with a smaller tip (but larger than Snooker!) made me wonder if many people are missing out on something.
Tony
fred laux
it still has the same Pro taper of the larger tipped cue. It seems to me
that the taper must be an important factor in the feel of the cue in the
bridge hand and in the hit (stiffness of hit) and maybe in squirt too. The
Schuler custom shafts I see at billiardwarehouse.com seem to nicely take
into consideration the taper in the smaller tipped shafts. The smaller the
tip the more of a Billiard/European taper.
FredL
tony mathews
fred laux wrote:
>Maybe most of the time a pool player gets handed a smaller tipped cue to try
>it still has the same Pro taper of the larger tipped cue. It seems to me
>that the taper must be an important factor in the feel of the cue in the
>bridge hand and in the hit (stiffness of hit) and maybe in squirt too. The
>Schuler custom shafts I see at billiardwarehouse.com seem to nicely take
>into consideration the taper in the smaller tipped shafts. The smaller the
>tip the more of a Billiard/European taper.
>
This is true Fred. Perhaps many pool players only have experience with a
smaller "pro" taper. And I agree that the taper is an important part of
the feel of the cue. Specifically it creates a form of feedback (only
through a change in stiffness). And perhaps some players like to "see" a
certain taper when they look down the shaft. But this is only
familiarity, and can be changed.
Some players tell me that they cannot cue correctly with a conical shaft
when using the closed bridge. Funny, but this never stops the 3 C
players from using a closed bridge. So again, I contend that this is
merely a familiarity issue and not a requirement.
And what if you use primarily an open bridge? Why would the taper be an
issue in this case?
Tony
Gideon Forrest
> Cliff Thorburn and Steve Davis play with a 11.5 mm tip and find no
> problems playing 9 ball.
I could have sworn that at least at the 2000 Worlds, Davis (or the
commentators) said he was using a 12 mm ash cue.
I could be wrong, I guess.
Gideon
David Malone
<tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I recently received an E-mail that described a pool cue that Mike Massey
>uses (made by Ray Schuler). This cue has a 1/4" long ferrule with a hole
>bored 6" up the end (like the Predator). This cue has very, very low
>squirt.
OK... but what was the tip size? If Mike Massey uses a 12mm I'd take
that as a pretty good argument that it would be close to the optimum
tip size for pool considering what he's able to do with a cue.
>Bob Jewett has no ferrule at all (presumably for squirt
>considerations as well).
I'm not going to touch that one with a barge pole... where's Smorg
when you need him?
>Any comments or ideas?
I went from a 12mm Dufferin to a 13mm Falcon and didn't notice any
significant loss of contact accuracy or any changes in my game. Mind
you, the way I play accuracy is only a limited concept anyway.
BTW, excellent article on ferrules in the latest Chalk & Cue. Keep 'em
coming...
David "The Hamster" Malone.
Otto
cue ball.
Mike can sure make that cue ball do some crazy things.
Looks like a hamster that has been
jinked..jacked..down..up..sideways.........who knows.
Otto
"David Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3bb89a20.351095498@tornews...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:36:18 -0700, tony mathews
tony mathews
Gideon Forrest wrote:
Yes you are wrong. Jim Wych is a good friend of Steve Davis and gave me the entire "scoop" on his
cue. So I know for a fact that it is not a 12 mm tip.
FYI that's all.
Tony
> Gideon
tony mathews
David Malone wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:36:18 -0700, tony mathews
> <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >I recently received an E-mail that described a pool cue that Mike Massey
> >uses (made by Ray Schuler). This cue has a 1/4" long ferrule with a hole
> >bored 6" up the end (like the Predator). This cue has very, very low
> >squirt.
>
> OK... but what was the tip size? If Mike Massey uses a 12mm I'd take
> that as a pretty good argument that it would be close to the optimum
> tip size for pool considering what he's able to do with a cue.
I'm trying to find this out. But keep in mind that Mike Massey uses his cue
mainly for exhibition purposes so he is not neccessarily after the same thing
that a typical 9 ball player might want. And of course as I mentioned, the
spin/speed ratio is not a function of tip size. Mike could probably get
monster spin with a 15 mm tip!
> >Any comments or ideas?
>
> I went from a 12mm Dufferin to a 13mm Falcon and didn't notice any
> significant loss of contact accuracy or any changes in my game. Mind
> you, the way I play accuracy is only a limited concept anyway.
Here is something to consider. If the 12 mm Dufferin has the same pivot point
as the 13 mm Falcon (could happen depending on ferrule design etc.) then the
squirt may be similar. So in this case it is not a fair experiment. Try a
second shaft for the Falcon with a 12 mm tip and a smaller ferrule. The
reduced end mass should improve your potting accuracy with side spin.
As to the loss of contact accuracy, your game may not be at the stage where
you can make this assessment (just a guess, no offense). This is not easy to
determine.
The way to test for improvements (or the opposite) with equipment is by
comparing the changes to a control cue (or shaft). You need a control shaft
that is set to standard or "stock" dimensions so that you can evaluate the
differences. This would mean that you need 2 identical shafts to begin with.
Btw by identical I mean - 1) the same length, 2) the same ferrule dimensions,
material and mass, 3) the same tip and curvature, 4) the same weight, 5) the
same static stiffness, the same pivot point and 6) the same taper.
You use the same butt so that the shaft is the only variable. Please note how
difficult it is to find shafts that play the same (you need a close match for
all of the above criteria).
This will allow you to change various criteria and evaluate the results of
the changes.
There are 2 considerations to look for:
1) potting accuracy - set up some standard progressive potting drills and
record the results for both shafts. Use center ball pots and pots with
english,. This is where you would find a benefit with reduced squirt.
2) position play accuracy - a good drill for this is target pool. Record your
scores with the standard shaft and the test shaft. This is where I would
expect to see the improvement from the tip contact accuracy. Or a negative
effect due to some loss of feel from one of the changes.
Anyone can do these tests and find out for themselves what works better for
their game.
I'm making 2 identical 12.75 mm shafts for my playing cue that I can do this
with. I'll then change the second shaft and try and measure the results.
I'll report my findings to RSB.
I'll see if a smaller tip helps or hinders my game.
> BTW, excellent article on ferrules in the latest Chalk & Cue. Keep 'em
> coming...
>
Thanks for the input! More are on the way!
Tony Mathews
( wishes pool writing paid better)
David Malone
<tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Here is something to consider. If the 12 mm Dufferin has the same pivot point
>as the 13 mm Falcon (could happen depending on ferrule design etc.) then the
>squirt may be similar. So in this case it is not a fair experiment. Try a
>second shaft for the Falcon with a 12 mm tip and a smaller ferrule. The
>reduced end mass should improve your potting accuracy with side spin.
The Falcon is long gone... the current Pechauer Pro is also a 13mm
with less squirt and it took me at least a month to adapt to it from
the Falcon.
>As to the loss of contact accuracy, your game may not be at the stage where
>you can make this assessment (just a guess, no offense). This is not easy to
>determine.
Come down to the next Great White North and you can make a better
assessment personally (grin). I've been playing all of 2 years, so I'm
still just a rookie.
David "The Hamster" Malone.
tony mathews
Otto wrote:
> Perhaps 12mm is good if you want to scribe your name in cursive using the
> cue ball.
>
O.k. , but why do you think so? If the tip curvature is the same as that used
with a 13mm tip (say dime radius) you wouldn't get any more or less spin. But
you would get less squirt, and more contact precision.
So I ask again - can anyone tell me a valid reason why we shouldn't be using
a 12 mm (or smaller) tip for pool?
And I mean "valid" reason, not "it's what I'm used to" or "it doesn't look
right" or some such.
Anyone?
Tony
Bob Jewett
> So I ask again - can anyone tell me a valid reason why we shouldn't be using
> a 12 mm (or smaller) tip for pool?
Maybe it often gives a pivot point equal to the bridge length. This could be an
advantage for automatic compensation of squirt if the side-to-side consistency
on the final stroke is bad.
A larger tip may stand up better to hard shots and miscues, such as the
16mm tips on some masse cues.
Other than that, I think it comes down to tradition. The tips I play
with are 12mm or less, except the masse shafts.
--
Bob Jewett
tony mathews
Bob Jewett wrote:
> tony mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > So I ask again - can anyone tell me a valid reason why we shouldn't be using
> > a 12 mm (or smaller) tip for pool?
>
> Maybe it often gives a pivot point equal to the bridge length. This could be an
> advantage for automatic compensation of squirt if the side-to-side consistency
> on the final stroke is bad.
This is the suggestion given with regards to break cues also. But many players
prefer a low squirt cue for playing. And of course the pivot point could be adjusted
with a heavier ferrule with a smaller tipped cue.
>
>
> A larger tip may stand up better to hard shots and miscues, such as the
> 16mm tips on some masse cues.
>
> Other than that, I think it comes down to tradition. The tips I play
> with are 12mm or less, except the masse shafts.
Aha! I thought you might use a smaller tip! And I think that you are right. It comes
down to tradition.Anyone else want to weigh-in on this?
Tony
>
>
> --
>
> Bob Jewett
Bob Johnson
shaft is 28" long, very stiff taper, with a 12.5 mm tip, and a 1/2" ferrule.
I probably need to practice some with this shaft, since I have a lot more
confidence in my 12.75 mm Schuler Pro. Ray recommends the American as the
ideal shaft for 9 ball and one pocket. It would appear to be kind of a
cross between a more "usual" pool cue and a snooker cue.
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
Home of the 1997/1998 World Champion Broncos!
Home of the 1996/2001 Stanley Cup Champion Avalanche!
bo...@cris.com
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BB8314F...@sympatico.ca...
Glenn Godsey wrote:
In article <3BB80EE2...@sympatico.ca>, tony says...
........So why not use 12 mm or smaller for pool? (I do btw but I digress).
I have been thinking of reviving an old Dufferin tipless snooker shaft
andtrying it for pool.But, I read Allison Fisher's comment when asked about
using a snooker cue forpool: " No. I don't recommend that. The snooker cue
is too thin in the ferruleand tip. I would recommend moving up to a 12 or 13
mm tip and maybe an 18 or 19oz cue but that is just a personal preference."I
remember reading on the Seybert's discussion board that one player swears by
a17 oz snooker cue for powerful breaks.So, Tony, what are your opinions
dalecue
But why
don't pool players prefer a smaller tip?
pro taper
Dale
tony mathews
dalecue wrote:
And if you took a 13 mm pro taper shaft and tapered the last 10" (or so)
down to 12 mm (or less) what would be the problem?
Most of the shafts made today are not actually "pro" tapers (except
perhaps Cuetec). Most are what may be called a "shallow cone" or a
"gradual cone". They grow a small amount in diameter during the stroking
portion. So why not use a gradual cone that tapers to 12 mm (or less?)?
Anyone?
Tony
>
>
>
>
fred laux
the pool world were you looking
at the ratio of tip size to ball diameter or tip size to ball weight? I
think comparing tip size to ball weight is what's
relevant. Isn't it?
FredL
tony mathews
fred laux wrote:
> Tony, when you compared tip size to ball size between the snooker world and
> the pool world were you looking
> at the ratio of tip size to ball diameter or tip size to ball weight? I
> think comparing tip size to ball weight is what's
> relevant. Isn't it?
>
>
That's a very good question Fred! Geometrically speaking, if we look at how the
tip curvature can effect the spin versus shaft displacement, then we are
talking about comparing the diameters.
Comparing the weight is useful for other reasons:
Squirt - Squirt is also related to the diameter of the ball, but it is also
highly dependant on the ratio of the ball mass to the stick "effective end
mass". The Snooker cue ball is about 83% of the mass of a pool cue ball. Thus
to obtain low squirt with a Snooker cue, the end mass would indeed have to be
lower than would be first apparent when comparing diameters alone. If we could
assume that endmass could be a simple function of the volume of the shaft
multiplied by the density of the components (for some effective distance from
the tip) then we could scale up a Snooker shaft using the ball mass ratios or -
10mm * (6 ounce/5 ounce = 1.2) = 12 mm. Of course this would assume that you
also scaled up the ferrule dimensions as well.
Thus it would appear that most pool cues with a diameter in excess of 12 mm
would have more squirt than a Snooker cue when used with the respective cue
balls.
This explains why the Predator solution of a "void" located within and behind
the ferrule is required to produce the low effective end mass with a larger
than 12 mm diameter pool shaft. This void reduces the volume of wood internally
rather than externally as would be obtained from a diameter reduction.
(Note that the specific gravity of White Ash is slightly less than the specific
gravity of Sugar Maple so that in fact the Maple shaft diameter would have to
be adjusted downwards slightly from 12 mm to produce an equivilant mass).
Tony
Ge
My predator poolcue has little squirt. I thought I would have a hell of a
time adapting when switching over, but it's really not that bad. I've once
tried to play snooker with my pool-cue, but apart from obtaining immediate
underdog-status at league-nights (who's that idiot holding a tree-trunk) ,
it has done me no favors. It amazes me how quickly the muscles and brain
adapt to the new circumstances.
I drive a silly Golf, my wife drives a 320bhp Maserati (I know, I'm doing
something wrong). When I get in her car and put my foot on the clutch, I
tend to think that there is a brick under the pedal. But after a few minutes
it all feels normal again. Then I get back into my Golf, and the first time
I almost kick the floorboard out on the street.
Another nice example of muscle memory (for people with manual
transmissions): Try braking with your left foot. Make sure there is noone
behind you for a few miles, and fasten your seatbelts!
Ge
tony mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBA1F85...@sympatico.ca...
tony mathews
Ge wrote:
> My snooker cue, one piece ash with brass 10mm ferrule, squirts like crazy.
Squirts on the Snooker table? Some do I know. The good ones don't. Often this is
do to the wall thickness of the brass ferrule (thick wall = higher squirt). Did
you do the aim and pivot test as described in the FAQ or is this just a general
feeling that you have?
> My predator poolcue has little squirt. I thought I would have a hell of a
> time adapting when switching over, but it's really not that bad. I've once
> tried to play snooker with my pool-cue, but apart from obtaining immediate
> underdog-status at league-nights (who's that idiot holding a tree-trunk) ,
> it has done me no favors.
Usually, this is because you have less precision with the tip placement with a
pool cue versus a Snooker cue.Are you comparing Apples to Apples or Apples to
Oranges? Did you try the squirt test with the Snooker cue vs the pool cue using
the Snooker ball? If so I would expect that your Predator would have more squirt
when using the Snooker ball than the Snooker cue would (unless the brass ferrule
is quite "heavy").
>
Thanks for the feedback,
Tony
Jack Stein
tony mathews wrote:
>
> I've been looking at the tip sizes used for various cue sports and I
> want to share some observations and ideas.
Wow, you've been feeding us some excellent posts lately, you are on a
roll Tony.
> Pool - Average tip size - 12.5 mm (from some recent pro data)
> Ball diameter - 57.15 mm
> Bd/Td = 4.57:1
How sure are you of this? I've been playing with a 13.5 mm tip, but I
have some cheap house cues with MUCH smaller tips, probably 12 or 12.5.
I "think" I like the smaller tips, not sure why, but, I have been
putting off having a new custom cue made because I can't decide what
size tip to get. I was thinking of 12.75, but thought, erroneously
according to your figures, that most players used around 13 mm tip? If
the average pro uses 12.5, then I feel comfortable going with a 12.75.
The rest of your post I find VERY interesting, particularly since I'm in
an info gathering mode for tip size.
I have no idea what or why people choose the tip size they do, I suspect
for most people it's whatever came on their cue. I know when I first
started shooting, I liked big tips, bigger the better. Now, even though
I don't use a smaller tipped cue often enough to know, I "think" I'd
like a smaller tip, but don't know how small I should go.
> From my review of the tapes from Cardiff, and from comments of players
> that were there, the trend in pro pool players is towards smaller tip
> diameters and shorter ferrules.
>
Interesting to me, because I've been feeling this way independently,
with no input other than some random shooting with a smaller tip. I
"think" I see the CB better with a smaller tip, but other than that, I
don't have any reason to think I get more/less english, or anything like
that. I think a month of adjusting to a smaller tip and I'd be playing
about the same as I do now, but who knows? I also noted when first
learning to shoot that new ideas/techniques often produced instant
improvement, but only lasted that day, the next day the same changes
reaped no, or worse performance. I used to joke that it took a day for
my brain to adjust to normal "poor" performance.
I'm playing against a very good team tonight, I think I'll survey them
to see what size tips they all use.
Jack
--
http://jbstein.com
tony mathews
Jack Stein wrote:
> tony mathews wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking at the tip sizes used for various cue sports and I
> > want to share some observations and ideas.
>
> Wow, you've been feeding us some excellent posts lately, you are on a
> roll Tony.
Rolling, rolling, rolling, keep those doggies rolling ..rawhide!
>
>
> > Pool - Average tip size - 12.5 mm (from some recent pro data)
> > Ball diameter - 57.15 mm
> > Bd/Td = 4.57:1
>
> How sure are you of this? I've been playing with a 13.5 mm tip, but I
> have some cheap house cues with MUCH smaller tips, probably 12 or 12.5.
> I "think" I like the smaller tips, not sure why, but, I have been
> putting off having a new custom cue made because I can't decide what
> size tip to get. I was thinking of 12.75, but thought, erroneously
> according to your figures, that most players used around 13 mm tip? If
> the average pro uses 12.5, then I feel comfortable going with a 12.75.
I got this from some people doing some comparisons at both Cardiff and the
U.S. Open. The tip size is somewhat regional. Most of the Canadian Pros use
a smaller tip size for sure. This is in part due to the Snooker background
in the majority of the Canadian Pros. Many of the American Pros use a tip
size somewhat closer to 13 mm, but this is only a generalization. And this
depends upon their age and background. Straight pool players often favour
the larger tips, but I suspect that this is also tradition (note Mosconi
used 12.5 mm and he was perhaps the best straight pool player of all time).
Younger players are more willing to change and experiment.
>
>
> The rest of your post I find VERY interesting, particularly since I'm in
> an info gathering mode for tip size.
> I have no idea what or why people choose the tip size they do, I suspect
> for most people it's whatever came on their cue. I know when I first
> started shooting, I liked big tips, bigger the better. Now, even though
> I don't use a smaller tipped cue often enough to know, I "think" I'd
> like a smaller tip, but don't know how small I should go.
My advice is to get two identical shafts with a standard tip size (like
12.75 mm for example) and then change one of them. Unless you use a Predator
shaft, the tip size will indirectly affect the squirt due to end mass.
Bigger tip = more squirt (all else being equal). How small can you go? I'd
say 12 mm is not too small if you maintain a tip curvature of 18 mm (dime).
>
>
> > From my review of the tapes from Cardiff, and from comments of players
> > that were there, the trend in pro pool players is towards smaller tip
> > diameters and shorter ferrules.
> >
>
> Interesting to me, because I've been feeling this way independently,
> with no input other than some random shooting with a smaller tip. I
> "think" I see the CB better with a smaller tip, but other than that, I
> don't have any reason to think I get more/less english, or anything like
> that.
This was part of the point of my post. The conventional wisdom is that you
don't want a smaller tip unless you want "super" spin (either intentional or
not). A simple examination of the tangent point between two spheres (with
the shaft diameters as different curve "segments" with the same curvature)
shows that the contact point on the ball is the same with equal shaft
displacement from center. So you get no more or less "spin" if you use the
same tip curvature with different tip diameters. But you can "see" the
contact point better with the smaller tip (actually I suppose it is more
like "estimate" the contact point more accurately) and you get an additional
benefit of less squirt. So where is the downside?
> I think a month of adjusting to a smaller tip and I'd be playing
> about the same as I do now, but who knows? I also noted when first
> learning to shoot that new ideas/techniques often produced instant
> improvement, but only lasted that day, the next day the same changes
> reaped no, or worse performance. I used to joke that it took a day for
> my brain to adjust to normal "poor" performance.
Lol! Often this means that the new technique either does not influence a
factor that is important for performance (for example it may just be an
affectation or "style" component) or the new technique was not fully
adopted. Testing against a known drill and against past performance is the
only way to accurately guage a potential performance benefit imo. See APAPP
section 4.
>
>
> I'm playing against a very good team tonight, I think I'll survey them
> to see what size tips they all use.
>
> Jack
Let us know Jack. And ask us why the use the size they use.
Tony
Frank G.
|I have no idea what or why people choose the tip size they do, I suspect
|for most people it's whatever came on their cue. I know when I first
|started shooting, I liked big tips, bigger the better. Now, even though
|I don't use a smaller tipped cue often enough to know, I "think" I'd
|like a smaller tip, but don't know how small I should go.
I think this is correct. I believe a larger tip is more forgiving because
you get a little less offset with it. By this I mean that you are less
likely to stray into miscue territory because the tip "looks" like it will
miscue sooner (thus keeping you closer to center than a smaller tip). I
started with 13.25 mm tips. I am down to about 12 mm tips now (with a pro
taper about 12-14"). The shafts originally had a constant taper (like a
cone). At some point I found that the pro taper (cylinder) opened up my
stroke a little. I feel this is a personal thing. I have the luxury of
having a cuemaker as a fishing buddy, so I can experiment a little less
expensively than the normal player. This is how I learned about the
characteristics of tips and shafts, etc. I have also had the opportunity to
play with lots of different cues from lots of different cuemakers (taken in
on trade).
--
Frank G Richmond, Va.
Reply to spydermurphy-at-suespammers-dot-org
Spam will be LARTED without so much as a by your leave.
The spamcop address in the header goes to the bit bucket, do not reply to
it.
tony mathews
Frank G. wrote:
> I think this is correct. I believe a larger tip is more forgiving because
> you get a little less offset with it. By this I mean that you are less
> likely to stray into miscue territory because the tip "looks" like it will
> miscue sooner (thus keeping you closer to center than a smaller tip).
Hmm, I guess that this depends on what you look at. If you look at the center
of the shaft, then it doesn't matter what the tip size is. If you look at the
edge of the shaft nearest the center then I might argue that the smaller tip is
"more forgiving". Imagine a shaft 20 mm in diameter. When the inside edge gets
10mm from center, the contact point is 3.5 mm farther from center than with a
13 mm tip with the same tip curvature. From this I would argue that the smaller
tip "looks" like it will miscue sooner because the relationship between tip
diameter and contact point is more intuitive.
> I
> started with 13.25 mm tips. I am down to about 12 mm tips now (with a pro
> taper about 12-14"). The shafts originally had a constant taper (like a
> cone). At some point I found that the pro taper (cylinder) opened up my
> stroke a little. I feel this is a personal thing. I have the luxury of
> having a cuemaker as a fishing buddy, so I can experiment a little less
> expensively than the normal player. This is how I learned about the
> characteristics of tips and shafts, etc. I have also had the opportunity to
> play with lots of different cues from lots of different cuemakers (taken in
> on trade).
Good feedback on what cue you are using. Yes it helps to have a cuemaker near
by! As to the pro taper versus conical taper I agree that this is a personal
thing. I find that the pro taper feels more comfortable with a closed bridge
also. But I also recognize that the conical taper is stiffer (stronger if you
like) and I prefer this feedback. So I trade off comfort for performance. This
is what I believe the 3C players do all of the time. A pro taper shaft just
would not be stiff enough when used to strike the heavier 3C ball. So they
trade comfort for performance. And they don't seem to care at all!
So why did you choose to reduce your tip size, and what benefit (if any) do you
feel you obtained?
Tony
Jeff Cavanagh
existing cue? The expensive part of the custom cue is going to be the butt
end, with all the fancy work....
BTW, the stock Predator shaft is 12.75mm, so you might want to try to get
one fitted for your butt.
Jeff
"Jack Stein" <jbst...@home.com> wrote
> I "think" I like the smaller tips, not sure why, but, I have been
> putting off having a new custom cue made because I can't decide what
> size tip to get. I was thinking of 12.75, but thought, erroneously
> according to your figures, that most players used around 13 mm tip? If
> the average pro uses 12.5, then I feel comfortable going with a 12.75.
>
> Jack
Jeff Cavanagh
aiming point. Some people might judge their tip placement using the outside
of the shaft, in which case the larger tip will produce a smaller actual
offset. Some might use the inside edge of their shaft, in which case the
larger tip is going to produce a larger actual offset.
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> A simple examination of the tangent point between two spheres (with
> the shaft diameters as different curve "segments" with the same curvature)
> shows that the contact point on the ball is the same with equal shaft
> displacement from center. So you get no more or less "spin" if you use the
> same tip curvature with different tip diameters. But you can "see" the
> contact point better with the smaller tip (actually I suppose it is more
> like "estimate" the contact point more accurately) and you get an
additional
> benefit of less squirt. So where is the downside?
>
> Tony
>
>
Jeff Cavanagh
larger tip... center is center is center, isn't it? I guess you'll have
less control of your draw and follow though....
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> The offset is the same if you're placing the center of the tip at your
> aiming point. Some people might judge their tip placement using the outside
> of the shaft, in which case the larger tip will produce a smaller actual
> offset. Some might use the inside edge of their shaft, in which case the
> larger tip is going to produce a larger actual offset.
>
This is what I mentioned in another response also Jeff. You have analyzed the
situation correctly. I think that I tend to use the top of the shaft when
applying back spin and top spin, and the center of the shaft when applying side
spin (anyone else have a similar impression?). This is due to the view of the
tip from above and behind. In this case it might appear that I get more back or
top spin with a larger shaft than a smaller shaft, but equal side spin (both
shafts with equal tip curvature of course).
Tony
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> If you're aiming center ball I don't see you getting less precision with the
> larger tip... center is center is center, isn't it? I guess you'll have
> less control of your draw and follow though....
>
> Jeff
>
Yes center is center Jeff. But imagine a ridiculous case where you are using the
butt end of your cue as a tip ("Tip" diameter of 1" or 25 mm). Go ahead, turn
your cue around and try to estimate the contact point on the cue ball. If we use
both sides of the shaft as an estimate for "center" then the smaller tip has a
smaller estimation error relative to actual displacement error than the bigger
tip. Or another way to look at it is that the bigger tip obscures more of the
cue ball. This may also make it more difficult to estimate the contact point.
Keep in mind that when we place the tip on the ball, we are really after the
correct contact point on the ball. Imagine a shaft with a tapered needle point.
Our error in actual contact point versus displacement estimation would be very
small. Now imagine a shaft with the diameter of the cue ball. Our error in
actual contact point versus displacement estimation would be much higher. Of
course the actual cases of real world tip sizes are not this extreme, but you
get the general trend and direction
Tony
Jeff Cavanagh
cue with a tip the same diameter as the cueball, you'd have a much better
chance of hitting dead center (since you'd also be able to judge whether the
edges of the shaft/tip were lined up with the edges of the cueball). Much
like the reasons that a level has more than one bubble!
The part of the tip that makes contact with the cueball isn't going to
change if the same tip radius is used, is it?
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBA8DFE...@sympatico.ca...
Jeff Cavanagh
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> Well I was going to use your example but argue the opposite... if you had a
> cue with a tip the same diameter as the cueball, you'd have a much better
> chance of hitting dead center (since you'd also be able to judge whether the
> edges of the shaft/tip were lined up with the edges of the cueball). Much
> like the reasons that a level has more than one bubble!
Yes for this example it might be easier to hit the center of the cue ball! Lol!
Of course what if we don't want to hit the center?
>
>
> The part of the tip that makes contact with the cueball isn't going to
> change if the same tip radius is used, is it?
>
That's correct. I think that you are on the same wavelength as me. You have
basically shown that the usual reasons for not using a small tip are actually
not valid.
Tony
Jeff Cavanagh
pointing out that some of your reasons might be faulty ;-)
I used to have a teammate with a 12mm tip, but otherwise the same cue as I
used (before I got my Predator shaft). When I needed "quality" draw,
especially in difficult circumstances (like not much space between the
cueball and another ball or the rail), I would often borrow his cue to make
the shot. I still preferred the larger tip for most shots -- though that
may just be because I was more comfortable with it.
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBAABAF...@sympatico.ca...
fred laux
Is this true? Is it really that simple? All else being equal, the smaller tipped
shaft will flex more, and you say this has no effect on squirt?
Second question: Do you think that all things being equal that a
Conical/Billiard taper will give you less squirt than a Pro taper?
FredL
lfigueroa
> Mosconi used 12.5 mm
er, this may have been true later in his life (when he was retired), but in
his prime, Willie used a 13mm tip -- at least according to my copy of
"Willie Mosconi on Pocket Billiards," from 1948, when he was still
competing.
Lou Figueroa
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBA6104...@sympatico.ca...
Frank G.
|So why did you choose to reduce your tip size, and what benefit (if any) do you
|feel you obtained?
|
|
suggested using the pro taper, so I had my sneaky pete shaft redone. After
about a month I had the others redone. Redoing the taper changed the tip
diameter (although this can be done without changing it). There is a purple
heart shaft in the shop that has a 9mm tip. It is still stiff, but very
small. This is too small for my taste, but the cuemakers daughter uses it
with no problem. A lot of this is "smoke & mirrors" IMO. It is a matter of
what is comfortable and what you believe (or have been told by someone you
respect) is correct. If these two things differ, then you are using
something that is either uncomfortable or that is comfortable but you think
is wrong. It is not wrong if it works, so I go for what is comfortable. I'm
a B player (EO scores 90-120) and I suppose that is where I will always be.
I can occasionally shoot with and beat the A players, but not on a
consistent basis. I'm comfortable with this. I know a lot of people that
shoot at my level or below and think they are world beaters. They are
always looking for "the answer" that just does not exist. Changing cues or
tips is one of these things that these people do. What they should be doing
is trying to change their technique (quit jumping up, stroke straight,
follow through, etc.). I changed the shafts to help me follow through the
shot better. This worked for me. If you do not have a problem in this area,
why change the equipment. YMMV
fred laux
order, then 2 points for rotation.
FredL
Frank G.
|Frank, what's an EO rating? Is it the same as Q-skill? Ten racks, 1 point for any
|order, then 2 points for rotation.
|
|
|
only one is left, rack the other 14 balls, make the last ball and try to
get to 20. I usually shoot 10 racks several times a week. I get a few
scores of 20 and a few scores of 1, my average is right around 100 and is
slowly increasing over time (6 months ago it was high 80's). This game is
discussed in the BCA rule book.
tony mathews
fred laux wrote:
> Tony wrote: "Bigger tip = more squirt (all else being equal)"
>
> Is this true? Is it really that simple? All else being equal, the smaller tipped
> shaft will flex more, and you say this has no effect on squirt?
As I said "all else being equal". So that means the same type and density of wood,
the same type of ferrule material and length. In a way it is that simple. But the
reasons why that is so is not so simple. As the diameter of the shaft increases, the
volume of the wood and ferrule increases. This increases the effective end mass of
the shaft. This leads to more squirt. You could increase the shaft diameter without
increasing the squirt. You would need to reduce the effective end mass though (by
using a smaller and lighter ferrule, and by creating a hole in the shaft to reduce
the volume of maple as predator does).
The smaller tipped shaft may not flex more at all. It depends on the way you taper
the shaft to reduce the diameter. Consider a pro taper shaft - this is a cylinder
for a fixed distance. If you reduced the diameter by a fixed amount all of the way
along the cylindrical section, then yes the smaller diameter would produce more
flex. Now consider the same pro taper shaft, but with the tip diameter reduced in a
conical manner. That is the shaft diameter would grow from the tip at a fixed rate
until you reached the end of the formerly cylindrical section. This shaft would not
flex any more. If you hung a weight from the end of the shaft and measured the
deflection, you would get the same results. However, the conical shaft may actually
"feel" stiffer due to the reduced end mass and the effect of the conical taper.
And no I do not believe that a more flexible shaft produces more squirt than a
stiffer shaft. I feel that squirt is largely due to the ratio of the effective end
mas of the shaft versus the ball mass. You can produce low or high squirt with
either stiff or flexible shafts by varying the end mass.
>
>
> Second question: Do you think that all things being equal that a
> Conical/Billiard taper will give you less squirt than a Pro taper?
In this case all things are generally not equal. In other words, most conical
billiard taper shafts use a smaller tip than the pro taper shafts. This does produce
less squirt due to the lower end mass (not as many would surmise due to the greater
stiffness). However, if you produced 2 shafts with identical wood density and
ferrule mass and tip diameter, and used a pro taper for one and a billiard taper for
the other, then I would expect the billiard taper to produce more squirt. In this
case the conical shaft would have more volume of maple available towards the end,
hence more end mass.
Tony
>
>
> FredL
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> Oh, I've always agreed that using a smaller tip has advantages! I was just
> pointing out that some of your reasons might be faulty ;-)
I figured as much. I thought that you actually agreed with most of my reasons.
Did you agree with the potential lower squirt benefits? Do you at least admit
that there is a potential for greater contact point estimation accuracy? And did
you agree that there will be no more nor less spin if the tip curvature is the
same?
What I was trying to do was to dispell the common misconception that a smaller
tip is "more sensitive" or "less forgiving" and therefore not advisable. So far
I haven't heard any arguments that support this belief.
>
>
> I used to have a teammate with a 12mm tip, but otherwise the same cue as I
> used (before I got my Predator shaft). When I needed "quality" draw,
> especially in difficult circumstances (like not much space between the
> cueball and another ball or the rail), I would often borrow his cue to make
> the shot. I still preferred the larger tip for most shots -- though that
> may just be because I was more comfortable with it.
No doubt. Why did you feel that you could get more "quality draw" with the
smaller tip? Did his tip have a smaller curvature?
Tony
tony mathews
lfigueroa wrote:
> "tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Mosconi used 12.5 mm
>
> er, this may have been true later in his life (when he was retired), but in
> his prime, Willie used a 13mm tip -- at least according to my copy of
> "Willie Mosconi on Pocket Billiards," from 1948, when he was still
> competing.
>
You may be right. A slightly later book mentions the 12.5 mm tip. Perhaps he had
several cues with different sized tips?
Tony
Ge
> Squirts on the Snooker table? Some do I know. The good ones don't. Often
this is
> do to the wall thickness of the brass ferrule (thick wall = higher
squirt). Did
> you do the aim and pivot test as described in the FAQ or is this just a
general
> feeling that you have?
When I play a straight-in shot to draw back and spin off the cushion, a shot
that appears both in snooker and pool, I really have to aim beside the
pocket when playing snooker. When playing pool I hardly compensate my
aiming.
As the snooker-players I know are much less involved in the nitty-gritty of
of physics and equipment, I only got to properly understand the causes of
squirt when I started to play pool and began to read this newsgroup and
other internet sources. When I played snooker, squirt (throw in snooker) was
considered a force of nature that you couldn't avoid. Besides,
snooker-playing is mostly concentrated on NOT applying english.
I find that in snooker (because of the cloth?) the cue-ball doesn't only
squit, but also swerves back and somewhere crosses the straight line of the
shot, no matter how level your cue is. Thus speed and distance become
important factors when compensating for squirt And it also matters if you
play with or against the nap. On a cloth with a lot of nap you curve the
cueball from left to right by playing it gently against the nap with left
hand side. When playing with the nap the cue-ball behavior is reversed and
'as expected'.
>
> Usually, this is because you have less precision with the tip placement
with a
> pool cue versus a Snooker cue.Are you comparing Apples to Apples or Apples
to
> Oranges? Did you try the squirt test with the Snooker cue vs the pool cue
using
> the Snooker ball? If so I would expect that your Predator would have more
squirt
> when using the Snooker ball than the Snooker cue would (unless the brass
ferrule
> is quite "heavy").
Yes the poolcue squirts even more than the snookercue with snookerballs.
Ge
Jeff Cavanagh
that cue when I wanted to use extreme english -- at the time I didn't use
that much english I guess.... I do agree you can be more accurate in
placing the smaller tip on the cueball for shots using english (including
draw and follow, though follow would have the least advantage) -- I just
didn't agree the smaller tip would help you to hit in the center of the
cueball.
For shots requiring english, it's the tip curvature that matters, not the
size. It may be a little easier to "see" where the tip will contact the
cueball with the smaller tip (especially with draw I think), but the ball
doesn't know what size tip is hitting it (unless the tip is smaller than the
normal area that would contact the ball). So no, a smaller tip won't give
you more spin. It might give you more spin for the same amount of squirt,
though....
I think it was easier to get quality draw because it was easier to see how
low you could hit the cueball without worrying about a miscue and
unintentional "scoop" jump.... I shaped his tip for him and it had the same
dime radius as mine did (and the same McDermott factory-installed tip).
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBB7F51...@sympatico.ca...
Jeff Cavanagh
playing? Or did the improvement coincide with changing your shaft taper?
Jeff
"Frank G." <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> I do agree you can be more accurate in
> placing the smaller tip on the cueball for shots using english (including
> draw and follow, though follow would have the least advantage) -- I just
> didn't agree the smaller tip would help you to hit in the center of the
> cueball.
Yes I think you are right. It is hard to judge the "center" of the ball with ant
size tip (except as you mentioned with a tip the diameter equal to the ball!)
>
>
> For shots requiring english, it's the tip curvature that matters, not the
> size. It may be a little easier to "see" where the tip will contact the
> cueball with the smaller tip (especially with draw I think), but the ball
> doesn't know what size tip is hitting it (unless the tip is smaller than the
> normal area that would contact the ball). So no, a smaller tip won't give
> you more spin. It might give you more spin for the same amount of squirt,
> though....
This is the point I was trying to make. I don't see a downside, and several
upsides.
>
>
> I think it was easier to get quality draw because it was easier to see how
> low you could hit the cueball without worrying about a miscue and
> unintentional "scoop" jump.... I shaped his tip for him and it had the same
> dime radius as mine did (and the same McDermott factory-installed tip).
That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.
Tony
tony mathews
Ge wrote:
> When I play a straight-in shot to draw back and spin off the cushion, a shot
> that appears both in snooker and pool, I really have to aim beside the
> pocket when playing snooker. When playing pool I hardly compensate my
> aiming.
Do you realize that this is due mainly to the lower mass of the Snooker ball?
>
>
> As the snooker-players I know are much less involved in the nitty-gritty of
> of physics and equipment, I only got to properly understand the causes of
> squirt when I started to play pool and began to read this newsgroup and
> other internet sources. When I played snooker, squirt (throw in snooker) was
> considered a force of nature that you couldn't avoid. Besides,
> snooker-playing is mostly concentrated on NOT applying english.
That's correct, howevr I have found that many top Snooker players use more side
than most people are lead to believe, and the forgiveness that a lower squirt
cue can provide is prized.
>
>
> I find that in snooker (because of the cloth?) the cue-ball doesn't only
> squit, but also swerves back and somewhere crosses the straight line of the
> shot, no matter how level your cue is.
This is not quite true. You can actually demonstrate swerve in the opposite
direction if you can get the cue to provide an upward hit on the ball. Most
people hit slightly down on the ball even when they feel that the cue is level.
> Thus speed and distance become
> important factors when compensating for squirt And it also matters if you
> play with or against the nap. On a cloth with a lot of nap you curve the
> cueball from left to right by playing it gently against the nap with left
> hand side. When playing with the nap the cue-ball behavior is reversed and
> 'as expected'.
>
This is something that most pool players have very little experience with.
> >
> > Usually, this is because you have less precision with the tip placement
> with a
> > pool cue versus a Snooker cue.Are you comparing Apples to Apples or Apples
> to
> > Oranges? Did you try the squirt test with the Snooker cue vs the pool cue
> using
> > the Snooker ball? If so I would expect that your Predator would have more
> squirt
> > when using the Snooker ball than the Snooker cue would (unless the brass
> ferrule
> > is quite "heavy").
>
> Yes the poolcue squirts even more than the snookercue with snookerballs.
Thank you for that observation.
Cheers!
Tony
>
>
> Ge
Jack Stein
> > to see what size tips they all use.
> >
> > Jack
>
> Let us know Jack. And ask us why the use the size they use.
>
> Tony
Whelp, forgot all about it. Played below even my level for some
reason. Monday night, I played like Earl, last night, I played like my
wife... Pure torture.
Jack
--
http://jbstein.com
Frank G.
|That's a pretty good improvement in 6 months... how long have you been
|playing? Or did the improvement coincide with changing your shaft taper?
|
|
|
from work :-D
--
Frank G Richmond, Va.
Frank G.
|I retired in April, so I have more time to work on my game and no stress
|from work :-D
I also went from triple shims to double shims on my table. This probably
made a big difference, too.
tony mathews
Frank G. wrote:
> I also went from triple shims to double shims on my table. This probably
> made a big difference, too.
>
Frustrated with your play? Try bigger pockets! Why didn't I think of that? I
wonder if I can get pockets made 8" wide?
Tony
(will hardly ever miss a ball with 8" pockets)
fred laux
FredL.
tony mathews
fred laux wrote:
> So why do you think Billiard cues have a Billiard taper and not a Pro taper. Tradition?
>
No not at all. 3 C players want a 11.5 mm to 12.0 mm shaft to get an accurate placement of
the tip on the ball. The precise amount of spin imparted is important. The balls are 1.5
ounces heavier than pool balls. If a 3C shaft was made as an 11.5 mm "pro" taper it would
be far too flexible when hitting the heavier balls. So to get a small tip diameter and
still achieve a good shaft stiffness, they use a conical taper. The small tip size (and the
larger ball mass) produces low squirt.
Pool cues on the other hand use a pro taper due to tradition. There is no technical reason
why a Pool shaft cannot have a conical taper. Most players feel that a conical shaft is
uncomfortable when using the closed bridge, but this does not stop 3 C players from using
it.
Tony
Jeff Cavanagh
closed bridge? You already provided the answer of why the pool players
aren't using the conical shaft taper -- it's not necessary to provide
stiffness to the shaft....
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
fred laux
And what about Snooker players? If they used a Pro taper they wouldn't have a problem with too
much shaft flex owing to the lighter balls?
FredL
Patrick Johnson
> > squit, but also swerves back and somewhere crosses the straight line of the
> > shot, no matter how level your cue is.
>
> people hit slightly down on the ball even when they feel that the cue is level.
Sounds like you guys are saying the same thing. Especially with
smaller snooker balls, you can't physically hit below center with a
level cue unless you use a very weird bridge.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
Take the rails off.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
tony mathews
fred laux wrote:
> So the 3C players have an aversion to a flexible shaft. Why is that?
I think it is a feedback issue related to speed control.
> And what about Snooker players? If they used a Pro taper they wouldn't have a problem with too
> much shaft flex owing to the lighter balls?
Well the lighter ball tends to produce less shaft flex than a heavier ball. But if a Snooker shaft
had a pro taper that started at say 10" back from the tip (assume the same diameter as currently
found on conical Snooker shafts), the tip diameter would be something like 13 mm. This would
produce too much squirt (again due to the lighter ball). And Snooker players use an open bridge,
so they don't care about the conical taper being "uncomfortable".
Tony
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> Wouldn't you stipulate that the pro taper would be MORE comfortable with a
> closed bridge?
Yes I would say so. I think that you trade off comfort for stiffness when you
use a Pro taper though. (when compared to a conical taper). This assumes that
you want a stiffer taper, and that it provides a benefit to your game. This is
another topic.
> You already provided the answer of why the pool players
> aren't using the conical shaft taper -- it's not necessary to provide
> stiffness to the shaft....
That is correct. But as I mentioned, if you desire a smaller tip diameter for
pool, you cannot use the pro taper because it would be too flexible. So perhaps
the main reason why the tip diameters are so large in pool is simply an
artifact of the pro taper.
So I guess a good question is: "Is the possible performance trade-offs inherent
in a pro taper worth the extra comfort"?
Tony
Ge
> > important factors when compensating for squirt And it also matters if
you
> > play with or against the nap. On a cloth with a lot of nap you curve the
> > cueball from left to right by playing it gently against the nap with
left
> > hand side. When playing with the nap the cue-ball behavior is reversed
and
> > 'as expected'.
> >
>
> This is something that most pool players have very little experience with.
>
This is because snooker-cloths don't have as much nap as they used to have.
New cloths a much thinner nowadays, and old cloths that used to have a lot
of nap have now worn so much that the effect described above doesn't really
happen. But if you ever find one of these old 'carpets' in good condition,
give it a try! Play gently form a corner pocket up the table to the opposite
green or yellow pocket.
Slow rolls into the middle pocket from say the pink spot also have a tendecy
to roll off into the near jaw, because of the nap.
Thanks for your replies,
Gerard
tony mathews
Ge wrote:
> > This is something that most pool players have very little experience with.
> >
> Tony,
>
> This is because snooker-cloths don't have as much nap as they used to have.
> New cloths a much thinner nowadays, and old cloths that used to have a lot
> of nap have now worn so much that the effect described above doesn't really
> happen. But if you ever find one of these old 'carpets' in good condition,
> give it a try! Play gently form a corner pocket up the table to the opposite
> green or yellow pocket.
>
> Slow rolls into the middle pocket from say the pink spot also have a tendecy
> to roll off into the near jaw, because of the nap.
>
I have had plenty of experience on "carpet" like Snooker cloth! (lol) I meant
that most pool players have not seen or tried to play on this type of cloth. And
I agree that it is an adventure!
Tony
Jeff Cavanagh
game -- I'd have to say using the larger tip is worth it. I still think you
can use the pro taper at 12mm, though....
Why don't we discuss the benefits of shaft stiffness here -- what would you
say they are?
Jeff
"tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBCA17F...@sympatico.ca...
tony mathews
Jeff Cavanagh wrote:
> Getting into a "comfort" zone might be the most important thing to your
> game -- I'd have to say using the larger tip is worth it. I still think you
> can use the pro taper at 12mm, though....
Well you could use a 12 mm pro taper, but my experience is that it is too
flexible (at least for me). But as for comfort, I don't really notice much
difference between a 12 mm gradual cone (12 mm to 13 mm in 12") and a 13 mm pro
taper. The diameter at the "big" end of the cylindrical portion is the same with
the "modified" pro taper (pro converted to slight cone). In fact, many may find
a 12 mm pro taper uncomfortably "small" for their fingers .
> Why don't we discuss the benefits of shaft stiffness here -- what would you
> say they are?
>
Well I can tell you the differences:
- less shaft vibration. Vibration is intuitively sensed as a "weakness". A lack
of vibration feels "solid" .Most players feel that "solid" is good.
- more concussion response at back hand - again a feeling of solidity
These are measurable differences which can be translated into "subjective"
feelings.
I believe that there are at least 4 feedback mechanisms that we can use to be
able to control the speed of the cue ball:
1) Visual - how far the ball travelled
2) Aural - sound spectrum after the hit
3) vibration - shaft vibrations after the hit are transmitted to our backhand -
resonance
4) concussion - the sound wave that travels from the tip to the back hand
Shaft stiffness can effect #3 the most, but it will also effect #4.
Every player has different feedback requirements. And some may prefer one type
of feedback over another (sound for example). To play at your best you need a
cue with the right amount of feedback and enough time with the cue to become
familiar with it. With this feedback it is not too much, and not too little. Of
course this amount of feedback is unique to each individual player. Some people
may prefer a flexible shaft. Most players seem to prefer a "solid" hit. Shaft
stiffness is one way of providing this "solid" feeling.
Exactly what does this feedback do for you and how does it work? Perhaps we can
work this out together.
Tony