Do short cues play better?
WilleeCue
What advantage is gained by using a cue an inch or so shorter?
Willee
Erik Jørgensen
> Is a shorter cue better?
> What advantage is gained by using a cue an inch or so shorter?
Don't have anything to add on my own, but Jimmy Reid says they have less
dead weight..and then he says some more...
http://www.freepoollessons.com/cue4u.shtml
*points*
I'm considered getting a shorter cue than the average 58'' next time, since
the one I've got feels too long.
How do you really measure cues by the way? I tried measuring mine, but I
couldn't really make any sense out of it. It's a production cue but none of
the stuff I tried making sense of (end of shaft, ferrule, tip) conformed to
a regular lengt. The entire thing was 58,6'' or something like that. I
though that was kinda weird for a production cue...
--
Erik «Macint0sh» Jørgensen * Web: <URL:http://killervampire.com>
==========================================================================
Hvorfor bør du quote riktig?
Les mer her: <URL:http://home.online.no/~vidaandr/news/OBSquoting.html>
Mike Page
"Erik Jørgensen" <macint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> * WilleeCue (n5...@nospam.stx.rr.com):
>
> > Is a shorter cue better?
> > What advantage is gained by using a cue an inch or so shorter?
>
> Don't have anything to add on my own, but Jimmy Reid says they have less
> dead weight..and then he says some more...
>
> http://www.freepoollessons.com/cue4u.shtml
>
> *points*
>
> I'm considered getting a shorter cue than the average 58'' next time, since
> the one I've got feels too long.
I have an accustat tape of Pat Fleming playing 14.1 with, I think,
Grady. Fleming talks about experimenting with a wide range of cue
lengths, and I think he plays that match with something like a 53 inch
cue.
Bob Johnson
http://www.freepoollessons.com/cue4u.shtml. I personally have found that
cues are a bit like golf clubs. I hit a much more effective golf shot with
a club that is the "correct" length, or even too short. Even if the club is
a little short for me, I still feel secure in the swing and can control it.
When the club is too long, I feel more out of control, and in fact have
always had a problem hitting a driver because of the length of the club,
even when it's "correct" according to the fitting methods. I've always
thought if I ever go back to playing golf, I'll have a set of clubs made,
and the woods will definitely have shorter shafts.
I have a 60" cue and I get the same feeling from it that I get from my
driver. I don't feel as secure in my stroke as I do with my 58" cues. BTW,
58" is what Mr. Reid's sizing method says I should be using.
Someone had expressed some confusion about how to measure a cue. When I
measure a cue's length, I don't include the rubber bumper or the leather tip
in the total length. I measure from the end of the butt cap to the end of
the ferrule.
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
bo...@cris.com
"WilleeCue" <n5...@nospam.stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AGX8c.106295$u_5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
Bethowmuch
Yes, for midgets and dwarfs.
Cuezilla
> What advantage is gained by using a cue an inch or so shorter?
>
> Willee
I don't think the length of cues is the result of some kind of
extensive research. Cue makers are not scientists, they just make
cues. I would chalk it up to tradition more then anything else. Cue
makers are afraid to have an original idea, all most do is copy what
is being done. Every cue maker makes six point high and low cue, for
no other reason then the popularity of the South West cue. I am sure
most cue makers believe that a shorter ferrule is better but they all
make 1 inch ferrules because that is what people expect to see. Cues
are 58 inches because that is what they are, I doubt any cue maker
could make an argument why. Most have not had an original thought in
their life they just copy. Just my opinion
Bethowmuch
Sounds like government employees, having retired from the gov't after a 30 year
career I can tell you most of them are idiots, they just copy other idiots.
That includes your federal judges, investigators, FBI employees, doctors,
government lawyers, the whole damn bunch. About as worthless as a ten ball in
a nine ball game.
Dan White
news:20040326235615...@mb-m29.aol.com...
I'm gonna guess you didn't get the gold watch?
dwhite
pltrgyst
wrote:
>Sounds like government employees, having retired from the gov't after a 30 year
>career I can tell you most of them are idiots, they just copy other idiots.
>That includes your federal judges, investigators, FBI employees, doctors,
>government lawyers, the whole damn bunch. About as worthless as a ten ball in
>a nine ball game.
Sounds like most *people,* not particularly government
employees. Besides, the government percentages have improved
now that you've retired. 8;)
-- Larry (gov't. employee)
bill stroud
"Cuezilla" <cuez...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> I don't think the length of cues is the result of some kind of
> extensive research. Cue makers are not scientists, they just make
> cues.
I personally think shorter is better and more accurate. Look at the lenth of
snooker cues. 54-55"
Unfornately most production cues are 58" and players get used to that
lenght. It is very hard to sell any other lenght.
I> would chalk it up to tradition more then anything else. Cue
> makers are afraid to have an original idea, all most do is copy what
> is being done. Every cue maker makes six point high and low cue, for
> no other reason then the popularity of the South West cue.
I don't know if SW was the first 6 point cue but I have to agree that most
cuemakers never have an original idea. They just make what they see is
popular. I have done a lot of it in 34 years of cuemaking ubt decided
starting this year to stop making traditional cues.
>I am sure
> most cue makers believe that a shorter ferrule is better but they all
> make 1 inch ferrules because that is what people expect to see. Cues
> are 58 inches because that is what they are, I doubt any cue maker
> could make an argument why. Most have not had an original thought in
> their life they just copy. Just my opinion
I think shorter ferrules are better but they are a hard sell to most
players. I also think the wrap is in the wrong place. It should be at the
back where you hold the cue.
I have been investigating new materials and technology for the last 5 years
and you will all see the results later this year with a new type of cue that
will make most cues obsolete.
Sincerely,
Bill Stroud
Bethowmuch
8;)
You're right about that, and now instead of being a drain on your tax dollars
I'm a productive senior citizen. I go to the poolroom everyday, drink water,
read a free newspaper, and bitch about the high price of table time.
Gregory
> I personally think shorter is better and more accurate. Look at the
lenth of
> snooker cues. 54-55"
> Unfornately most production cues are 58" and players get used to that
> lenght. It is very hard to sell any other lenght.
Well, I guess I could lop 3-4" off the butt of my cue. :)
> I think shorter ferrules are better but they are a hard sell to most
> players.
I don't know the reason why ferrules grew so long (perhaps appearance?).
I liken them to the tailfins on the cars of the 50's. On sticks for the
everyday Joe and Josephine, the ferrule must be at least long enough to
protect from a well bored chalk cube. But for the sophisticated
chalker, 1/16 - 1/4" should be sufficient.
> I also think the wrap is in the wrong place. It should be at the
> back where you hold the cue.
IMO, most wraps themselves owe their existence solely to tradition.
> I have been investigating new materials and technology for the last 5
years
> and you will all see the results later this year with a new type of
cue that
> will make most cues obsolete.
Interesting. Will be looking for them.
--
Gregory--> Please include only relevant quotes, and reply below the
quoted text. Thanks.
[Delete one five three for email.]
Jal
> I personally think shorter is better and more accurate. Look at the lenth of
> snooker cues. 54-55"
> Unfornately most production cues are 58" and players get used to that
> lenght. It is very hard to sell any other lenght.
I'm 6'1 with a wingspan of 73". I recently extended the shaft of my
cue to make the total length from 57" to 60". The 57" version always
felt too short. While I'm not necessarily playing any better, the
current length does feel right. And, of course, it also helps when
stretching for a shot.
I would have thought that the increased moment of inertia of the
cue about the bridge hand might also smooth out some inadvertent jerks,
at least a little.
However, I am not an expert and am curious as to why a shorter cue
could hold some advantage?
Jim
pltrgyst
>I'm 6'1 with a wingspan of 73".....
Let's see... 73 divided by twelve is 6, with a remainder of 1...
Sonnamabeech! What a coincidence!
-- Larry
bill stroud
> However, I am not an expert and am curious as to why a shorter cue
> could hold some advantage?
While I do not have any scientific evidence (I soon will have) I have always
thought it was easier to push weight rather than pull it. That is why I have
always made cues with a forward balance. The cue also seems to stay down
better when you are shooting off the rail. So a shorter cue would make more
sense in that respect. Less cue beyond the grip.
I am not sure what the excess cue beyond the grip provides besides someplace
to hold on to on shots where you have a long reach. Many of the best players
today seem to hold the cue very near the end as contrasted to players of an
older generation. (Mosconi, Lassiter). Is it a change in stance? or does the
fast cloth cause it to happen. I see many longer bridges than before. The
fast cloth seems to allow players to get away with things that were not
possible in the past.
I still use the older style I learned with and seldom miss a ball when I
practice and am in some kind of stroke. Not too often these days.
Sincerely,
Bill Stroud
Ron Shepard
"bill stroud" <bi...@cues.com> wrote:
> Many of the best players
> today seem to hold the cue very near the end as contrasted to players of an
> older generation. (Mosconi, Lassiter). Is it a change in stance?
Many players these days keep their chin close to the cue, sometimes
the cue rubs against their chin on some or all of the stroke.
Mosconi and many older players played with a more upright stance. I
think that is part of the answer.
Another part of the answer is that players may be taller, on
average, than players 50 or 60 years ago. Even with the same style
stance, taller players would probably want longer cues.
As far as playability, one thing that no one else has mentioned is
the vibrational frequency of the cue. The shorter the cue the
higher the frequency of the lowest fundamental mode (all other
things being equal, total mass, stiffness, etc.). Some players like
the "feel" of higher-frequency cues (they "feel" lighter and
stiffer), so that may be an important factor in choosing a cue.
I've read that Joe Gold refuses to make a cue longer than 57 inches
because of this; when they are longer, they feel too whippy.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
-jeff
> I'm 6'1 with a wingspan of 73". I recently extended the shaft of my
> cue to make the total length from 57" to 60". The 57" version always
> felt too short. While I'm not necessarily playing any better, the
> current length does feel right. And, of course, it also helps when
> stretching for a shot.
At least you're semi-normal. =) I'm 6'1 with a 77" wingspan, and am
finally getting comfortable with a 60" cue. Sometimes I still hold it
with my pinky on the bumper, but that actually is just my bad form. It
seems to work best if I concentrate on keeping my hand on farther back
than the end of the wrap.
When I had it made, the cue maker definitly was opposed to making the
shaft any more than 30" long tho, because it would become to "whippy".
Can you still make a shot like:
START(
%AJ0D0%PI9Z8%WK5D7%XJ0Z7%YD4D0%ZI5C9%eA3a3
)END
with the new shaft? I'm still adjusting to it.
-jeff
Jal
> When I had it made, the cue maker definitly was opposed to making the
> shaft any more than 30" long tho, because it would become to "whippy".
Mine was a home project - it wasn't an expensive cue to begin with. As
your cue maker anticipated, it is whippy, especially since I added the
length entirely to the shaft portion. I think I would prefer a stiffer
shaft, just for the feel of the hit (see Ron Shepard's comments above),
but it doesn't bother me, and I can't see that it should (or does) affect
the playability of the cue.
Bill Stroud (above) mentioned a good reason for a more forward balance
point: when the cueball is against the cushion, the shaft sits more firmly
down on the bridge hand. On those type of shots, I grip the cue tighter
and push down to achieve the same effect. I don't know if this is considered
a no-no amongst skilled players, but it seems to work for me (any advice
here would be appreciated).
> Can you still make a shot like:
>
> START(
> %AJ0D0%PI9Z8%WK5D7%XJ0Z7%YD4D0%ZI5C9%eA3a3
>
> )END
>
> with the new shaft? I'm still adjusting to it.
>
> -jeff
I don't think I could make that shot with any cue! I don't have too much
of a problem with thin cut shots, but this one is something else. I've
tried it with the cueball about a foot from the object ball and could
do it only at a very low percentage. But maybe that was the problem -
with the cueball farther away, the additional swerve should help the
angle of approach, I guess? I know that very good players can make it
with length of the table distances, and the cueball much further from
the pocket, but as you said, I'm nornmal :}
Why do you think a whippy shaft might make it more difficult?
Jim
Jal
> the pocket, but as you said, I'm nornmal :}
I mean't "object ball much further..."
Jim
dalecue
Bethowmuch wrote in message
<20040326172944...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>>> Is a shorter cue better?
>
>Yes, for midgets and dwarfs.
at the risk of sounding too serious - all other things being equal<which
they hardly ever are> - a shorter cue will be
more _rigid_ than a longer one - if more rigid is what you prefer, that
would be better
Dale
Patrick Johnson
> - a shorter cue will be more _rigid_ than a longer one
For a shorter cue, is it usually the shaft or the butt that's shorter,
or both? Stiffness added to the butt wouldn't be as noticable as
stiffness added to the shaft, right?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Frank Glenn
patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net says...
:|:For a shorter cue, is it usually the shaft or the butt that's shorter,
:|:stiffness added to the shaft, right?
Both if made properly. The 57" cues I have are equal parts.
Frank
-jeff
>
> I don't think I could make that shot with any cue! I don't have too much
> of a problem with thin cut shots, but this one is something else. I've
> tried it with the cueball about a foot from the object ball and could
> do it only at a very low percentage.
The way that I diagramed it I used to be able to make it about 6/10
times. I really don't know why since I am not that skilled, but it
seemed like the shot just "worked" for me. With the new cue I can only
make it about 2/10 times.
> Why do you think a whippy shaft might make it more difficult?
To me, the term "whippy" implies that there is more variation in the
amount of squirt/swerve that the cue ball will pick up over the normal
range of power. There will be a higher maximum, so there will be more
range/feel that you have to adjust for.
-jeff
Jal
prefered it to be longer yet, given your reach?
> To me, the term "whippy" implies that there is more variation in the
> amount of squirt/swerve that the cue ball will pick up over the normal
> range of power. There will be a higher maximum, so there will be more
> range/feel that you have to adjust for.
According to what I've read here, the amount of squirt a cue produces
is essentially independent of the shaft's flexibility. It's a function
of the amount of mass in the last several inches near the tip. If all
things were equal, a really, really whippy cue should actually
cause less squirt, since it would have less effective "end mass".
I think that the reason people believe that a flexible cue produces more
squirt is that it is more noticable when maximum english is used. At the
same time, they can see/feel the cue bending and vibrating, and therefore
associate the two events.
If your interested, you can read Ron Shepard's "Everything you wanted
to know about Squirt..." for the details. If you don't want to wade
through the physics, he offers a summary at the end, along with some
experimental results.
So I don't think your reduced percentage for that shot is necessarily
a result of the longer length causing more squirt. The squirt may be
different than that of your previous cue(s), but for other reasons.
Jim