What do the pros play with?
Doug
with in terms of brand, weight, taper, shaft size, length, etc...
I've heard that Mizerak plays with a Richard Black cue and that
Buddy Hall favors a Bloodworth cue. I've heard that other players
are sponsered by various production cue manafactureres....I wonder
whether they actually play with these Vikings, Schons, Meucci's,etc..
or whether they favor some custom cuemaker instead?
Anne Mayes
I play on the WPBA Classic tour, 36th ranked for 1995 with only 9
events, and I play with a Predator. Prior to the Predator I played with
a McDermott. Both the McDermott and the Predator were given to me by
the manufacturers. The MCDermott in the mid-seventies and the Predator
last year. I like my Predator best and play with it on the tour.
Anne Mayes
K/DWill
>are sponsered by various production cue manafactureres....I wonder
>whether they actually play with these Vikings, Schons, Meucci's,etc..
>or whether they favor some custom cuemaker instead?
IN GENERAL. after talking to many pros and cuemakers, the majority of
the pros would not be playing with the cues they represent unless they
sponsored them. Rarely will they admit this (the reasons are obvious),
but this has been my experience once they are relaxed enough to talk
in social settings, not around the playing areas or exhibitions.
Today's pros are experts at adapting and could play with the
crudest cues after putting in the time.
K/DWill
Chih-Chieh (Johnny) Chen
My info might be somewhat outdated.
Mizerake used to play w/ a Balabushika.
Mike Sigel and Nick Vanor play w/ Joss (in Baltimore, Maryland).
Johnny Archor plays w/ Schon.
Strickland plays w/ CueTech.
Lori Jon Jones, Jim Rempe, and David Howard plays w/ Meucci.
Reyes plays w/ some 21 oz from Philippine. He breaks with a CueTech.
I don't know any good players (let along pros) plays w/ a
Viking.
-JC
Doug <sa...@ucsu.colorado.edu> writes:
>I thought it might be interesting to hear what some of the pros play
>with in terms of brand, weight, taper, shaft size, length, etc...
>I've heard that Mizerak plays with a Richard Black cue and that
>Buddy Hall favors a Bloodworth cue. I've heard that other players
Rich Klein
>I thought it might be interesting to hear what some of the pros play
>with in terms of brand, weight, taper, shaft size, length, etc...
>
>I've heard that Mizerak plays with a Richard Black cue and that
>Buddy Hall favors a Bloodworth cue. I've heard that other players
>are sponsered by various production cue manafactureres....I wonder
>whether they actually play with these Vikings, Schons, Meucci's,etc..
>or whether they favor some custom cuemaker instead?
My impression is that many top players use the cue they get paid to use.
Therefore, one shouldn't consider their endorsement a real endorsement.
This is a grand old tradition going back to Willie Hoppe using a Rambow,
perhaps instead of a Harvey Martin, because he was on the payroll of
Rambow's employer, Brunswick.
Look for top players who do not endorse any brand of cue and find out what
they use - then their choice means something. I can't give you many
examples, but I do know that Schulers are used by many world class
billiard players and receive no compensation for it.
POOLSHOTER
(Johnny) Chen) writes:
>Mizerake used to play w/ a Balabushika.
>Mike Sigel and Nick Vanor play w/ Joss (in Baltimore, Maryland).
>Johnny Archor plays w/ Schon.
>Strickland plays w/ CueTech.
>Lori Jon Jones, Jim Rempe, and David Howard plays w/ Meucci.
>Reyes plays w/ some 21 oz from Philippine. He breaks with a CueTech.
>
>
Sigel is trying to make his own cues. Notice I said trying. When I saw
him last summer he had what look like (from a distance) a nice looking
cue. When you looked close you could tell either it was poor craftmanship
or a beginner. He said it was for sale for $3000. Obviously his cue
making venture didn't go through since he said I would see ad's in PB and
BD last fall on his new line of cues.
shoot straight
Steve Cook
Ron Shepard
>I don't know any good players (let along pros) plays w/ a
>Viking.
Dawn Hopkins advertises for them doesn't she? If so, she probably uses one.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
LEON3MN
>Sigel is trying to make his own cues. Notice I said trying. When I saw
>him last summer he had what look like (from a distance) a nice looking
>cue. When you looked close you could tell either it was poor
craftmanship
>or a beginner. He said it was for sale for $3000. Obviously his cue
>making venture didn't go through since he said I would see ad's in PB and
>BD last fall on his new line of cues.
>shoot straight
>Steve Cook
A friend who died recently, Mitch Hevesy, knew Mike Sigel well and had one
of Mike's first cues over a year ago. It looked O.K. as far as I could
tell. Mitch said the cue was to retail for $1,800 and that he had
purchased it for $800. It was numbered (I believe it was #8) and signed
by Sigel. Mitch's widow sold the cue, along with a Burton Spain(?) cue
for $4,500 a couple of months ago.
Leon Waki
Anne Mayes
>
> Doug <sa...@ucsu.colorado.edu> wrote:
> >I thought it might be interesting to hear what some of the pros play
> My impression is that many top players use the cue they get paid to use.
> Therefore, one shouldn't consider their endorsement a real endorsement.
> This is a grand old tradition going back to Willie Hoppe using a Rambow,
> perhaps instead of a Harvey Martin, because he was on the payroll of
> Rambow's employer, Brunswick.
>
> Look for top players who do not endorse any brand of cue and find out what
> they use - then their choice means something. I can't give you many
> examples, but I do know that Schulers are used by many world class
some players who play with a cue simply because they are sponsored by the cue
manufacturer. I for one selected my cue manufacturer after having played with
the cue and found it to be substantially better than any other cue I have
played with. Fortunately the manufacturer was good enough to give me two
cues. While it is true that they do not sponsor me on the tour, I can assure
you that I would not play with a cue I did not feel comfortable with nor would
I endorse such a cue. I simply would not ask that company for sponsorship. I
feel any other position would be less than honest and I also feel that most
pro players probably join me in this belief.
I do need a sponsor, but I wouold pass up any sponsorship by a manufacturer of
a product I which I could not honestly recommend.
Anne
SLMLRD1
>
>Mizerake used to play w/ a Balabushika.
>Mike Sigel and Nick Vanor play w/ Joss (in Baltimore, Maryland).
>Johnny Archor plays w/ Schon.
>Strickland plays w/ CueTech.
>Lori Jon Jones, Jim Rempe, and David Howard plays w/ Meucci.
>Reyes plays w/ some 21 oz from Philippine. He breaks with a CueTech.
>
>I don't know any good players (let along pros) plays w/ a
>Viking.
>
>
Mizerak - Richard Black
Varner - Meucci
Dawn Hopkins - Viking
And to those detractors of Meucci who say only sponsored pros will play
with them,
Tony Ellin - Meucci
Tony Robles - Meucci
Must be the 1st name thing.
-D
CORNRPCKT
Viking's go I saw an add with Allen Hopkins' wife (Dawn Muir) sp? and she
has signed on as a rep.
Joey Van
Lynn Hall
>with them,
>Tony Ellin - Meucci
>Tony Robles - Meucci
You *forgot* King James Rempe ... plays with a Meucci also. Ok .. he's
sponsored by them ... but that is his cue choice.
--
*****************************************************************
lh...@mti.sgi.com { Lynn Hall AKA Fast Eddie } (415) 390-5568
Mask Layout Designer - Harley XR1000 enthusiast - 9-Ball Player
" Money won is twice as sweet as money earned "
*****************************************************************
POOLSHOTER
writes:
>
>I do need a sponsor, but I wouold pass up any sponsorship by a
manufacturer
>of
>a product I which I could not honestly recommend.
>
>Anne
>
>
>
So if Corba or Valley or Duffren offered you $150,000 + expenses you
would't take it?
shoot straight
Steve Cook
Bob Jewett
: I do need a sponsor, but I wouold pass up any sponsorship by a
: manufacturer of a product I which I could not honestly recommend.
I heard that one player was to get about $100000 per year for a new
endorsement. He changed brands immediately. I suspect he did not
have a sudden revelation that the new brand was in fact the finest
cue ever made. I've heard that the brand is quite serviceable but
overpriced.
On the other hand, Willie Mosconi put his name on sticks that appeared
to me to be rock-bottom sporting-goods-section-of-the-department-store
crud.
Bob Jewett
Max Gilbert
>Last time I spoke with John Archer, he was playing with a Schon.
>I don't know whether he has any relationship with Schon or not.
I saw Archer play in my local poolroom years ago, well before his current
arrangement with Schon. he was playing with a Schon that looked like it had
been used for a tent pole in Vietnam. Now Schon has a "JA" cue. Ugly as hell.
David Nadler
I don't know whether he has any relationship with Schon or not.
dn
POOLSHOTER
>Last time I spoke with John Archer, he was playing with a Schon.
>I don't know whether he has any relationship with Schon or not.
>
>
Oh yes. Schon Makes his cue on the production line. The model number is
JA (Johnny Archer). It's most expensive cue in Schon's line.
shoot straight
Steve Cook
Doug
>
> In article <4ejb87$4...@delphi.cs.ucla.edu>, ccc...@cs.ucla.edu (Chih-Chieh
> (Johnny) Chen) writes:
>
> >
> >Mizerake used to play w/ a Balabushika.
> >Mike Sigel and Nick Vanor play w/ Joss (in Baltimore, Maryland).
> >Johnny Archor plays w/ Schon.
> >Strickland plays w/ CueTech.
> >Lori Jon Jones, Jim Rempe, and David Howard plays w/ Meucci.
> >Reyes plays w/ some 21 oz from Philippine. He breaks with a CueTech.
> >
> >I don't know any good players (let along pros) plays w/ a
> >Viking.
> >
> >
>
> Mizerak - Richard Black
> Varner - Meucci
> Dawn Hopkins - Viking
>
> with them,
>
> Tony Ellin - Meucci
> Tony Robles - Meucci
>
>
> -D
I wonder if the Meucci's that they are playing with are really
production or whether they are specially custom made by
Meucci himself. I sorta doubt that they would play with the
production line. I'm no pro but I'm seasoned enough to know
that there are better playing cues than production Meuccis. Why
would any professional who relies on a steady income trust his/her
game on a potentially inferior cue?
Anne Mayes
>
> In article <310F2F...@soho.ios.com>, Anne Mayes <ama...@soho.ios.com>
> writes:
>
> >
> manufacturer of a product I which I could not honestly recommend.
> >
> >
>
> So if Corba or Valley or Duffren offered you $150,000 + expenses you
> would't take it?
>
> shoot straight
> Steve Cook
I suspect your question is in jest, but just in case - that is correct.
If I could not honestly recommend and did not feel comfortable with the
cue, I would not accept any amount of money. I have not played with any
of the three cues mentioned above but would be most willing to give them
a try and evaluate them. Call me naive - but I think most players have
principles by which they live.
Anne
steven moy
: I wonder if the Meucci's that they are playing with are really
: production or whether they are specially custom made by
: Meucci himself. I sorta doubt that they would play with the
: production line. I'm no pro but I'm seasoned enough to know
: that there are better playing cues than production Meuccis. Why
: would any professional who relies on a steady income trust his/her
: game on a potentially inferior cue?
As much as I don't advocate playing with Meuccis, I don't think you can
call them inferior cues. After all, they are remarkably consistent in
their whippiness of shafts, and their final products are usually well
presented. If you can learn to play with one then it can work for you.
My problem is that I believe you have to be the kind of person that has
time to play every single day for a couple of hours in order to maintain
the level of "feel" that you need to have in order to compensate for
all of the squirt that Meuccis produce. Not good for the average player.
However, if it's the squirt and whippiness of the shaft that leads you to
believe that the pros don't play with production models, let me assure
you that even if they are playing with custom models, the sticks still play
just as whippy as the production models. The last time I saw Jimmy Rempe
at a local tournament, you could see the "sproing" in his cue after
every hard shot. I couldn't believe the kind of juice he was putting
on the cue ball using such a flexible shaft and still being able to
pocket balls. If you're good enough to learn how to compensate for the
play of a Meucci, then more power to ya, otherwise, I'd suggest getting
a stiffer cue so you have one less hurdle to clear on your road to pool
improvement.
-$
Max Gilbert
> I wonder if the Meucci's that they are playing with are really
> production or whether they are specially custom made by
> Meucci himself. I sorta doubt that they would play with the
> production line. I'm no pro but I'm seasoned enough to know
> that there are better playing cues than production Meuccis. Why
> would any professional who relies on a steady income trust his/her
> game on a potentially inferior cue?
I do know of a guy in Florida who reworks Meucci cues so that they
are playable. I believe that his name is Wayne Gumm, but am not too
certain. I took a few shots with one about 4 years ago and found
the hit to be very un-Meucci. Anybody out there know more?
POOLSHOTER
writes:
>
>I suspect your question is in jest, but just in case - that is correct.
> If I could not honestly recommend and did not feel comfortable with the
>cue, I would not accept any amount of money. I have not played with any
>of the three cues mentioned above but would be most willing to give them
>a try and evaluate them. Call me naive - but I think most players have
>principles by which they live.
>
>
I guess if I was financially set for life I probally wouldn't recommend
people to use a broom handle to play with. BUT, since i'm far from that,
if a cue company wanted to pay me alot of money every year to play with
their cue I would.
shoot straight
Steve Cook
SLMLRD1
<sa...@ucsu.colorado.edu> writes:
>I wonder if the Meucci's that they are playing with are really
>production or whether they are specially custom made by
>Meucci himself.
I can't identify Ellin's cue but Robles plays with either a Crown Jewel or
a King Tut. Can't remember which is which.
-D
Robert Engels
others who just really enjoy the game. Any PLAYER will tell you, that
there is no 'real' difference between cues once you go past $200
(Meucci being the exception, most people just feel their shafts are
way too flimsy) - the only real difference is in the quality of the
workmanship and the asthetics. Granted different cues 'hit
differently', but a PLAYER could play equally well with any one given
enough time to adjust to the 'hit' or 'feel'.
There are other aspects to cues (independent of the manufacturer)
like weight, length, shaft taper and diameter, that play a far
greater role in the ability of a PLAYER to play with a certain cue.
My advice to people looking to buy a cue, buy one within your price
range that offers great workmanship (primarily the wood used for the
shaft - especially the 'aged' time, since that can thwart warping)
that looks good to you. Be happy, and enjoy the game.
Robert
-Ogasawara,L.R.
>It appears that their are some PLAYERS in this group, and alot of
>others who just really enjoy the game. Any PLAYER will tell you, that
>there is no 'real' difference between cues once you go past $200
>(Meucci being the exception, most people just feel their shafts are
>way too flimsy) - the only real difference is in the quality of the
>workmanship and the asthetics. Granted different cues 'hit
>differently', but a PLAYER could play equally well with any one given
>enough time to adjust to the 'hit' or 'feel'.
>
I'm not sure where this $200 number is coming from but it seems
AWFULLY low to me. Right now premium hard maple shaft blanks
cost about $20 to $22 each. Considering that you do not get 100%
yield out of them the true cost is probably $25 or higher. Suppose
you wanted a hardwood cue like Ebony or Cocobola, you're probably
looking at another $40 to $50 in wood alone. The wood for a hard
maple cue might be a bit less but the cue certainly won't play the
same as one made from a hardwood. The cost for ivory for a ferrule
would probably be somewhere between $20 and $25. You're already
looking at $90 to $100 in materials. This doesn't even include
your joint material, joint screw, weight screw, butt cap, wrap,
etc. Depending on the type of joint and screw you wanted I'd say
you're looking a minimum of another $50. On top of this you have
overhead for rent, machinery, tooling, etc.
A cuemaker putting together a high quality cue can easily have
more than $200 in overhead per cue. By high quality I'm not talking
about something with gold inlays and 100 pieces of ivory, I'm talking
about a cue made to withstand the abuse of a typical player and last
a lifetime with reasonable care.
I think that if you want a high quality no frills cue that will
play well and not fall apart you will be looking at spending $450
to $500. Above that price I think you are starting to get into the
aesthetics.
Lance
Mark Purney
a method which seems to work very well for me. If you try this and it
ruins your cue, please don't send me nasty mail.
I use Tilex (a pump-spray bathroom tile cleaner with bleach which has
nasty fumes). I put a little on a damp scrubbing sponge - the rough
type you would use for pots and pans, and lightly rub the shaft
lengthwise. It very quickly looks like new. It seems to work with very
little rubbing or abrasion, and with a minimal amount of fluid such
that the shaft does not get wet - it feels totally dry in about 2
minutes.
If anyone has a better way, or has reason to believe this method is
harmful to the cue, please let me know.
If anyone tries this and is totally amazed at how well it works and
everyone starts doing it, just send money or something.
Mark Purney
anything else. It is a matter of preference, but I think it's safe to
say that it is harder to control. However, those who can consistently
control it will get very good results, especially when using English.
Obviously, anyone with a poor stroke will have a real problem. I
recently discovered that the bridge has a very significant effect on
controlling a Meucci. I made some improvements to my bridge and my
game improved tremendously. If you have a great bridge, a perfect
stroke, and you still have problems with a Meucci, buy something else.
Those who have room for improvement, like myself, should give it a
little more time. Thanks for all of the responses to Stiffer Shafts for
Meucci Cues - they were very informative.
-Ogasawara,L.R.
Ron Shepard <she...@tcg.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>There are some good hitting sneaky pete's for <$100. No joint collars,
>butt planes, inlays, decals, or that other "aesthetic" stuff.
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard
Well, I guess it depends on how you define "good". You certainly
aren't going to get the same hit from a sneaky pete that you will
from a cue with an ivory ferrule, premium shaft wood and hard wood
front. If its a sneaky pete type of hit that you are looking for
then I agree you can get one for less than $100.
On the other hand it probably won't last as long and will be more
susceptible to warping. You also won't have your choice on the type of
joint. Contrary to what you imply above the joint adds more than
just aesthetic value to a cue.
Maybe the real question is what value do you get for the extra
cost? The original article which I responded to said that above
$200 you are basically looking at aesthetic value. I would still
have to disagree with this number. In my opinion, if you go from
$100 to $200 you will find a much wider selection on the type
of cue you can purchase (i.e. metal joint, flatface joint, type
of wood used) and some improvements in construction. Above $200
you will have slightly more options available to you on materials
(ivory ferrules, ivory joint, larger choice of woods) but I think
you will have a much larger choice of well constructed cues. This
improvement in construction may show up in playability, durability
and/or looks. If you take the time to hit with some $100, $200 and
$400 cues I think you'll find a lot of differences between them.
If you take this one step further and look at the construction
of these different priced cues I think you'll find even more
differences. Once again, I guess the real question is, are these
differences worth it.
Lance
Hank Miller, Ph.D., TSU Counseling Center
>>Robert Engels sayz:
>>Any PLAYER will tell you, that
>>the only real difference is in the quality of the
>>workmanship and the asthetics.
>>Granted different cues 'hit differently'
>
>Mali, Al Romero, Tad, Ginacue, Szambotti ... among others.
>
>HUGE difference in how each one plays. In hit, amount of spin that can be
>applied, *squirt*, etc. A *lot* of this is due to tip, ferrule, shaft
>density, and joint.
>
>I have a *test shot* ... a kind of force follow ... that tells me how
>well the cue will play with my stroke.
>
>What I look for now is the grain patterns in the shaft. I've come to the
>conclusion that the very tight grained maple shafts work best FOR ME. I
>find those on older cues. Tips & ferrules can be changed.
>
>If you notice - newer cues have *loose* grain patterns - especially
>production cues. I've talked this over with Ernie Gutierrez ... he says
>he wastes up to 100 shaft blanks or more trying to get one that is *right* ...
>which is one of the reasons his cues are so expensive. Production cuemakers
>don't have that option. Most of the old time cuemakers - those still alive -
>do the same thing. These type of shafts IMHO ... PLAY much better.
>
>BTW - Ernie sells these *inferior* shaft blanks to *other* cuemakers.
>
>But thats only my opinion - I could be wrong.
>--
>*****************************************************************
>lh...@mti.sgi.com { Lynn Hall AKA Fast Eddie } (415) 933-5568
>Mask Layout Designer - Harley XR1000 enthusiast - 9-Ball Player
>*****************************************************************
>
Thanks, Lynn for stating some of what I thought about in response to the
previous post. Obviously, he has not hit balls with the cues you mentioned, or
for that matter, some of Bill Stroud's, Jerry McWorter's, Tim Scruggs, etc.,
etc. There really are some differences in 1) hit 2) quality, 3) beauty, 4) your
overall level of pride and enjoyment 5) resale value. Whether or not
one is willing to PAY for these differences, or, for that matter, whether or
not they care about those differences, is a different thing all together.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| <--------< Mill...@toe.towson.edu >------>|
| "The best things in life are free... |
| the second best things are very expensive." |
| Chesapeake Cues, Ltd. |
| International Brokers of Fine Cues |
| (410) 581-7341 |
Ron Shepard
(-Ogasawara,L.R.) wrote:
>In article <shepard-0802...@macrls.tcg.anl.gov>,
>Ron Shepard <she...@tcg.anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>There are some good hitting sneaky pete's for <$100. No joint collars,
>>butt planes, inlays, decals, or that other "aesthetic" stuff.
>>
>>$.02 -Ron Shepard
>
>Well, I guess it depends on how you define "good".
I thought I had already said that in a previous post, but in case I
didn't, I meant "good hitting" to imply that it performs well in the FAQ
squirt test. What other test is there for "good hitting"? How else can
one define "good"?
>You certainly
>aren't going to get the same hit from a sneaky pete that you will
>from a cue with an ivory ferrule, premium shaft wood and hard wood
>front.
Why don't you post the squirt test results for a few cues with ivory
ferrules and plain ferrules, plain butts and complicated multi-piece
butts, and see if this is really the kind of "hit" that you want?
>On the other hand it probably won't last as long and will be more
>susceptible to warping.
I'd guess that the less glue there is holding things together, the longer
lasting it would be.
>You also won't have your choice on the type of
>joint.
Actually you can get various kinds of joints, even on sneaky-pete type
cues. I've seen McDermott-style stainless screw with wood thread joints,
brass screw with brass thread joints, and brass screw with nylon thread
joints. I've seen flat-faced joints and fitted joints of various types.
Of course, it is the joint collar that is missing on most sneaky-pete
cues, but I've also seen these plain types of cues with simple joint
collars.
>Contrary to what you imply above the joint adds more than
>just aesthetic value to a cue.
Actually, a better way to state my opinion is that a joint probably
detracts from the quality of the hit, compared to some kind of
hypothetical, perfectly contructed one-piece cue. The important issue is
how little.
>Maybe the real question is what value do you get for the extra
>cost? The original article which I responded to said that above
>$200 you are basically looking at aesthetic value.
That $200 will buy you, or will almost buy you, a new low end Schuler,
which has the same "hit" as any other Schuler (they go up to several $K).
It is true that you can't buy a $100 Schuler sneaky-pete, but even the low
end Schulers look pretty good by aesthetic values. My point was that, as
far as squirt test results, if you are willing to give up a bit on the
looks, then a beginner can get a comparable cue for even less. So the
"real question" is probably how much "hit" do you give up for aesthetic
things like ivory joint collars, multipiece butts, and so on. The
beginner just has to know what to look for, or have an experienced friend
that knows what to look for, when selecting a good low-end cue.
>I would still
>have to disagree with this number. In my opinion, if you go from
>$100 to $200 you will find a much wider selection on the type
>of cue you can purchase (i.e. metal joint, flatface joint, type
>of wood used) and some improvements in construction.
Yes, there is a wider selection if you start at $200. Do you know of a
>$200 cue that routinely scores better than all <$100 cues in the squirt
test (shaft tapers and such being equal, of course)?
>If you take the time to hit with some $100, $200 and
>$400 cues I think you'll find a lot of differences between them.
Well, this is why I replied in the first place wasn't it. I have hit with
such cues, and it definitely is NOT price that correlates with better
hitting cues. I have seen some <$100 sneaky-petes that hit better than
$2000 custom cues. I use a sneaky-pete for a break cue (I got it from
Mueller's), and although it isn't the best I've seen, it results in about
1/2 ball in the squirt test, which I think is well above average.
In article <4fffmu$f...@sol.towson.edu>, e7m...@toe.towson.edu wrote:
>In article <4fe3jq$r...@chronicle.mti.sgi.com>, Lynn Hall
<lh...@mti.sgi.com> writes:
>>>Robert Engels sayz:
>>>Any PLAYER will tell you, that
>>>there is no 'real' difference between cues once you go past $200 ...
>>>the only real difference is in the quality of the
>>>workmanship and the asthetics.
>>>Granted different cues 'hit differently'
>>
>>Can't agree with that. I have MANY cues including Meucci, McDermott,
>>Mali, Al Romero, Tad, Ginacue, Szambotti ... among others.
>>
>>HUGE difference in how each one plays. In hit, amount of spin that can be
>>applied, *squirt*, etc. A *lot* of this is due to tip, ferrule, shaft
>>density, and joint.
Hmmm. It seems that you agree with Robert when he says "Granted different
cues 'hit differently'". If you go from a $200 Meucci to a $500 Meucci,
is there a difference in hit? Robert seems to be saying "no", that the
difference is workmanship and aesthetics.
>>I have a *test shot* ... a kind of force follow ... that tells me how
>>well the cue will play with my stroke.
I think most people make their judgments based on simple center ball
shots, which of course, tell you nothing about the most important issue in
"hit". Some places selling cues don't let the customer chalk the tip,
which is as close to stacking the deck as you can get when selling a cue.
I think having a (or a few) high-spin test shot gives better data. I like
the FAQ shot in some ways, but for me at least, it is too hard of a shot
to make (maybe 10%, for me). What is your shot?
>>What I look for now is the grain patterns in the shaft. I've come to the
>>conclusion that the very tight grained maple shafts work best FOR ME. I
>>find those on older cues. Tips & ferrules can be changed.
I think this determines how much the shaft tends to warp also.
>Thanks, Lynn for stating some of what I thought about in response to the
>previous post. Obviously, he has not hit balls with the cues you mentioned, or
>for that matter, some of Bill Stroud's, Jerry McWorter's, Tim Scruggs, etc.,
>etc.
Actually, I think Robert probably _has_ hit with several of these cues,
which is why he made the comment in the first place. Why would you think
that he hasn't?
>There really are some differences in 1) hit 2) quality, 3) beauty, 4) your
>overall level of pride and enjoyment 5) resale value.
But that is what he said in his post, wasn't it?
I think the most constructive thing that we could do in this newsgroup is
to figure out some way to quantify these qualities of the "hit". One
aspect of course is squirt, and we have the FAQ shot to measure this.
There are other aspects, which affect the "feel" if not the accuracy of
the cue. These include how much the stick vibrates on extreme spin shots;
some players like this, others don't. Also, how much does the rear hand
feel the cue tip impact; some players like this feel, others don't. What
other issues are there?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Lynn Hall
>>I have a *test shot* ... a kind of force follow ... that tells me how well the >>cue will play with my stroke.
Ron Shepard sayz: What is your shot?
One is to freeze an object ball app. at 1 diamond past the side pocket on the
left side of a 4 1/2x9' table ... cueball frozen to the head rail 1 diamond
to the left of center. Forces me to hit the cueball with top center.
I'm trying to pocket the objectball & roll *whitey* AT LEAST back to the
head rail where I started, 4 rails in all.
Another is a force follow - trying to see how much control I have after
pocketing the object ball. To see how far I can force whitey around the table.
Another is a extreme draw shot - object ball in the jawws of one corner &
whitey
in the jawws of the diagonal opposite - furthest distance possible. Then I try
& pocket the hanger & draw whitey back & scratch.
Then theres my spin shots ...
DBAllred
Purney ) writes:
>I use Tilex (a pump-spray bathroom tile cleaner with bleach which has
>nasty fumes). I put a little on a damp scrubbing sponge - the rough
>type you would use for pots and pans, and lightly rub the shaft
>lengthwise. It very quickly looks like new. It seems to work with very
>little rubbing or abrasion, and with a minimal amount of fluid such
>that the shaft does not get wet - it feels totally dry in about 2
>minutes.
>
>If anyone has a better way, or has reason to believe this method is
>harmful to the cue, please let me know.
Offhand, I don't think it will do much damage to your cue, but what about
the damage to your hand? Direct skin contact with home cleansers is not a
good idea even for a short period of time.
DB Allred OKC
Craig Hogan
come withing 3 feet of my cue! I recommend you use a 3M green scrub pad
lightly to clean the shaft. Hopefully the thing wont warp with what you
did.
Craig
Mark Purney <mpu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: I don't really know how a shaft is supposed to be cleaned, but I found
: a method which seems to work very well for me. If you try this and it
: ruins your cue, please don't send me nasty mail.
: I use Tilex (a pump-spray bathroom tile cleaner with bleach which has
: nasty fumes). I put a little on a damp scrubbing sponge - the rough
: type you would use for pots and pans, and lightly rub the shaft
: lengthwise. It very quickly looks like new. It seems to work with very
: little rubbing or abrasion, and with a minimal amount of fluid such
: that the shaft does not get wet - it feels totally dry in about 2
: minutes.
: If anyone has a better way, or has reason to believe this method is
: harmful to the cue, please let me know.
: If anyone tries this and is totally amazed at how well it works and
: everyone starts doing it, just send money or something.
--
Craig Hogan | ...Currently conducting experiments to determine
cho...@primenet.com | whether Guinness can be used to fertilize human
Software Engineer | eggs to create a race of superhumans...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---===*** THE CURE ***===---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Hall
>Any PLAYER will tell you, that
>there is no 'real' difference between cues once you go past $200 ...
>the only real difference is in the quality of the
>workmanship and the asthetics.
>Granted different cues 'hit differently'
Can't agree with that. I have MANY cues including Meucci, McDermott,
Mali, Al Romero, Tad, Ginacue, Szambotti ... among others.
HUGE difference in how each one plays. In hit, amount of spin that can be
applied, *squirt*, etc. A *lot* of this is due to tip, ferrule, shaft
density, and joint.
I have a *test shot* ... a kind of force follow ... that tells me how
well the cue will play with my stroke.
What I look for now is the grain patterns in the shaft. I've come to the
conclusion that the very tight grained maple shafts work best FOR ME. I
find those on older cues. Tips & ferrules can be changed.
If you notice - newer cues have *loose* grain patterns - especially
production cues. I've talked this over with Ernie Gutierrez ... he says
he wastes up to 100 shaft blanks or more trying to get one that is *right* ...
which is one of the reasons his cues are so expensive. Production cuemakers
don't have that option. Most of the old time cuemakers - those still alive -
do the same thing. These type of shafts IMHO ... PLAY much better.
BTW - Ernie sells these *inferior* shaft blanks to *other* cuemakers.
But thats only my opinion - I could be wrong.
--
*****************************************************************
lh...@mti.sgi.com { Lynn Hall AKA Fast Eddie } (415) 933-5568
Mask Layout Designer - Harley XR1000 enthusiast - 9-Ball Player
" Money won is twice as sweet as money earned "
*****************************************************************
Robert Engels
in the cue trading/selling business, and he's had everything from a
$100 sticks to $3000 Joey Gold's. Yes, there are differences (read my
first post, you'll see I stated that), but my jist of my statement
was any PLAYER can play with just about any cue given some time to
adjust. Yes, if you have a poor stroke, certain cues (actually shaft
size has the most to do with it) will be harder to draw with, as for
deflection, I've never seen anything but a meucci that exhibits that
behavior. I've played with Kirchenbrauch (spelled wrong I'm sure),
Gold's, Schon's, Richard Blacks, name it. You're paying for mistique,
prestige, and asthetics. Give a great player a broom handle, and
he'll beat most everybody in the house, and those he loses to won't
be because of his cue.
Robert
Robert Kruthoffer
Does anyone know of a U.S. source for billiards videos BESIDES
Accu-Stats? I don't have anything against Accu-Stats. I have their Best
of 3C tape and I plan to order others. I just want to know if there is
another source. I'd especially like to find a tape of Cuelemans the
Great. Or a match featuring R. Byrne. Or Boston Shorty. Or even Hoppe?
Or a tape w/ balkline. Whatever... I'm just dreaming here. If anyone
knows of another source, I'd like to hear from you.
Thanks,
Chip Kruthoffer
(kru...@ix.netcom.com)
Ron Shepard
> My brother (quite a decent player, went to ACUI nationals)
His brother Jim also had the highest score in last January's IEO
tournament, which might mean more to r.s.bers.
>used to be
> in the cue trading/selling business, and he's had everything from a
> $100 sticks to $3000 Joey Gold's.
There are lots of good cues used by various players in this area. We all
have a chance to try the squirt test on just about every cue there is.
BTW Robert, what kind of cues do you and Jim use?
[...]
>Yes, if you have a poor stroke, certain cues (actually shaft
> size has the most to do with it) will be harder to draw with,
I've never been able to verify either of these effects (stroke and shaft
size) myself. The tip, and how well it holds chalk, seems to be the most
important factor in spin/speed ratios. Most r.s.bers know of my draw
challenge shot -- try it with various cues, and you will probably come to
similar conclusions. If not, post the results for others to verify.
>as for
> deflection, I've never seen anything but a meucci that exhibits that
> behavior.
Again I disagree. I've seen lots of expensive custom (whatever that
really means these days) cues that have as much squirt as some of the
Meucci cues I've tested. Meucci cues do have a lot of flex in the shaft,
and a lot of vibration in the hit, but as far as squirt goes, you should
measure _squirt_, not these other things. Arguing that a cue is "bad"
because of a flexible shaft is like arguing that it is "bad" because it
has the wrong color wrap. If it doesn't relate to squirt, then it
probably has nothing to do with either accuracy or the spin/speed ratio
(e.g. maximum draw or whatever). Of course, there are other "quality"
issues that are important to a buyer -- you probably don't want to buy a
cue with minimal squirt but that is so poorly made that the joint falls
apart (or maybe you would, but you see my point).
But on the other hand, I don't think a player should have to sacrifice
_any_ accuracy just to have a paticular kind of wrap (or other cosmetic
feature). As things stand now, you do. That is because cue buyers are
not very demanding in this respect (minimal squirt), and cue makers have
to make the cues that the buyers want. So the first step in correcting
this situation is to educate the buyers. Then the next step, which may be
more difficult, is to learn how to engineer cues that have minimal
squirt. Perhaps Predator has done this, or maybe they've just taken the
first step, or maybe they are just trying a new marketing angle? (Well
Meucci makes claims about squirt too, but they don't seem very credible to
me in the tests I've done. They don't "eliminate" it as they claim.)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
dale boyce
cue for around $200 a few years ago. I haven't heard anyone ever knock
a Schuler, and a number of proponents post here. The basic construction
of their low end cues is the same as their multi-thousand dollar cues.
Above their entry level the difference in price is in the aesthetics.
This is not necessarily true for all manufacturers. Some use different
joints in different lines.
Quality of hit primarily comes from shaft taper, joint construction, and
weight of the cue. Cuemakers like Schuler give you a wide range of
tapers to allow you to tune the hit. All of their cues come with a
rock solid joint, and within a small range the weight can be tuned with
small weights concealed in the butt.
I know they post here occasionally. How about it schul...@aol.com?
What does it cost to get a low end Schuler? What is the price on an
avergage cue of yours?
Dale Boyce
da...@radpro.uchicago.edu
Sherm Adamson
clean and reseal your shaft. In between tips the "Smooth Cue Papers", a
red, white & blue micro-mesh plastic sandpaper that can be cleaned and
reused for years, is in my opinion the BEST AFTER MARKET POOL PRODUCT
made. I don't sell them myself (though I should) and I don't even know
who makes them so I have nothing to gain by this strong recommendation.
I'm a cuemaker but when I'm out of the shop and have to touch up a shaft
this is what I've been using for years (the same pack).
Sherm Adamson
Sherm Custom Cues
sher...@iac.net
Lee E. Johnson
Agreed - a good stroke is essential for the Meucci but a good stroke is
essential for anyone (any stick) whos wants to play good pool.
The Meucci will "teach you" that you much stroke well.
In article <4fe0br$5...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
mpu...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Purney ) wrote:
#>Okay, some people will never use a Meucci, while others will never use
#>anything else. It is a matter of preference, but I think it's safe to
#>say that it is harder to control. However, those who can consistently
#>control it will get very good results, especially when using English.
#>
#>Obviously, anyone with a poor stroke will have a real problem. I
#>recently discovered that the bridge has a very significant effect on
#>controlling a Meucci. I made some improvements to my bridge and my
#>game improved tremendously. If you have a great bridge, a perfect
#>stroke, and you still have problems with a Meucci, buy something else.
#>Those who have room for improvement, like myself, should give it a
#>little more time. Thanks for all of the responses to Stiffer Shafts for
#>Meucci Cues - they were very informative.
#>
#>
"Doouuughtt" - Homer Simpson
"""" / """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""" / __ __ ______ _ ""
"" / /_ /_ / _ /_ _ ( __ _ """
" /___ /__/__ /__/ /_/ / / // _) /_/ // """"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Lee E. Johnson Clearwater, Fl.
E-mail: ljoh...@space.honeywell.com
Live: 813-539-4416
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ron Shepard
<cho...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Wow, how dirty was the shaft? I wouldn't let anything damp or wet
>come withing 3 feet of my cue!
This isn't a bad idea, but I don't think wiping the shaft periodically
with a wet cloth will do any harm. Let it dry overnight. This raises the
grain in the wood, so the shaft should be burnished with a leather pad or
whatever before using it again. I usually use plain water, but I've seen
others use a mild detergent solution to remove gunk from their shaft.
If you have to clean your shaft while playing, and you don't have time to
let it dry, then something like ethyl alcohol, which evaporates quickly,
can be used. I carry a small bottle with me for emergencies. I've also
seen some foil packets with paper towles soaked with alcohol sold for
cleaning shafts.
>I recommend you use a 3M green scrub pad
>lightly to clean the shaft.
Someone else must be reading Byrne's books! :-) Many r.s.bers disagree
with this advice because these pot scouring pads are too coarse and remove
too much wood. In fact in the very next message:
In article <4fmj8q$8...@cheyenne.iac.net>, sher...@iac.net (Sherm Adamson)
wrote:
[...]
>In between tips the "Smooth Cue Papers", a
>red, white & blue micro-mesh plastic sandpaper that can be cleaned and
>reused for years, is in my opinion the BEST AFTER MARKET POOL PRODUCT
>made. I don't sell them myself (though I should) and I don't even know
>who makes them so I have nothing to gain by this strong recommendation.
>I'm a cuemaker but when I'm out of the shop and have to touch up a shaft
>this is what I've been using for years (the same pack).
>Sherm Adamson
>Sherm Custom Cues
>sher...@iac.net
I think these things are made also by 3M, but they are packaged and sold
by at least a couple of companies. McDermott sells them under the name
McMagic. There are several grades of these plastic sheets in each
package. The finest grade is supposed to be the equivalent of 7500 grit
sandpaper, so although they are abrasive, they remove very little wood
from the shaft. I have yet to hear anyone say anything bad about using
these plastic sheets.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
ljoh...@Space.Honeywell.Com (Lee E. Johnson) wrote:
>I can get a lot more draw with my Meucci than my Miz (stiffer shaft).
>Agreed - a good stroke is essential for the Meucci but a good stroke is
>essential for anyone (any stick) whos wants to play good pool.
>The Meucci will "teach you" that you much stroke well.
The following is from a previous posting. How about reporting your
results with both cues?
>However, if you think that you can isolate all the "other" issues
>satisfactorily, and focus only on your "important" factor, then here is a
>test shot that you can do to measure the spin/speed ratio fairly well.
>This measures specifically the backspin to speed ratio, but whatever
>works for backspin should work also for side spin (well, at least some of
>us think so ;-).
>
> \________________/ \________________/
> \ /
> | |
> x| |
> | c |
> | o |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> / ________________ ________________ \
> / \ / * \T
>
>An object ball "o" is placed on the center spot, and the cue ball "c" is
>lined up straight into the first diamond, marked * in the above diagram.
>The distance between the two balls is not important, but 8-12" seems to
>work best. Once you get the shot to work a few times, mark the ball
>positions carefully so that the _exact_ same shot setup can be
>reproduced. The cue ball is struck with backspin, the object ball is
>pocketed in the target pocket "T", and the goal is to see how close to
>the opposite corner pocket the cue ball contacts the end cushion. A good
>draw shot will result in something like 1.5 diamonds away from the
>corner, marked as "x" in the above diagram.
>
>Since the issue here is flexible vs. stiff shafts, the experiment should
>be to compare the cushion contact points with cue sticks that have
>different shaft types. All other things (tip contact point, tip
>curvature, chalk, etc.) should be the same, to the extent possible. Many
>of us would like to hear the results for various cue stick types, even if
>the other factors can't be controlled exactly.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
doug.g...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (dougg) wrote:
[...]
>I have tried the squirt test twice on my Muecci and I don't seem to get as
>much squirt as many other people in this news group. Maybe I'm not doing
>something right. I tested my cue twice and only got about 3/4 to 1 inch of
>squirt using the FAQ test. I'm sure I'll try the test again sometime; maybe
>I'll get different results then.
The only "mistakes" that you can make in the squirt test are to not shoot
hard enough or with enough side spin. You want to shoot hard enough so
that the curve doesn't cancel some of the squirt. If you shoot too soft,
then the results can look "too good". Also, if you don't shoot with
enough side, the results can look "too good". Well, I guess there is
another kind of mistake, and that is not judging correctly where the stick
was pointing. Beginners sometimes throw their elbow out on sidespin
shots, and that makes this judgment more difficult. If you've been
playing for 20 years, you probably aren't doing this. :-)
Also, the distance measurement should be from the edge of the balls, not
the axis of the cue stick.
-
- -
/ \
| | | <-- object ball
\ | /
-| -
| -
|
\
/ 6' or so of distance here.
\
|
- |
- |-
/ | \
| | | <-- cue ball
\ | /
- |-
- |
|
|<-- Stick axis
You have to use your imagination with this ascii drawing, but the stick is
supposed to be offset about 1/2*R to the right of the cue ball center, and
about 1/2*R to the left of the object ball center. But the right edge of
the cue ball is then offset 1*R (or 1/2 a ball width) from its final
contact point. So this should be measured as 9/8" rather than 9/16" in
the squirt test. (Well, at least that is how I've been measuring the
offset. Is this right, Bob? ;-)
>Does this amount of squirt for a Muecci seem too small? How much squirt is
>considered good? Could someone take a shot at a simple table like below:
As I've said previously, don't go by brand names, or cost, or shaft
diameter, or shaft flexibility, or anything else. (At least until someone
can correlate these various things with squirt.) For estimating squirt,
go by the squirt test! Perhaps an interesting contest would be to find
the cue with the largest cost/squirt ratio. Well, maybe it wouldn't be so
interesting after all?
>0-1/2 inch squirt - very good
>1/2-3/4 inch squirt - good
>3/4 to 1-1/4 inch squirt - average
>1-1/4 to 2 inch squirt - poor
>over 2 inch squirtt - awful
These look about right to me. I think that anything over 1/2 a ball
(9/8") isn't worth considering. But on the other hand, 1/2 a ball is
about average, and that agrees with your scale. You have things broken
down in 1/4" increments. That's pretty tight. You would have to make the
shot 10 to 20 times or so to be confident to within 1/4", and if you make
the shot 10% of the time (like me) that means 100 to 200 attempts.
(Actually, it might mean a little more if you make the shot but you don't
feel confident about how straight your stroke was, or how much side spin
it had, and discard it. But you want to be careful about discarding
successes. You don't want to introduce bias in the measurement. Be as
honest as you can -- you are only cheating yourself.) Anyway, you might
have to settle for a little larger margin of error. Also, I think that
changing tips on a cue can affect squirt by as much as 1/4". Again, it is
hard to quantify because of the low percentage of successes.
>[...] I know
>some people like a cue with more squirt and that's fine. [...]
No one wants a cue with more squirt! If they say so, they are fooling
themselves. Perhaps if someone has a cue with a lot of squirt, and they
are trying to sell it to someone who doesn't read this newsgroup, they
might try to convince the buyer that squirt is a good thing. But surely,
no one who reads r.s.b would do such a dastardly thing. ;-)
>Inquiring minds want to know :-)
Why don't some more people post some squirt test results to see if the
above table holds up.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Doug Gilliam
>==========Ron Shepard, 2/10/96==========Some stuff deleted ...
>
>Again I disagree. I've seen lots of expensive custom (whatever that
>really means these days) cues that have as much squirt as some of the
>Meucci cues I've tested. Meucci cues do have a lot of flex in the shaft,
>and a lot of vibration in the hit, but as far as squirt goes, you should
>measure _squirt_, not these other things. Arguing that a cue is "bad"
>because of a flexible shaft is like arguing that it is "bad" because it
>has the wrong color wrap. If it doesn't relate to squirt, then it
>probably has nothing to do with either accuracy or the spin/speed ratio
>(e.g. maximum draw or whatever). Of course, there are other "quality"
>issues that are important to a buyer -- you probably don't want to buy a
>cue with minimal squirt but that is so poorly made that the joint falls
>apart (or maybe you would, but you see my point).
>
>But on the other hand, I don't think a player should have to sacrifice
>_any_ accuracy just to have a paticular kind of wrap (or other cosmetic
>feature). As things stand now, you do. That is because cue buyers are
>not very demanding in this respect (minimal squirt), and cue makers have
>to make the cues that the buyers want. So the first step in correcting
>this situation is to educate the buyers. Then the next step, which may be
>more difficult, is to learn how to engineer cues that have minimal
>squirt. Perhaps Predator has done this, or maybe they've just taken the
>first step, or maybe they are just trying a new marketing angle? (Well
>Meucci makes claims about squirt too, but they don't seem very credible to
>me in the tests I've done. They don't "eliminate" it as they claim.)
I just wanted to comment about this. I played pool as a teenager then didn't
play for over 20 years. I have only been playing seriously for less than two
years: so, I don't claim to be any sort of expert.
I have tried the squirt test twice on my Muecci and I don't seem to get as
much squirt as many other people in this news group. Maybe I'm not doing
something right. I tested my cue twice and only got about 3/4 to 1 inch of
squirt using the FAQ test. I'm sure I'll try the test again sometime; maybe
I'll get different results then.
Does this amount of squirt for a Muecci seem too small? How much squirt is
considered good? Could someone take a shot at a simple table like below:
0-1/2 inch squirt - very good
1/2-3/4 inch squirt - good
3/4 to 1-1/4 inch squirt - average
1-1/4 to 2 inch squirt - poor
over 2 inch squirtt - awful
I know these numbers aren't right; but, you see what I mean. My problem right
now is that I don't know how much squirt is bad and how much is good. I know
some people like a cue with more squirt and that's fine. For these purposes,
assume that more control is better and less control is worse.
Inquiring minds want to know :-)
Thanks,
Doug Gilliam
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard
>
Doug Gilliam
AT&T Global Information Solutions
Doug.G...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM
(803) 939-6184
JIM BUSS
says...
>
> Wow, how dirty was the shaft? I wouldn't let anything damp or wet
>lightly to clean the shaft. Hopefully the thing wont warp with what you
>did.
>
you're done, buff it quickly with a paper towel to generate heat that
will dry it out. The 3M green pad is too coarse. It will take wood off
the shaft, then you'll have to come to someone like me to get another one
made :).
--JIM BUSS--
Tom Bellhouse
>In article <4fmj8q$8...@cheyenne.iac.net>, sher...@iac.net (Sherm Adamson)
>wrote:
>[...]
>>In between tips the "Smooth Cue Papers", a
>>red, white & blue micro-mesh plastic sandpaper that can be cleaned and
>>reused for years, is in my opinion the BEST AFTER MARKET POOL PRODUCT
>>made. I don't sell them myself (though I should) and I don't even know
I have a pack of the red, white and blue in front of me. It's the same pack I
have been using for two years now. You can clean the abrasive papers, which
load up quickly, using soapy water and an old toothbrush to scrub off the
gunk.
Mine are called "All American Stroke SMOOTH Cue Papers" and the address
included is:
All American Stroke, Inc.
Cherokee Station
P.O. Box 20157
New York, N.Y. 10028-0051
If anybody sells these on-line, please e-mail me. I need some more. They
don't wear out, but they tend to disappear as other players "borrow" them!
Tom Bellhouse
Bob Jewett
: I have tried the squirt test twice on my Muecci and I don't seem to get as
: much squirt as many other people in this news group. Maybe I'm not doing
: something right. I tested my cue twice and only got about 3/4 to 1 inch of
: squirt using the FAQ test. I'm sure I'll try the test again sometime; maybe
: I'll get different results then.
It may be that you aren't spinning the ball enough. You have to hit
the cue ball on the equator and far enough from the center of the ball
that you miscue a significant fraction of the time. Here is a warm-up:
_________x_ ____________
| |
|a |
| q |
|b |
| |
_________x_ ____________
Place the a and b balls centered on the foot rail with two ball
diameters between. Shooting between the balls, you should be able to
hit at x on either side rail. You should shoot hard enough that you hit
the foot rail a second time.
: How much squirt is considered good?
With a marginal cue, the aim on the object ball is the same as on the
cue ball to barely miss the object ball. This means that there is a
whole ball of squirt in six diamonds. A good cue has half a ball.
Many "pro taper" shafts have a ball and a half of squirt, and to hit
right between the two balls above with left english, you would aim full
at ball b. I consider such shafts to be unusable. They will cripple a
beginner's attempts to learn to the extent that they may never be able
to use side spin accurately.
: I know some people like a cue with more squirt and that's fine.
I think there are some who have unintentionally crippled their game by
learning with a pitifully floppy shaft. They only like it because they
are used to it. They have a real treat in store if they ever try a
good cue.
Bob Jewett
Bob Jewett
: (Well, at least that is how I've been measuring the
: offset. Is this right, Bob? ;-)
Yes. I'd call that half a ball of squirt, which is much better than most
"pro taper" shafts.
: ... For estimating squirt, go by the squirt test!
Although, I'm starting to think the "aim and pivot" measurement
discussed a few weeks ago may be more accurate:
Aim full ball without spin at a ball about a diamond away, then
pivot the cue about your bridge for maximum side, and shoot to
leave the cue ball spinning in place. Adjust the length of your
bridge until you get a full hit. Report the length of bridge.
Added requirement: shoot with enough side and speed that the cue
ball spins in place for at least 15 seconds -- the record is over 30.
Bob Jewett
Rudy Navarro
>I think these things are made also by 3M, but they are packaged and
sold by at least a couple of companies. McDermott sells them under the
name McMagic. There are several grades of these plastic sheets in each
>package. The finest grade is supposed to be the equivalent of 7500
grit sandpaper, so although they are abrasive, they remove very little
wood
>from the shaft. I have yet to hear anyone say anything bad about
using these plastic sheets.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
There is another product I would highly recommend: Q-Smooth
They make a micro burnishing film with a wide range of burnishing
grades. They come in a wallet size packet with 14 washable/reusable
sheets. They also make a product called Q Clean (a shaft cleaner) and Q
Slick (a sealer/protectant). All three products work well. As far as I
know they are only available at fine pool supply stores and better
rooms.
Rudy Navarro
ride...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Jewett
: I have the same problem with this that someone else did. The pivot point
: is near the joint, and I can't get a good accurate stroke with that much
: stick in front of my bridge hand (and with my rear hand so close to my
: bridge hand).
In this case, I suppose it is OK to move the bridge hand forward after
the pivot. For some cues, the pivot is only six inches from the ball.
Bob Jewett
Mike
I've been following all the talk about Meucci and squirt and
I'm beginning to understand. When I first tried this warm up shot I
thought you guys were just having some fun with the rest of us. I
kept at it though and within 45 min. I made the shot 3 times AND hit
the foot rail twice. WOW I never knowed I had so much english in me.
Anyway I'm using a Dufferin, a $70 stick and it seems I'm aiming half
full at the ball on the foot rail and working real hard to do it. So
now that I'm a english xpert I figured it's time to see what I can do
with a more spensive stick. Tried a Cuetec, about the same as the
Duff. Tried a Viking, still working hard just to make the shot. Tried
a McDermot, couldn't make the shot. O.K. what the heck lets try the
squirt stick, WOW !!, now I know what squirt is.It was almost funny,
it was like a spring or a snake.The only thing is with the Meucci I
could make the shot EASY and every time. HELP!! you guys had me
convinced to stay away from a cue with so much squirt and I don't
want to get off on the wrong foot but.....
Mike
Bob Jewett
: ... O.K. what the heck lets try the
: squirt stick, WOW !!, now I know what squirt is.It was almost funny,
: it was like a spring or a snake.The only thing is with the Meucci I
: could make the shot EASY and every time. HELP!! you guys had me
: convinced to stay away from a cue with so much squirt and I don't
: want to get off on the wrong foot but.....
If it's what you're used to, it will be harder with anything else until
you get your compensation fixed. As you mentioned, you are not yet
used to spinning the cue ball a lot.
BTW, where were you aiming?
Bob Jewett
Tarl Roger Kudrick
: There is another product I would highly recommend: Q-Smooth
:
: They make a micro burnishing film with a wide range of burnishing
: grades. They come in a wallet size packet with 14 washable/reusable
: sheets. They also make a product called Q Clean (a shaft cleaner) and Q
: Slick (a sealer/protectant). All three products work well. As far as I
: know they are only available at fine pool supply stores and better
: rooms.
Mueller's Sporting Goods (1-800-627-8888) sells them too. I
recommend Mueller's without reservation.
--Tarl Roger Kudrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ta...@access.digex.net
"You get what you settle for." |
Thelma, in "Thelma and Louise" |"He is an individual, and they're always
|trying." A No. 2 in "The Prisoner"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Shepard
>It may be that you aren't spinning the ball enough. You have to hit
>the cue ball on the equator and far enough from the center of the ball
>that you miscue a significant fraction of the time.
This reminds me of one of the theories about the cause of squirt. I think
both Kohler and Marlow discuss this in their books. The idea is that
squirt is caused by a small amount of slippage of the cue tip as it hits
the cue ball. A slight miscue, in other words. When doing the squirt
test, I think you should miscue often also. What you are trying to
measure is the worst case situation, so you want the cue tip as far away
from center as possible. However, it is not uncommon for the cue ball to
"squirt" a foot or more every once in a while; the shot doesn't feel like
a normal miscue, but it doesn't feel or sound like a normal shot either.
If you look at the tip afterwards, you will see the slick spot
characteristic of a miscue, usually right on the edge of the tip. I think
these situations are indeed slight miscues. However, I'm not convinced
yet that this is the cause of the "usual" type of squirt. These slight
miscues are very erratic in the resulting squirt -- one might be 12",
another might be 16". The usual squirt is much more consistent.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
[...]
> Anyway I'm using a Dufferin, a $70 stick and it seems I'm aiming half
> full at the ball on the foot rail
I think this is about average. Or maybe it will end up a bit better or a
bit worse than average after all the r.s.bers begin the flood of postings
of squirt measurements. ;-)
>and working real hard to do it. So
> now that I'm a english xpert I figured it's time to see what I can do
> with a more spensive stick. Tried a Cuetec, about the same as the
> Duff. Tried a Viking, still working hard just to make the shot.
What do you mean "still working hard". Do you mean that you are still
aiming for a half-ball hit?
>Tried
> a McDermot, couldn't make the shot.
But how much squirt did it have? Ok, if you didn't make the shot you
may not know for sure. But if you couldn't make it because it had about 2
full balls of squirt, then that is useful to know too.
>O.K. what the heck lets try the
> squirt stick, WOW !!, now I know what squirt is.It was almost funny,
> it was like a spring or a snake.
Don't get squirt confused with shaft flexibility. The important thing is
the aim point.
>The only thing is with the Meucci I
> could make the shot EASY and every time.
Good! But the important thing is still how much squirt did it have. If
it doesn't affect squirt, then it doesn't matter how much it vibrates in
your hand after the shot.
>HELP!! you guys had me
> convinced to stay away from a cue with so much squirt and I don't
> want to get off on the wrong foot but.....
Well, how much squirt did it have? The reason to stay away from a stick
with a lot of squirt is because it is more difficult to adjust for it.
Remember, in an actual situation you can't set up the shot and shoot it
over and over for 45 minutes to get the right aim point. You have to
estimate it and get it right the first time.
There is also the argument that says that the stick with less squirt will
be also less sensitive to the actual cue tip contact point, and therefore
more accurate in an absolute sense. Of course, this assumes that you have
adjusted perfectly to the sticks in making this comparison. That is why
the actual squirt measurement is better to know than your percentage of
successes with the various sticks.
Tell us how much squirt your other cues had (your Viking, McDermott, and
Meucci). We want to know. Can you correlate the amount of squirt with
shaft flexibility? Or cost?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
DAN JANES
I can help you with the cue papers you are looking for.
Dan Janes
You can call me at:
Joss Cues ltd.
(800)821-JOSS
OR
(410) 821-0064
David E. Nixon
Does it make any sense to talk of squirt in terms of brand names?
I don't think so. If Meucci made all their sticks out of
some kind of miraculously-identical wood, then perhaps it
would("wood") make sense to me. Comparing Heubler's to
Meucci's, to Adam's, etc. by brand name doesn't make sense to me.
I've played with Heublers that have large amount of squirt.
I've played with other Heublers(same model) that have very
little. Seems to depend on the individual grain as well as many
other things.
IMHO, brand comparison isn't a good basis for discussing this.
Your opinion?
--
Daddy D
"One Pocket Heaven"
INTERNET:10216...@compuserve.com
or: 102164,35...@compuserve.com
Ron Shepard
<10216...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
[...]
>IMHO, brand comparison isn't a good basis for discussing this.
>Your opinion?
I agree with this entirely. However, in some cases, a brand name is
associated with particular characteristics (shaft taper, glued mulitpiece
shafts, and so on), so that referring to the brand is really a shorthand
way of referring to these other characteristics. I'm not sure that we are
making any headway with these squirt threads, but at least pretty much
everyone now seems to be agreeing on the basic problem. BTW, I'm not
convinced that Meucci cues (the title of this thread) have any more or
less squirt, in general, than other cues.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Kusu Lee
>Does it make any sense to talk of squirt in terms of brand names?
>I don't think so. If Meucci made all their sticks out of
>some kind of miraculously-identical wood, then perhaps it
>would("wood") make sense to me. Comparing Heubler's to
>Meucci's, to Adam's, etc. by brand name doesn't make sense to me.
>I've played with Heublers that have large amount of squirt.
>I've played with other Heublers(same model) that have very
>little. Seems to depend on the individual grain as well as many
>other things.
>Your opinion?
i beg to differ. i think it's safe to say that meucci cues, in general,
will squirt more than others simply because their pro taper extends
further down the shaft. i think this fact plays a much bigger role in
squirting than the grain of the wood (i'm refering to decent cues).
i'm not knocking meuccis, in fact i play with one. squirt is a price
i'm willing to pay for that extra english.
Ron Shepard
<bho...@mail.snider.net> wrote:
>I put 4 balls against the center of the head rail, then removed the two
balls in the center
>leaving a gap two balls wide. I shot the cue from the foot spot with as
much left on it as
>possible. I could aim directly at the object ball on the left, the cue
hit just to the right of
>it then hit the side rail just before the side pocket. Did I do the test
right? Does this mean
>my cue has a full ball of squirt? Is this good or bad? I have no other
cue to compare with.
There are actually two "tests" involved. In the first test, you should
place 4 balls on the head cushion, shoot between them, and try to contact
the side rail on the head-cushion end of the side cushion before the side
pocket. You should hit hard enough so that the cue ball goes all the way
around the table and hits the head cushion again. This part of the test
is just to make sure that you are hitting with enough sidespin, and with
enough speed, to do the second part of the test.
BTW, if you are testing someone else's cue (or even your own), it is a
good idea to shoot from the foot spot to the head cushion as you are
doing. If you shoot the other direction, the cue stick is right over the
nameplate, and on some tables the raised letters in the nameplate can scar
the cue butt if the stroke gets too low.
The second part of the test is the real squirt test. This time you should
place a single object ball in the exact center of the head cushion. A
success is when you use the same amount of side spin and speed as before,
hit cushion first just next to the object ball, and pocket the object ball
in the corner pocket. When this happens, you are supposed to observe very
carefully exactly where the stick was pointed at the moment of contact
with the cue ball. You must judge as accurately as possible how much the
cue ball deviated away from this straight line. This is a difficult shot
to make. When I start off with a new cue, I think I probably average
about 1 success out of 10 attempts. After 20 or 30 attempts, I can start
to zero in on the aim point and the success rate improves, but I don't
think I ever get above 30% or so. I've noticed that if you use a dark
striped ball as the object ball, and orient it so that the stripe faces
you vertically, you can judge more precisely the aim point. You might try
this too. It may help, it may not.
I think you might need to work some more on this second part of the test,
but it sounds like you have already figured out from the first part
approximately what the results will be.
I think a full ball of squirt is below average in performance. But on the
other hand, I've seen some $2K custom cues that have about the same amount
of squirt (and some are worse in fact).
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tom Bellhouse
>
>Daddy D writes:
>>Does it make any sense to talk of squirt in terms of brand names?
>>I don't think so.
I was describing the Internet and pool-related locations to a friend who
plays (and wins) on the McDermott tour yesterday. About the newsgroup, I
told him that the technocrats seem to rule with seemingly endless
discussions about things like "Does Squirt Exist". Sure squirt exists, I
said. He agreed that it does, and it's not only a function of the cue and
the physics of ball-striking, and of the flex of the shaft, balance, hit and
tip (read "cue brand"), but also *as function of the stroke put on the
ball.* He suggested that unpredictable squirt sneaks in as a variable when
pressure mounts. An interaction of situational and personal factors causes
subtle changes to the stroke, and then squirt varies unpredictably.
A ball-shooting machine with a constant shaft, constant velocity, constant
contact point, etc. might allow calculations of squirt, but if my friend is
right, you also have the real-world human factors to consider. And in his
mind, they're *more* important than the brand of cue, because with any
given cue he can accommodate (or allow for) a constant deviation from the
ideal aim point. The only time squirt matters to him is when it's not
predictable and can't be accounted for in aiming. And that often seems to
be when the title is on the line.
(Oh no, what have I done. I have dragged this discussion from the heights
of physics and math down to the swamps of psychology and human response to
stress. I can hear the technocrats muttering "but you can't quantify those
things ... ")
Tom Bellhouse, R.N.
*********************************
"Wanna play a little one-pocket?"
*********************************
Mark Purney
Meucci shaft and not quite ready to spend big money on an entirely new
cue. Also, I know that nobody out there ever gets tired of hearing
about Meuccis, and you crave more commentary on squirt, narrow tapers,
and flexing.
I just put a new Predator shaft on my Meucci in hopes that I would
regain control of my game. So far it seems to be working. It feels
much more solid and my straighter shots are showing the greatest
improvement. I still haven't adjusted to using English with it, and
cut shots are giving me trouble for some unknown reason - I'm just not
used to it yet. I think that with a few more practice hours I will
become adjusted to the new shaft. I'm probably still trying to
compensate for the way the old shaft hits. When I miss a shot using the
Predator shaft I really get the sense that it was poor aim, and not the
shaft reacting wildly. I have much more confidence in my cue now.
I noticed one other significant difference: The practice drill in
which you center hit the cue ball down to the opposite rail in hopes
that it will return to the tip of the shaft - I can do this much
more easily now. Minor flaws in the stroke seem less magnified. I
think I will use my old shaft for this drill to make it more of a
challenge.
Also, I realize that some people LOVE Meucci shafts, but they are much
better players than myself and they can maintain control better. If
you are one of these people, please don't get bent out of shape (and
try to refrain from vibrating, squirting, and flexing, too). I realize
that my shaft troubles are all a figment of my imagination which
resulted from reading too many news group postings about squirt and
narrow tapers. I just needed an excuse for all the shots I was
missing. 8-)
Brad Holmes
I have been reading about this squirt thing for about two weeks now, I have even tried the test
with my Viking. I am soooooo confused. Can someone help?
I put 4 balls against the center of the head rail, then removed the two balls in the center
leaving a gap two balls wide. I shot the cue from the foot spot with as much left on it as
possible. I could aim directly at the object ball on the left, the cue hit just to the right of
it then hit the side rail just before the side pocket. Did I do the test right? Does this mean
my cue has a full ball of squirt? Is this good or bad? I have no other cue to compare with.
Any help would be appreciated.
Ron Shepard
<kl...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>i beg to differ. i think it's safe to say that meucci cues, in general,
>will squirt more than others simply because their pro taper extends
>further down the shaft. i think this fact plays a much bigger role in
>squirting than the grain of the wood (i'm refering to decent cues).
Meucci cues do have a lot of flex in the shaft for the reason you give.
Also, the diameter at the joint is smaller than some other cues, which
also makes them flex and vibrate in your hand after the shot. However, it
is not clear that shaft flex causes, or even correlates, with squirt.
>i'm not knocking meuccis, in fact i play with one.
Why don't you post the results of the FAQ squirt test? Your Meucci may
not be as bad as everyone is telling you.
>squirt is a price
>i'm willing to pay for that extra english.
Are you claiming that you can get more spin on the cue ball from a stick
with large amounts of squirt? Or are you saying that flexible shafts make
it easy to get spin? I'm skeptical of this too. In addition to the
squirt test, why don't you do my "challenge draw shot" with your flexible
cue and with a stiff house cue or a friend's cue. If you shape and scruff
the tips beforehand so they are comparable, you will probably find that
the amount of spin you can get on the cue ball doesn't depend on shaft
stiffness either.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mark Purney
that seems to be the case with my Meucci. There are times when the
very extreme English is useful, and I have made some great shots I
probably would not have made otherwise. However, for me it is too much
of a negative. I get too much spin at times when I don't want it, and
the amounts "seem" to be inconsistant. I realize that most of the
blame should be on me, but what's the point of making the easy shots
harder just for the sake of more spin when you really need it? I would
rather sacrifice the spin for a more consistant game on the majority of
shots which require little or no English.
Bob Jewett
...
: He suggested that unpredictable squirt sneaks in as a variable when
: subtle changes to the stroke, and then squirt varies unpredictably.
: (Oh no, what have I done. I have dragged this discussion from the heights
: stress. I can hear the technocrats muttering "but you can't quantify those
: things ... ")
On the contrary, we can at least try to quantify those things or look
for a deeper understanding rather than just throw our hands up and wail,
"It's all magic!"
An interesting point: squirt has been observed to vary on some cues by
30% as the stick is rotated. For maximum consistency, always shoot
with the stick in the same orientation. In theory, the Predator shaft
design copes with part of this problem. I mark my shafts.
If squirt does vary according to the stress the player is under, it
seems that a stick that limits the maximum squirt to as small a value
as possible would be less subject to this sort of problem.
A factoid from the psychology of learning may apply here. When under
pressure, people tend to revert to the first way they learned to do
something. Pressure might cause a reversion to the original amount of
squirt compensation that the player learned to use for a particular
shot. The best cue for them is then not the one that squirts least,
but the one that squirts just like their first one. This point
(if valid) reinforces something I keep whining about: the selection of
a first stick for a beginning player is critical.
Bob Jewett
Daddy D
brand-names, I'll worry about sticks.
I will never, again, purchase a stick that
I have not played with a bit. That's tough
to do with custom-made sticks but it can be
done.
Jim Waugh
> About the newsgroup, I told him that the technocrats seem to rule
> with seemingly endless discussions about things like
> "Does Squirt Exist".
(A lot of deletion.)
>(Oh no, what have I done. I have dragged this discussion from the heights
>of physics and math down to the swamps of psychology and human response to
>stress. I can hear the technocrats muttering "but you can't quantify those
>things ... ")
>Tom Bellhouse, R.N.
Oh no...you've opened Pandora's Box now. Not only technobable, not we
get psychobable.
Some good points though.
JW
Uncle Jim's High Technology Consulting & Live Bait Inc.
m_sta...@wsc249.enet.dec.com
Bob Jewett writes:
>An interesting point: squirt has been observed to vary on some cues by
>30% as the stick is rotated. For maximum consistency, always shoot
>ith the stick in the same orientation. In theory, the Predator shaft
>esign copes with part of this problem. I mark my shafts.
Gulp. I, I, I like to twirl the cue during those warm-up strokes
just before pulling the trigger. I have been told it is bad...but
I really like it! It is funny, I don't notice the twirling but
others do. If I do notice the twirl, I am normally not stroking the
ball well. Now if I marked the shaft like Bob, heck I would get
dizzy and fall down! :-)
--
michael stafford
e-mail: m_sta...@csc32.enet.dec.com
Victor Engel
>Gulp. I, I, I like to twirl the cue during those warm-up strokes
>just before pulling the trigger. I have been told it is bad...but
>I really like it! It is funny, I don't notice the twirling but
>others do. If I do notice the twirl, I am normally not stroking the
>ball well. Now if I marked the shaft like Bob, heck I would get
>dizzy and fall down! :-)
>
I twirl the cue also, but for some reason, when I finally shoot, it's
always in the same orientation. Best of both worlds?