Southwest cue worth the price?
ABetterTomorrow2
worth the money? I mean whats so darn great about there cues? They have this
awesome reputation and that long waiting list. Aren't they built just like any
other cue joined at the wrap and forearm? That joint pin can't make that much
of a difference. Please give me some opinions.
F.L.
Jim White
comes to mind. Lexus and Mercedes come to mind.
Jim
"ABetterTomorrow2" <abettert...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021202200233...@mb-ct.aol.com...
dalecue
SW is sortta the Apple of cues
those that love *em, REALLY love *em
those that don*t just shake their heads and wonder why
Dale<--my humblest opinion today>
ABetterTomorrow2 wrote in message
<20021202200233...@mb-ct.aol.com>...
bruin70
the result is a sharp hit with a little sting to it. the sting
resonates through the length of the cue, unencumbered... so it feels
very much like a one piece. the simplicity of this "feel" might be why
some wonder what the big deal is, as they are probably used to the
feel of something other than the pyre hit of tip to cueball.
and because "players" tend to like unassuming cosmetics, the southwest
design is perfect in its simplicity....and it relies on good-looking
wood combinations.
D. Lndn
Please don't compare Southwest with fine cars. Both have equisite
workmanship and the prestige factor going for them but the
similarities end there. Fine cars have NOTICEBLE performance benefits
while Southwest's do not.
Unless you shoot like a pro, buying real fancy cues to shoot with make
you look like a fool, for collection purposes however they may be a
good investment, then there's the whole pride of ownership thing.
HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
do not.
Joe Van
Are they worth the money? What do you expect to pay? If you get one
for 1200 than yes, its worth the money IMHO. Keep in mind there is a
7 year wait for a new one. When Jerry Franklin passed on they took on
a mythical kind of status. They are solid hitting cues, this is why just about
every flat faced cue you for sale now says "hits like a Southwest". Hit is very
subjective, so I don't want to say if its good or bad. They hold their resale
value pretty well, this is a big plus if you don't like the one you get.
John Barton
"D. Lndn" <dlfrom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f042557.02120...@posting.google.com...
>
> HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
> under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
> do not.
I disagree with you. This blanket statement is absurd. Both Predator and
Meucci have proven that under controlled enviroments different cues produce
different results. I have also known many professionals who have tried
different cues in my presence and commented on the variances of performance.
I would agree that within a parameter a good player will be able to adjust
to any cue to achieve results that are very close. For example, a table
length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue may
require a 12mph hit. A good player can sense the difference in those two
speeds and adjust accordingly.
If things like deflection are your measure then it has been amply proven
that different cues have varying degrees of deflection between brands and
throughout the radius of the cues themselves and that cues can be engineered
to have radially consistent deflection. Thus it can be concluded that some
cues do in fact "perform better" than others.
To bring this back to the original question, is a Southwest worth it? For
the sum of the materials - no. For the craftsmanship and attention to
detail - yes. Southwest Cues does not simply throw random pieces of wood
together. Each piece of wood is weighed for it's compatibility with the
other pieces to achieve natural balance. Each piece of wood is considered
for how well it matches the woods in the rest of the cue. All of the points
line up perfectly. Each piece of wood is slowly turned and cut many, many
times to assure straightness and to maintain straightness. There are no
buzzes, pings and strange sounds in a Southwest. The tenor of the hit is
distinct and crisp. Does a Southwest "outperform" any other cue? Some -
most definitely, others it is a toss-up depending on who is wielding the
cues.
I will end with this quote from a very good local player who has owned the
same Southwest for something like 16 years, "If you hit a ball with mine,
you will burn yours."
John Barton
Instroke Sports LLC
Crsfmr
new. Beautiful cue....took it home and played with it and absolutely hated it.
I felt sick after spending so much for a cue. Wanted to get rid of it, but
did not know were to sell it. Anyway...continued to play with it for a couple
of months. Eventually, I grew to love the cue, but it took time to get used
to. I now play with another cue, and occasionally bring out the Southwest.
However, it "hit's" so different from my other cue, that I can't play well with
it. The taper of the butt and shaft is very different than most any other cue.
The workmanship is excellent. If you ever get one, it might take time to
adapt.
Regards,
Doug
Patrick Johnson
> Meucci have proven that under controlled enviroments different cues produce
> different results.
They've proven that squirt can vary with shaft design. Anything else?
> I have also known many professionals who have tried
> different cues in my presence and commented on the variances of performance.
I've known professionals who claim their game is affected by the moon.
> ... For example, a table
> length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue may
> require a 12mph hit.
This is bogus. Name some cues that compare this way and tell us how you
know.
> If things like deflection are your measure
I don't know of any other "performance" variation that's been proven.
> I will end with this quote from a very good local player who has owned the
> same Southwest for something like 16 years, "If you hit a ball with mine,
> you will burn yours."
So what? Very good players say lots of things, whether or not they know
what they're talking about.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
TheFLcueman
since, when i get to play. As for the hit, it is an aquired taste. Some have
hit with it and loved it others have hit a ball and couldn't draw the cueball
back 5 inches. It's all on an individuals taste and feel. Is it worth the
money? YES on a investment level cause I paid $555 for mine new in 1991.....I
believe I could double my money just about anywhere.
Jensen Ho
don't think so...
Rich Shewmaker
--
"D. Lndn" <dlfrom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f042557.02120...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Please don't compare Southwest with fine cars. Both have equisite
> workmanship and the prestige factor going for them but the
> similarities end there. Fine cars have NOTICEBLE performance benefits
> while Southwest's do not.
>
> Unless you shoot like a pro, buying real fancy cues to shoot with make
> you look like a fool, for collection purposes however they may be a
> good investment, then there's the whole pride of ownership thing.
>
> HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
> under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
> do not.
I beg to differ. I have played with hundreds of different cues, and I own
six that I play with regularly now. There are definite differences in hit
and deflection, and in how well I perform with them. I do notice that their
performance rank does not necessarily correspond to their prices, though.
I rank them thus for playability:
1. Josey (S-04 with Predator shaft)
2. James White (Piloted stainless steel joint - ivory ferrule)
3. Joss 94-L (Was run-over by a truck. Refurbished beautifully and mated
to a Predator shaft by our friend Willee)
4. Dzuricky Ultimate Sneaky Pete (Budweiser cue)
5. Old Joss (I've used this cue for years. It was recently refinished by
Proficient Billiards and can be seen on their site under "examples."
http://www.proficientbilliards.com It's the one with the plain gray
forearm and white diamonds in the butt.)
6. Dave Barber Rambow reproduction (Commissioned by and purchased from
Dick Abbot at www.billiardcue.com.
If you were to try them, you might not rank them the same, but I am
absolutely sure that you would agree that they do not all perform the same.
And you would not have to be a professional caliber player to tell the
difference. I certainly am not.
--Rich
Rich Shewmaker
--
"TheFLcueman" <thefl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021203134404...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> < snip > ....and couldn't draw the cueball
> back 5 inches. < snip >
I don't get it. What does the cue (other than the condition of the tip) have
to do with the ability to draw the cueball? Some PLAYERS can't draw with ANY
cue due to lack of skill and faulty stroke, but anyone who knows how can
jerk any house cue off the rack and put as much draw on the ball as she
needs to. "It ain't the arrow--It's the Indian." Personally I can't stand
the way a Meucci cue hits, but I can draw even with one of those crappy
sticks. But my friend, Tom, couldn't draw a ball if you let him use
Mosconi's Rambow.
;o) Rich
John Barton
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DECF86...@attbi.com...
> > ... Both Predator and
> > Meucci have proven that under controlled enviroments different cues
produce
> > different results.
>
> They've proven that squirt can vary with shaft design. Anything else?
It doesn't matter what else. The fact is that cues have been proven to
produce different results and consequently perform differently. This is the
statement I disagreed with.
>
> > I have also known many professionals who have tried
> > different cues in my presence and commented on the variances of
performance.
>
> I've known professionals who claim their game is affected by the moon.
So are you saying that a professional's opinion on how a cue "feels" and or
"performs" is not at all valid or credible? Who is qualified to give a
"performance" opinion in your view?
>
> > ... For example, a table
> > length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue
may
> > require a 12mph hit.
>
> This is bogus. Name some cues that compare this way and tell us how you
> know.
>
If I could do that on demand then I would be in another business. Do you
claim to achieve the same results with any cue of any construction without
any adjustment at all? Do you claim to have never experienced a cue that
"felt" easier to apply spin with, or one that "felt" truer than another? Do
you claim that all cues will produce the exact same amount of spin and that
the results will be exactly the same when struck with exactly the same
speed?
If so, then meet me in Chicago at the Windy City Open in January and we can
see if we can come to some kind of conclusions doing some experiments. ;-)
and as always - the betting window is open.... :-))
John
John Barton
"Rich Shewmaker" <ri...@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:_uScnUm-fJn...@ilhawaii.net...
>
>
> --
>
> "TheFLcueman" <thefl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021203134404...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> > < snip > ....and couldn't draw the cueball
> > back 5 inches. < snip >
"It ain't the arrow--It's the Indian." Personally I can't stand
> the way a Meucci cue hits, but I can draw even with one of those crappy
> sticks. But my friend, Tom, couldn't draw a ball if you let him use
> Mosconi's Rambow.
An indian with a compound bow is going to be able to shoot his arrow further
than the indian with the maple tension bow. Whether either of them can hit
the target is immaterial. We are comparing cue performance in the hands of
one person. I contend that cues have differing degrees of performance and
that these differences can be felt and adjusted for to achieve the desired
results.
A Southwest "hit" is kind of an aquired taste because most cues aren't made
the way a Southwest is. Therefore most people's experiences are with other
methods of construction and different types of "feel". I love Predator
shafts, I feel they work as advertised but I hate they way they "feel".
Last time I was there I played with a Predator shaft with a different taper
and it "felt" great to me. I don't know if one shaft had any performance
advantage over the other but I know that I felt better with the one versus
the other - hence I would be likely to perform better.
John
John
Donald Tees
I've known professionals who claim their game is affected by the moon.So are you saying that a professional's opinion on how a cue "feels" and or "performs" is not at all valid or credible? Who is qualified to give a "performance" opinion in your view?
Donald
John Barton
"Jensen Ho" <cocob...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:2a134b96.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Jerry Franklin Era Southwest cues are worth the price, as to others, I
> don't think so...
Why wouldn't they be? Southwest cues are made to the exact same
specifications and techniques as when Jerry was alive. During Jerry's time
SW was not a "one-man shop". The people that are there now were there when
Jerry was alive and they do the same things the same way.
I for one think that "Jerry Franklin Era" mystique is a bunch of BS and that
it does a disservice to the cuemaking business that he and Laurie built.
The whole point of waiting seven years to get a Southwest is that the
products transcend the founder and the same quality goes into each cue
regardless of whether Jerry is there or not.
There are other companies where it could be argued that cues built under
former makers were possibly "better" and the Bob Runde/Schon Era comes to
mind. Southwest is definitely one company where the quality and mission
have not changed with the loss of the primary cuemaker.
John
Jim White
Jim
"Jensen Ho" <cocob...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:2a134b96.02120...@posting.google.com...
Patrick Johnson
> It doesn't matter what else.
Well, you claim other things.
>>I've known professionals who claim their game is affected by the moon.
> So are you saying that a professional's opinion on how a cue "feels" and or
> "performs" is not at all valid or credible? Who is qualified to give a
> "performance" opinion in your view?
Nobody, if all they have is their impression.
>>>... For example, a table
>>>length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue
>>>may require a 12mph hit.
>>This is bogus. Name some cues that compare this way and tell us how you
>>know.
> If I could do that on demand then I would be in another business. Do you
> claim to achieve the same results with any cue of any construction without
> any adjustment at all?
With comparable tips and weight, yes.
> Do you claim to have never experienced a cue that
> "felt" easier to apply spin with, or one that "felt" truer than another?
What does feel have to do with the STICK's performance?
> Do
> you claim that all cues will produce the exact same amount of spin and that
> the results will be exactly the same when struck with exactly the same
> speed?
With comparable tips and weight, yes.
> If so, then meet me in Chicago at the Windy City Open in January and we can
> see if we can come to some kind of conclusions doing some experiments. ;-)
> and as always - the betting window is open.... :-))
Sure, and we can even make bets if you want, but it isn't necessary for me.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> advantage over the other but I know that I felt better with the one versus
> the other - hence I would be likely to perform better.
And somebody else might perform worse. So is the shaft better or worse?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
TheFLcueman
still to the same thing but the Jerry Era means he touched it at some point.
After he passed he didn't touch them//////lol. Also you can't put Meucci and SW
in the same paragraph! Everybody has different taste.....thats why they make
fords and chevys! It's all it what you like! And I still say they are well
worth the investment for play or collection, the price just goes up.
John Barton
> >>... squirt can vary with shaft design. Anything else?
>
> > It doesn't matter what else.
>
> Well, you claim other things.
What other things? The original assertion was that there is no performance
difference in cues. Again, my answer is that both Meucci and Predator have
proven that there is.
>
> >>I've known professionals who claim their game is affected by the moon.
>
> > So are you saying that a professional's opinion on how a cue "feels" and
or
> > "performs" is not at all valid or credible? Who is qualified to give a
> > "performance" opinion in your view?
>
> Nobody, if all they have is their impression.
I am not sure that you will find a more sensitive "machine" than a human
that can translate sensory input into understandable output in so many ways.
Brandon Jacoby once told me that human touch can detect something like a
10,000th of an inch. So I certainly believe that any particular
professional pool player can feel the differences in how a cue feels and
performs.
>
> >>>... For example, a table
> >>>length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other
cue
> >>>may require a 12mph hit.
>
> >>This is bogus. Name some cues that compare this way and tell us how you
> >>know.
>
> > If I could do that on demand then I would be in another business. Do
you
> > claim to achieve the same results with any cue of any construction
without
> > any adjustment at all?
>
> With comparable tips and weight, yes.
Ah, now you are introducing variables that you would like to have be
similar. Fine, if I construct a cue where 95% of the weight is in the last
five inches above the bumper and put on the same tip as a "normal" cue then
I will like to see you perform the same shots with the same stroke and setup
and achieve the same results. I don't think you will be able to without
severe adjustment on your part if at all.
>
> > Do you claim to have never experienced a cue that
> > "felt" easier to apply spin with, or one that "felt" truer than another?
>
> What does feel have to do with the STICK's performance?
Because that is how we evaluate how "good" the cue is for ourselves in the
absence of high tech measuring equipment to give us details on how different
cues compare with different metrics.
>
> > Do
> > you claim that all cues will produce the exact same amount of spin and
that
> > the results will be exactly the same when struck with exactly the same
> > speed?
>
> With comparable tips and weight, yes.
See above example.
>
> > If so, then meet me in Chicago at the Windy City Open in January and we
can
> > see if we can come to some kind of conclusions doing some experiments.
;-)
> > and as always - the betting window is open.... :-))
>
> Sure, and we can even make bets if you want, but it isn't necessary for
me.
It's not necessary for me either. The only thing I want to see is that one
of us admits that after experimentation the other is right, partially right
or wrong.
John
John Barton
The shaft is definitely better than some and worse than some. I adjust
accordingly. With some shafts good play comes easy and with others it's a
struggle.
John
Rich Shewmaker
--
"John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:bf8H9.28$on1....@news.uswest.net...
Whoa! I absolutely agree that different cues feel and perform differently.
(See my previous post in this thread.) I just don't think that the ability
to draw the cueball is the measure of the performance of a cue, or even
differs much from cue to cue.
Rich
>
Rich Shewmaker
--
"Jensen Ho" <cocob...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:2a134b96.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Jerry Franklin Era Southwest cues are worth the price, as to others, I
> don't think so...
Question for Joe Van--
What is your opinion? Are "Franklin Era" Southwests any better? (Aside from
any value that just the "Franklin Era'' label itself may add to the price.)
Are they any different at all? Could an expert, collector or player, tell
the difference without examining the pin number?
Rich --> Just curious
Joe Van
>Question for Joe Van--
>
>What is your opinion? Are "Franklin Era" Southwests any better? (Aside from
>any value that just the "Franklin Era'' label itself may add to the price.)
>Are they any different at all? Could an expert, collector or player, tell
>the difference without examining the pin number?
>
>Rich --> Just curious<<
Rich,
I cannot tell any difference in the two cues. But I have had people tell tell
me
they "know". Mostly the claim is the playability or hit. But the cues are
constructed the the same, as far as I know.
Alex Kanapilly
high/low points, I like the ringwork too. The wood combination on my
cue is the prettiest I've seen (gaboon ebony butt and forarm with
birdseye maple points and 3 colored veneers, blue/red/blue).
The hit is different than other cues, I know how hard this is to
quantify but I feel a difference. I don't think they are the easiest
cues to play with though.
The taper is what I like most about the cue, from what I've heard and
read, it's the same as what Kersenbrock uses, a parabolic arc from tip
to butt.
They seem to be good investments also.
Alex <-- real indian here
Alex Kanapilly
> I cannot tell any difference in the two cues. But I have had people tell tell
> me
> they "know". Mostly the claim is the playability or hit. But the cues are
> constructed the the same, as far as I know.
>
> Joe
> www.pooltablemagic.net / www.classiccues.com
I can't tell the difference, I've hit with plenty. Laurie is fanatical
about not changing anything, they make them the same way now as they
did back when Jerry was around.
Alex
Ken Bour
>
> "D. Lndn" <dlfrom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f042557.02120...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
> > under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
> > do not.
>
> I disagree with you. This blanket statement is absurd.
Fair enough. The point he was making, though, was that the brand name
"Southwest" does not, by virtue of its fine quality craftmanship and
artistry, create better playing performance if, by that term, we mean
factors such as squirt.
> Both Predator and
> Meucci have proven that under controlled enviroments different cues
produce
> different results. I have also known many professionals who have tried
> different cues in my presence and commented on the variances of
performance.
> I would agree that within a parameter a good player will be able to adjust
> to any cue to achieve results that are very close. For example, a table
> length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue
may
> require a 12mph hit. A good player can sense the difference in those two
> speeds and adjust accordingly.
OK again. But do you have any evidence that Southwest cues allow a player
to draw more effectively at 10 MPH vs. 12 MPH?
> If things like deflection are your measure then it has been amply proven
> that different cues have varying degrees of deflection between brands and
> throughout the radius of the cues themselves and that cues can be
engineered
> to have radially consistent deflection. Thus it can be concluded that
some
> cues do in fact "perform better" than others.
No argument. Do Southwest cues perform better on "deflection," which most
of us now refer to as "squirt"?
> To bring this back to the original question, is a Southwest worth it? For
> the sum of the materials - no. For the craftsmanship and attention to
> detail - yes. Southwest Cues does not simply throw random pieces of wood
> together. Each piece of wood is weighed for it's compatibility with the
> other pieces to achieve natural balance. Each piece of wood is considered
> for how well it matches the woods in the rest of the cue. All of the
points
> line up perfectly. Each piece of wood is slowly turned and cut many, many
> times to assure straightness and to maintain straightness. There are no
> buzzes, pings and strange sounds in a Southwest. The tenor of the hit is
> distinct and crisp. Does a Southwest "outperform" any other cue? Some -
> most definitely, others it is a toss-up depending on who is wielding the
> cues.
What characteristics in a Southwest give it a performance edge -- using your
definition? So far, all you've mentioned are craftsmanshipand artistic
factors, which are important, but are not the issue. The original poster
was commenting on performance differences between Southwest and other high
end cues.
> I will end with this quote from a very good local player who has owned the
> same Southwest for something like 16 years, "If you hit a ball with mine,
> you will burn yours."
Heresay and inadmissable. Give us facts, mon.
Final Commentary:
I own several cues ranging in value from $600 to $8,500 and I can assure you
that my most expensive cue DOES NOT PERFORM better than a $1K cue by virtue
of its cost or maker. Performance comes from the tip and the shaft
construction and, perhaps, the overall weight/balance of the cue. These
factors can be reasonably matched by any cue over $300, let alone $3,000!
What differentiates a $10K cue from a $1K cue is artistry, craftsmanship,
and brand name recognition. If the market were to price cues based on
performance characterisitics, you couldn't pick up a Predator for less than
$5K! I recently had a shaft made, based on a snooker design, that makes the
Predator look like a wannabee. Any butt attached to that shaft should be
worth $10K if we were to base the price on performance. Let's agree that
high end cues are priced based on reputation, artistry, and creative design
factors that have nothing to do with performance and, I think, most (but not
all) cuemakers would accede to this point. Many top cuemakers, if pressed
on the argument, would agree that they could care less about the shaft, it
being the most boring and uninteresting part of the cue. If it weren't for
Predator and their success, noone would be concerned about shaft
construction -- as has been the case for generations.
Ken Bouir
Ken Bour
Predator shaft attached. Keith is a fine cuemaker, but I don't think he
would readily concede that his shafts underperform the Predators; yet; you
choose not to use Keith's shafts.
Would the #5 cue outperform the #1 cue if the Predator shaft were affixed to
it?
Ken Bour
Ken Bour
the cue, have anything to do with "performance," which is the subject of the
discussion.
Ken Bour
"Alex Kanapilly" <al...@redrobin.com> wrote in message
news:4b61dd1f.02120...@posting.google.com...
Joe Van
>I own several cues ranging in value from $600 to $8,500 and I can assure you
>that my most expensive cue DOES NOT PERFORM better than a $1K cue by virtue
>of its cost or maker. Performance comes from the tip and the shaft
>construction and, perhaps, the overall weight/balance of the cue. These
>factors can be reasonably matched by any cue over $300, let alone $3,000!
>What differentiates a $10K cue from a $1K cue is artistry, craftsmanship,
>and brand name recognition. If the market were to price cues based on
>performance characterisitics, you couldn't pick up a Predator for less than
>$5K! I recently had a shaft made, based on a snooker design, that makes the
>Predator look like a wannabee. Any butt attached to that shaft should be
>worth $10K if we were to base the price on performance. <<
I will ask again as I have done in this arguement a million times...
"performance to who?"
You say you have concrete evidence of this squirt phenomona and its
measurability..
but so what? No one can say in utmost certainty that it matters. All you can
say,
and its an assumption at best, is that less squirt is better. But to the
individual this
maynot be the case. Like all other variables such as weight, balance, wrap
choice, joint choice, etc the amount of squirt or lack thereof is personal
preference. Someone may take your snooker shaft supremo and say you gotta be a
nutcase to use this. Would he be wrong?
Joe
ABetterTomorrow2
been playing pool since 1958 says your either a natural or not.. A good player
with knowledge of what he needs to do can probably execute it with a
broomstick. lol So if your good your good and you should be able to play with
any cue. Considering its straight and doesn't woble.
F.L.
Crsfmr
Rich Shewmaker
--
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UszH9.13462$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> I find it interesting that the #1 performance cue, in your selection, has
a
> Predator shaft attached. Keith is a fine cuemaker, but I don't think he
> would readily concede that his shafts underperform the Predators; yet; you
> choose not to use Keith's shafts.
>
> Would the #5 cue outperform the #1 cue if the Predator shaft were affixed
to
> it?
>
> Ken Bour
>
Actually #5 does have a Predator shaft and has since 1997.
--Rich
Gregory
> I will ask again as I have done in this arguement a million times...
> "performance to who?"
> You say you have concrete evidence of this squirt phenomona and its
> measurability..
> but so what? No one can say in utmost certainty that it matters. All
you can
> say,
> and its an assumption at best, is that less squirt is better. But to
the
> individual this
> maynot be the case. Like all other variables such as weight, balance,
wrap
> choice, joint choice, etc the amount of squirt or lack thereof is
personal
> preference. Someone may take your snooker shaft supremo and say you
gotta be a
> nutcase to use this. Would he be wrong?
Do I see in this response that there is no objective criteria to rate a
cues performance, and, therefore, all cues perform equally well?
Joe Van
>Do I see in this response that there is no objective criteria to rate a
>cues performance, and, therefore, all cues perform equally well?
No, what I am saying is cues play differently, but its up to the individual
to decide if the cue is right for him or her. Some people like 12.5 mm shafts
some like 13.25. I am sure that two shafts with these parameters will play
differently, but is that good or bad is up to the person using it. I have no
beef
with "scientific" data, but this game is about human touch and hand / eye
coordination, like any other sport.
One example I use is I play softball in a league where everyone thinks
a 28-30 oz bat is needed to hit a ball a country mile. Its that whole bat
/speed
thing. I use a 35 oz Easton bat thats 10 years old and there are very few
people
in the league who can hit the ball further than I. I tried to swing one of
these feather
weight bats and it felt like I was hitting the softball with a twig. Absolutley
all wrong
for me.
Joe
jcg
I have two old SouthWest cues that I have retired, I prefer the hit of my
Dale Perry cues and the value of the SoutWest's keep going up and up. Seems
like a much better investment that the stock market.
jcg
Patrick Johnson
> cues performance, and, therefore, all cues perform equally well?
Yes. If you assume they're all about the same shape, weight and have
similar tips, the only OBJECTIVE performance difference should be squirt.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Alex Kanapilly
> None of these comments, important as they are to your purchase and love of
> the cue, have anything to do with "performance," which is the subject of the
> discussion.
>
> Ken Bour
That may be what John and Pat are arguing about but that's not exactly
what this thread is about, the original poster asked if others felt
that SW's are worth the money and solicited opinions. I gave my
opinions.
Why don't you try and explain how you would go about describing the
"performance" of a cue. We all know about squirt, if that's the only
criteria, then predator is probably the best cue in the world I
supose. I personally don't like the "hit" of the predator shaft.
Simple as that. I am used to the amount of squirt my cue has.
I can atest to the quality of the cue, as I've said here before, I
leave the thing in my trunk and both shafts are dead straight. I've
seen them on a lathe and they have absolutly zero visible wobble. The
butt is straight and has a nice finish.
As to the question of are they worth the money, I guess they are
because people are willing to pay for them. Obviously the anti-custom
cue crowd isn't going to agree but who cares? To each his own. I like
nice things.
I wonder if the anti-custom cue crowd shuns luxury in every aspect of
their lives. Do they only eat simple basic foods, do they only drive
utilitarian cars, do they only wear clothes that keep them warm and
comfortable, etc. etc?
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why someone would like to
have a low squirt cue. What I don't get is why some people are so
against expensive custom cues.
Alex
Alex Kanapilly
> Predator and their success, noone would be concerned about shaft
> construction -- as has been the case for generations.
>
> Ken Bouir
That may be true for most but I think SW has cared about shaft design
for a long time. They have a different taper than most, they match the
shafts up in density and weight, they take a looong time to make each
shaft.
Alex
John Barton
> "John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
> news:K%5H9.14$on1....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "D. Lndn" <dlfrom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f042557.02120...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >
> > > HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
> > > under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
> > > do not.
> >
> > I disagree with you. This blanket statement is absurd.
>
> Fair enough. The point he was making, though, was that the brand name
> "Southwest" does not, by virtue of its fine quality craftmanship and
> artistry, create better playing performance if, by that term, we mean
> factors such as squirt.
I certainly agree with this. I also do not claim that Southwest is a better
"performing" cue than any other brand. I did not see the statement as
rebuffing the brand=performance theory, rather I was it as saying that there
is no performance difference among brands, which there clearly are.
>
> > Both Predator and
> > Meucci have proven that under controlled enviroments different cues
> produce
> > different results. I have also known many professionals who have tried
> > different cues in my presence and commented on the variances of
> performance.
> > I would agree that within a parameter a good player will be able to
adjust
> > to any cue to achieve results that are very close. For example, a table
> > length draw shot where one cue may require a 10mph hit and the other cue
> may
> > require a 12mph hit. A good player can sense the difference in those
two
> > speeds and adjust accordingly.
>
> OK again. But do you have any evidence that Southwest cues allow a player
> to draw more effectively at 10 MPH vs. 12 MPH?
No I don't, and again this is not about the "performance" of Southwest cues
vs. any other. The 10/12mph example is a hypothetical. It stands to reason
that one type of construction/composition will produce more or less spin at
different speeds than another. That is just fact. Change the input and the
output will be different more often than it is the same. On a personal
level I can "spin" the cueball far easier with my Predator shafts and with
my P2 than I can with my other cues. Is this purely pyschological? I don't
think so. I notice a difference in how much spin is produced with what type
of hit. So I believe that my theory would bear out under controlled
conditions.
>
> > If things like deflection are your measure then it has been amply proven
> > that different cues have varying degrees of deflection between brands
and
> > throughout the radius of the cues themselves and that cues can be
> engineered
> > to have radially consistent deflection. Thus it can be concluded that
> some
> > cues do in fact "perform better" than others.
>
> No argument. Do Southwest cues perform better on "deflection," which
most
> of us now refer to as "squirt"?
Again, the discussion of this point is not about Southwest's performance
characteristics.
The original poster asked if a Southwest is worth it. But if you want my
opinion on the performance, here it is. Since the holy grail of cue
performance seems to be consistency I believe that Southwest cues provide a
high level of consistentcy for the player. Because of the way Southwest
cues are built they offer the same hit every time, they are likely to remain
straight and true under adverse conditions and are less susceptible to
enviromental conditions. Other cues that I have owned that fit this
criteria are Tim Scruggs, JossWest, Ted Harris, Joss, Predator, Jerry
Olivier, and lately my Layani. Each of these cue performs to differering
degrees but each of them are "dependable" and "feel" good when they strike
the ball. I own others that do not "feel" good at all and where controlling
the cueball is a struggle. In each of these cues I can point to specific
construction issues which I believe affects the performance and "feel" of
the cues. So from a performance standpoint I certainly "believe", without
statistical data, that Southwest cues are better performers than a lot of
other well known brands and that the cues are definitely "worth" it.
>
> > I will end with this quote from a very good local player who has owned
the
> > same Southwest for something like 16 years, "If you hit a ball with
mine,
> > you will burn yours."
>
> Heresay and inadmissable. Give us facts, mon.
I am not selling Southwests. Customer testimonials however can be powerful
incentive. One "master cuemaker" has built his previously unknown business
on them.
>
> Final Commentary:
>
> I own several cues ranging in value from $600 to $8,500 and I can assure
you
> that my most expensive cue DOES NOT PERFORM better than a $1K cue by
virtue
> of its cost or maker.
Agreed. Although I can rest assured that I am 100% correct that there are
performance differences between your cues that can be identified through
definition of performance metrics and controlled testing. And I am positive
that differences in the "hit" and subsequent results can be "felt" among
your cues as well.
Performance comes from the tip and the shaft
> construction and, perhaps, the overall weight/balance of the cue.
Ok. I'll agree with this while reserving the right to add to it.
These
> factors can be reasonably matched by any cue over $300, let alone $3,000!
> What differentiates a $10K cue from a $1K cue is artistry, craftsmanship,
> and brand name recognition. If the market were to price cues based on
> performance characterisitics, you couldn't pick up a Predator for less
than
> $5K! I recently had a shaft made, based on a snooker design, that makes
the
> Predator look like a wannabee. Any butt attached to that shaft should be
> worth $10K if we were to base the price on performance. Let's agree that
> high end cues are priced based on reputation, artistry, and creative
design
> factors that have nothing to do with performance and, I think, most (but
not
> all) cuemakers would accede to this point. Many top cuemakers, if pressed
> on the argument, would agree that they could care less about the shaft, it
> being the most boring and uninteresting part of the cue. If it weren't
for
> Predator and their success, noone would be concerned about shaft
> construction -- as has been the case for generations.
I am not sure what I said that indicated to you that I was equating
price/reputation with "good" performance. I do however disagree that "most"
cuemakers are uninterested in shaft design. Most cuemakers that I know are
always fiddling with the taper just to find the "right" one in their
opinion. Most have a strong opinion on what is "best". Predator was not
the first to experiment with laminated shafts or performance-enhancing
construction. Harvey Martin was well known for creating cues with
adjustable weights for the purpose of tuning the cues to the player and
conditions. Cuemaking history is rich with various cues and cue-like
gadgets that claimed better performance. Maybe the best "performing" cues
should be priced highest but who will provide the standards to judge that
performance? One thing to remember is that in the end the cue "performs"
nothing, it is that player who must adjust to the cue's characteristics and
do everything possible within and up to the limitations of the cue's
construction.
John
John Barton
If that is the only measure and it is important then we should be able to
agree that cues do have measurable performance differences and that some are
indeed better than others regardless of "who" is using them.
John
John Barton
I think any action of the cueball that is a result of the technique of the
player and the cue itself are measures of performance. Reverse english was
just the example used. Basically it comes down to this, if a player has say
three cues to choose from and he/she sets up a simple draw shot and hits say
five shots each with each cue then he will discover which cue is "easier" to
draw with.
Not that drawing the ball easier with one cue means that that cue is
"better". It just means that it is different.
John
Patrick Johnson
> If that is the only measure and it is important then we should be able to
> agree that cues do have measurable performance differences and that some are
> indeed better than others regardless of "who" is using them.
Yes, if you assume that squirt is important to everybody.
But I wouldn't say "measurable performance differences". I'd say
"measurable squirt differences" to avoid implying more.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Donald Tees
Donald
Patrick Johnson
> that one type of construction/composition will produce more or less spin at
> different speeds than another. That is just fact.
No, it isn't "just fact", and it doesn't stand to reason. Reason says
there should be no difference in spin/speed ratio unless there's a
difference in tip offset. Even differences in stroke speed and cue
weight won't affect it.
> ... On a personal
> level I can "spin" the cueball far easier with my Predator shafts and with
> my P2 than I can with my other cues. Is this purely pyschological? I don't
> think so.
I think so.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> against expensive custom cues.
I think most of them are unimaginative and ugly. Does that count?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jensen Ho
with both at the same time, and you will find out the differences.
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
Well, not so fast. You could measure several things if you so desired. Such
as:
Coefficient of Restitution (CoR), or in simple terms, the relative difference
in speed between the cue stick at impact, and the cue ball immediately after
impact. The biggest factor here would be the tip granted, but other factors
that can affect this are stiffness (due to both taper and wood
characteristics), the ferrule composition (a small affect likely) how much
energy is lost at any joints in the cue, vibration etc.
Moment of inertia - I think that we have discussed how weight distribution
can affect the moment of inertia of a cue, and how this can potentially
influence the relative sideways errors at the back hand during stroking. It
is possible to measure this affect. Granted, the overall cue weight can have
a huge impact on this, but weight distribution can have an impact as well.
Now whether or not these objective measurements are "important" or not is
another matter altogether.
There are of course a series of other measurements that could be taken, that
while could indeed be measured quantitatively, are really only useful for
their contributions to the "feedback" element of the cue.
There are many different types of "feedback" (which we've discussed here
before) that are likely important to the overall "feel" of the cue as it is
perceived for each player.
Such as:
Vibration (of several types)
Sound
and so on and so forth....
But it should be mentioned that Imo, comparing objective "performance"
criteria of cues is essentially useless. I really believe that the goal is to
maximize the "performance" of the cue/player unit, not just the cue itself.
So every single objective performance criteria, as well as the subjective
"feedback" criteria are useful only when that aspect of "performance" can
provide a benefit to the player.
So low squirt on it's own, is not neccessarily a "superior" measurement. To
the player that uses aim and pivot, or aim and swerve, low squirt would be a
detriment. As well as it might for the experienced player that has learned to
compensate for the precise amount of squirt that their cue produces. Less
might not be "better" in every case.
Ultimately, it is the performance of the player with the cue in question that
counts, not the performance of the cue itself.
So, if asked: " is one cue inherently superior to another?" I would have to
say.....no.
However, if asked: "would I experience superior performance at the table when
using one cue over another?" I would have to say....most likely.
Oh, and are Southwests worth the money? Imo, yes they are.
Tony
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > ... It stands to reason
> > that one type of construction/composition will produce more or less spin at
> > different speeds than another. That is just fact.
>
> No, it isn't "just fact", and it doesn't stand to reason. Reason says
> there should be no difference in spin/speed ratio unless there's a
> difference in tip offset. Even differences in stroke speed and cue
> weight won't affect it.
While I believe this to be true (remember he said spin/speed RATIO here guys!) I
think that some points should be clarified.
When talking about spin or speed for that matter, in practice is not always the
ratio between them that matters to the player.
It matters for shots like the challenge draw shot, or any other shot that requires
maximizing the s/s ratio, but many common shots do not fall into that category.
Long draw shots don't require maximizing the s/s at all times. The shot can be
made with increased speed (not spin), and with certain cloths, increasing the
spin, without increasing the speed might even reduce the amount of actual spin
left on the cue ball at the moment of impact with the object ball due to the
"braking" effect of backspin.
My experiments with super soft tips showed this clearly. Even if the s/s ratio was
the same as a "normal" tip (actually, it was a bit higher since I could actually
hit farther from center, but I digress) the ability to draw a ball was severely
compromised because the Coefficient of Restitution (the ratio of the stick speed
just before impact and the cue ball speed just after impact) was much lower. You
just couldn't get the same amount of cue ball SPEED for a given stick speed. So
the extra time required for the cue ball to reach the object ball worked to remove
the spin, and reduced the draw (likely the rpm was reduced as well).
In theory, the Predator shaft can add a small amount of additional spin and speed
caused by the reduction in squirt angle. Even if the ratio of s/s remains the
same, a small amount of spin or speed will show up as a difference in draw
distance under normal conditions.
I'd expect other cues to show a difference as well (such as less speed due to a
slightly lower CoR, or less speed and spin due to more squirt) that would show up
on the table as "more or less draw".
But Pat is likely right, the s/s ratio is basically fixed by the tip offset, and
is not determined by the cue characteristics.
It's just that that isn't the whole story here.
Tony
Fred Agnir
>
> HOWEVER, it seems most people who question the various cue brands are
> under the impression that they perform better than other brands, they
> do not.
Here's my take. If you have two cues, and you mount it such a way that
it hits exactly the same place at the exact same speed given the same
tip shape and material, do the cues perform the same? What is the
metric? I would say that speed of the cueball is the metric. And to
me, some cues transfer less speed compared to others. For example, if
you hit with a cue that crumpled on impact, then there would be no
speed. That cue would perform worse.
I'd further this line of thinking by dismissing discussions of "equal
spin/speed ratios" as a way to judge "which cue gives more spin."
Spin/speed ratio, though important, isn't what people are generally
talking about when they say X cue gives more spin. What they're really
saying is that they can get more absolute spin (rotational velocity)
given the same stick speed. In other words, there's less effort to get
the same amount of absolute spin. And when people talk about draw
(being able to draw better with X stick), absolute spin is the only
parameter to look at on a straight in draw shot. Linear speed is out
the door since the cueball loses all it's linear velocity. The cue
speed in/cueball speed out ratio may be a better performance metric.
With that line of thinking, a more solid cue will "perform" better
than a non-solid cue. A shaft made of wood will "perform" better than
an elastomeric shaft.
The other part is the individual and how s/he interacts with the cue's
weight, texture, and balance. Although the cue's parameters are very
important, those parameters in of themselves neither make the cue's
performance better or worse. Just different.
Fred
Ken Bour
I stated anything that would suggest one cue plays right for everyone. I
simply mentioned that my new snooker shaft outperforms my Predators in the
squirt department which, heretofore, were my standard of excellence for
shafts. If you inferred that my comment was intended to mean that all
players should prefer and use low squirt shafts, you read more into it than
was implied. My main point was that the prices on high end cues are not,
primarily, based on performance factors, but, rather, design, creativity,
artistry, craftmanship, materials, etc. That was my intended contribution
to the discussion.
Ken Bour
"Joe Van" <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205102108...@mb-fi.aol.com...
John Barton
> > ... It stands to reason
> > that one type of construction/composition will produce more or less spin
at
> > different speeds than another. That is just fact.
>
> No, it isn't "just fact", and it doesn't stand to reason. Reason says
> there should be no difference in spin/speed ratio unless there's a
> difference in tip offset. Even differences in stroke speed and cue
> weight won't affect it.
Well, I think you are wrong. I think that even if you have two cues of
equal weight with the same tips and same ferrules and signifigantly
different construction materials then you will get different results with
the same speed and offset. How different? I don't know, I have neither the
time nor inclination to prove it to you. You deny human experience as a
credible source and you denounce Predator's statements that their shafts
produce more spin than conventional ones. The understanding with their
statements is that they say that their shafts produce more spin with the
same tip offset. So basically, if I understand you correctly, you are
saying that Predator shafts are no better than any other shaft?
It does stand to reason that if in fact one shaft/cue composition does in
fact produce more RPMs than another with the same striking force, then the
cue which produces the lower RPMs will need to strike the cueball at a
higher speed to achieve the same amount of RPMs. Predator claims they have
achieved this. Do you have any data to disprove their claims?
John
>
> > ... On a personal
> > level I can "spin" the cueball far easier with my Predator shafts and
with
> > my P2 than I can with my other cues. Is this purely pyschological? I
don't
> > think so.
>
> I think so.
Far more accomplished players than I have experienced the same thing. I
suppose we are all just crazy-delusional together in a mind-meld sort of
way, controlled by the uber-brain at Predator's headquarters for world
domination. :-))
John
John Barton
What "performance" metrics do you think are important in a pool cue? Answer
that and then maybe we can go further with this discussion.
John
Ken Bour
With no basis for the comment? That is not like you, Tony. What criteria
would you use to claim that Southwests are worth the money? I'm not
disagreeing with you at all here, it's just that the original discussion
centered around performance factors. My objection is that I don't believe
high end cues are primarily priced based on performance metrics (measurable
or otherwise) but, rather, design, materials, craftsmanship, artistry,
creativity, collectibility, and other such soft factors.
Ken
Mike Page
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
[...]
[snip superspin stuff]
> Far more accomplished players than I have experienced the same thing. I
> suppose we are all just crazy-delusional together in a mind-meld sort of
> way, controlled by the uber-brain at Predator's headquarters for world
> domination. :-))
>
That's pretty much the way I see it.
--
mike page
fargo
Ken Bour
times.
Ken Bour
"Crsfmr" <crs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205004648...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Gregory
> Ultimately, it is the performance of the player with the cue in
question that
> counts, not the performance of the cue itself.
>
> So, if asked: " is one cue inherently superior to another?" I would
have to
> say.....no.
>
> However, if asked: "would I experience superior performance at the
table when
> using one cue over another?" I would have to say....most likely.
And would you then offer up which one would most likely be experienced
as superior? :-)
Ken Bour
news:<gxzH9.13475$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > None of these comments, important as they are to your purchase and love
of
> > the cue, have anything to do with "performance," which is the subject of
the
> > discussion.
> >
> > Ken Bour
>
> That may be what John and Pat are arguing about but that's not exactly
> what this thread is about, the original poster asked if others felt
> that SW's are worth the money and solicited opinions. I gave my
> opinions.
Fair enough. It morphed later into a discussion about Southwests being
better peformers, which is where I jumped in to the fracas; otherwise, I
would have kept silent. I do not own a Southwest, have never played with
one, and don't know anyone locally that has one. Come to think of it, that
makes me perfectly qualified in this forum to comment profusely on the
subject...
> Why don't you try and explain how you would go about describing the
> "performance" of a cue. We all know about squirt, if that's the only
> criteria, then predator is probably the best cue in the world I
> supose. I personally don't like the "hit" of the predator shaft.
> Simple as that. I am used to the amount of squirt my cue has.
That's fine, Alex. For me, squirt is the most important performance factor,
but I have never been one to claim that everyone should prefer a low squirt
cue. That is my clear preference and I have given my reasons many times in
this forum over the years. I do know that many players, like you, use
squirty sticks and they have learned to adjust to them. Why change? If
applying sidespin accurately is not a problem, then there would be little
reason to change. In my case, I started playing seriously at age 45. When
I started using sidespin, I had a lot of trouble making the adjustments.
Someone loaned me a Predator to try. I found it vastly superior and have,
until recently (see below), remained completely satisfied with these shafts.
I notice that there are many converts to Predator occurring, esp. among the
top pros (e.g. Mika, Corey, Gerda, Karen Coor, and dozens more) but, hey,
that's just their perception. I recently had a snooker shaft (11mm tip and
custom taper) made for me that is even lower in squirt than any of my P's.
After a few weeks' play, I am starting to prefer it to my P's and may have a
1/2 dozen more made to fit all of my cues. I supposed I could have said, "I
already know how to adjust for the P-squirt, so I'm never gonna change." On
the other hand, I happen to believe that reducing squirt makes the game
easier when using sidespin, so I'm gonna try every product that comes out
claiming to improve that one dimension. That's just my personal view on the
subject. YMMV.
[SNIP]
> As to the question of are they worth the money, I guess they are
> because people are willing to pay for them. Obviously the anti-custom
> cue crowd isn't going to agree but who cares? To each his own. I like
> nice things.
Me too. I own several high end cues and attach Predators to each of them to
improve their performance in the squirt department. I have not yet
purchased a high end piece from any cuemaker whose stock shafts could
compare to a Predator. If I could, I would buy each cue w/o shafts provided
the cuemaker would agree to custom fit a matching collar on a P-blank (or
two). So far, no cuemaker has refused to make me a custom Predator.
> I wonder if the anti-custom cue crowd shuns luxury in every aspect of
> their lives. Do they only eat simple basic foods, do they only drive
> utilitarian cars, do they only wear clothes that keep them warm and
> comfortable, etc. etc?
I think it is possible to be anti-custom-cue, but pro-custom-jewerly, which,
actually, describes my wife quite accurately! She would no doubt describe
me as pro-custom-cue, but anti-custom-jewelry! Ain't life grand...?
Frankly, I'm not sure that we should care too much what others (except,
perhaps, "significant" others) think of our hobbies. I like buying, owning,
and playing with gorgeous high end custom cues. Yes, they are expensive,
and many people think I'm stupid and/or crazy to spend money that way; but
it gives me pleasure and I can afford it (knock on wood). So what? I think
it's silly to pay $10K for a dumb painting that hangs on a wall. I doubt
that any fine art collectors give two craps what I think about it.
> Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why someone would like to
> have a low squirt cue. What I don't get is why some people are so
> against expensive custom cues.
As indicated above, do not assume that to be pro-low-squirt means
anti-expensive-cue.
Ken Bour
Joe Van
>My main point was that the prices on high end cues are not,
>primarily, based on performance factors, but, rather, design, creativity,
>artistry, craftmanship, materials, etc. That was my intended contribution
>to the discussion.
>
>Ken Bour
I agree that pricing in fact does come from the points you mention. Plus
I would add the myth behind the maker. :)
Patrick Johnson
First, I agree that preferential things like "feel" are performance factors in
the overall combined performance of cue and player. But these aren't advantages
available to everybody with that stick. Player B might do better with another
one. I'm talking about measurable performance factors that are attributable
solely to the stick and not dependent on added factors like the specific player
or the tip, that can be the basis for recommending it widely for its
"performance" or "playability".
In this category I know of only one proven performance variable: squirt.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> ... the relative difference
> in speed between the cue stick at impact, and the cue ball immediately after
Among common cues of similar weight (virtually all cues), I think this is almost
entirely tip-dependent. If you showed a significant amount of variance
independent of weight and tips I'd agree, but I'm not waiting by the phone.
> Moment of inertia
If these are numbers 1 and 2 on your list of possible cue performance factors, I
think we're pretty much in agreement. None of significance other than squirt.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Frank G
This is a rotational element. It comes from the arc created by your
stroke, not from the cue itself. The mass of the cue is an input, a
larger mass will give a larger moment of inertia, but as to how the cue
is constructed, I see no correlation to "moment of Inertia". I'm not a
physics expert, so I could be wrong. If so, I'm sure one of the real
experts that hang out in here will step in and straighten this out.
--
Frank G
Frank-at-Quick-Clean.com
Clean your pool table cloth with our unique product.
www.quick-clean.com
Patrick Johnson
> spin, without increasing the speed might even reduce the amount of actual spin
> left on the cue ball at the moment of impact with the object ball due to the
> "braking" effect of backspin.
Come again? Maintaining the same speed but increasing the spin (i.e.,
increasing the spin/speed ratio) won't increase the spin remaining at contact?
> My experiments with super soft tips showed ...
> ... You
> just couldn't get the same amount of cue ball SPEED
Are you saying contradictory things, or am I missing something?
> the extra time required for the cue ball to reach the object ball worked to remove
> the spin, and reduced the draw (likely the rpm was reduced as well).
This might be true if you reduce cue ball speed, but not just from adding spin.
> In theory, the Predator shaft can add a small amount of additional spin and speed
> caused by the reduction in squirt angle. Even if the ratio of s/s remains the
> same, a small amount of spin or speed will show up as a difference in draw
> distance under normal conditions.
If this tiny amount of added force was applied solely to spin, I'd think it
might be significant. But added to the relatively huge amount of "normal" force
already being applied, I can't see that it matters.
> I'd expect other cues to show a difference as well (such as less speed due to a
> slightly lower CoR, or less speed and spin due to more squirt) that would show up
> on the table as "more or less draw".
I think these are theoretically real but would never "show up" on the table.
> It's just that [squirt] isn't the whole story here.
Unless the story is about the things that probably matter.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> saying that Predator shafts are no better than any other shaft?
Not unless reduced squirt is better.
> ... Do you have any data to disprove their claims?
Following your example, I'll give you my experience. I've used Predators for
the past several years, but often try out other cues. I've also just recently
had a new shaft made that's pretty different from all of them and *should*
produce more spin than the Predators if their hype is correct. I don't
experience any more or easier spin with any of these cues over another,
including the one-piece Dufferin house cues at Chris's.
(And what Mike said...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
jcg
ago that we never heard of the term. The better players knew it existed but
didn't what to call it. They really worry about it either as our brain
learned where to aim to make various shots. The single most important
ingreadeant in choosing a cue is feel. Example I play with cues from Dale
Perry and I have a Preaditor shaft that I am able to draw an extra 6' over
Dale's standard shafts. Do I use the Preditor shaft? NO because I believe
that I can control the amount spin applied to the cueball much better with
Dale's shafts. This in fact may or may not be true but I believe it and that
makes the difference in the world. The only thing that really matters is how
the cue feels in your hands and what you believe you can do with it.
Corecting squirt by a couple of degrees doesn't mean squat unless you really
believe it will make you play better. This is a mind game and your
perseption is everything.
jcg
Alex Kanapilly
>
> Chicago
Hmmm, can you prove that?
Alex
Denver
Patrick Johnson
I don't think you could possibly make too much of squirt or swerve. Them and
their trickster companions, "estimation" and "feel", are the wild cards of
shotmaking. Without them, we'd all be Hoppsconi Fats.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> Hmmm, can you prove that?
No, all the available data says I'm wrong.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
jcg
estimation will become automatic after awhile which leaves us with feel.
After you get your mechanics down feel is the most important thing. Anything
you can do to improve your feel for the game will result in better play.
This can be either physical or mental as feel is just your perseption of the
balls rolling.
Back to pool cues, I don't care whether you play with a Southwest or the cue
made from a bulls penis that was on eBay a couple of weeks ago, if your
perseption of what is happening is better with your choice of cues you will
play better with it. In other words don't get trapped into buying a cue just
because some else uses them. Pick out the one that feels best to you.
jcg
Alex Kanapilly
> anti-expensive-cue.
>
> Ken Bour
You're right, I shouldn't make that assumption, I guess I was mixing a
couple of issues up here and lumping two groups of people together.
Alex
Alex Kanapilly
> anti-expensive-cue.
>
> Ken Bour
You're right, I shouldn't make that assumption, I guess I was mixing a
John Barton
Then I guess we'll just agree that we both have different opinions.
John
Ken Bour
I am experiencing considerably more spin with my new snooker shaft but, I am
convinced, it is because I am positioning the tip further outside on the QB
than I was with my 12.75mm Predators. Tony has convinced me that the
appearance of tip offest is very different as the tip diameter gets smaller.
You have commented on this point also, I believe. Prior to trying an 11.0mm
tip, I thought I was getting as far outside on the QB as theoretically
possible. I now understand that it only looked that way, but I'm probably
1+mm further out for every previous position I used to attempt. I see the
result as more relative spin on the QB, which is an adjustment I am learning
to make more accurately. Haven't you noticed this effect? Also, have you
not experienced a relative increase in swerve with the reduction in squirt?
Ken Bour
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DEFED73...@attbi.com...
Patrick Johnson
> appearance of tip offest is very different as the tip diameter gets smaller.
> You have commented on this point also, I believe.
I've even said it's the reason I wanted a smaller tip.
> ... [with a small tip] I'm probably
> 1+mm further out for every previous position I used to attempt. I see the
> result as more relative spin on the QB
> ... Haven't you noticed this effect?
I think this effect is real, but I haven't talked about it because why should
anybody believe me? It's only been several weeks, it could be "new toy
syndrome" and I was looking for more tip/ball accuracy, so I'd probably see it
no matter what. But it makes sense to me that being able to see better where
I'm hitting lets me hit a little farther from center, and that's what I see
happening. I also thought I might get a little more precise with my use of
spin, and I see that happening too.
Neither of these is an immediate dramatic leap forward, but I ain't complainin'.
> Also, have you
> not experienced a relative increase in swerve with the reduction in squirt?
Can't say I have. Can't think why I would. Wouldn't the curve stay the same
but just be pointed a little differently?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
tony mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
> Tony:
>
> With no basis for the comment? That is not like you, Tony. What criteria
> would you use to claim that Southwests are worth the money?
It's based on a broad definition of "worth". Yes we were discussing
performance, but the original poster just wanted opinions regarding what
Southwests are "worth" My opinion is that they are worth the money. They are
very well made cues, that hold their value, have some "mystique" (if that's
important to you) and a fairly unique "feel". I think that within the general
cue market place, they are "worth" their selling price.
Of course, whether or not the cue is suitable for a player is a different story
altogether.
Tony
-thought I'd get a rise out of that!
tony mathews
Gregory wrote:
> > However, if asked: "would I experience superior performance at the
> table when using one cue over another?" I would have to say....most
> likely.
>
> And would you then offer up which one would most likely be experienced
> as superior? :-)
Well..........................................................................................No
:-)
Tony
-you're a card Gregory!
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > ... the relative difference
> > in speed between the cue stick at impact, and the cue ball immediately after
>
> Among common cues of similar weight (virtually all cues), I think this is almost
> entirely tip-dependent. If you showed a significant amount of variance
> independent of weight and tips I'd agree, but I'm not waiting by the phone.
Well, I know that Predator was able to measure about a 10% to 20% variation amongst
break cues of equal weight with the same tips. So I'd expect to see similar
variations amongst playing cues. This is a smaller variation than a tip alone would
create, but not insignificant.
> > Moment of inertia
>
> If these are numbers 1 and 2 on your list of possible cue performance factors, I
> think we're pretty much in agreement. None of significance other than squirt.
Well, they are less than squirt, but not without significance imo.
Tony
tony mathews
Frank G wrote:
> > > Moment of inertia
> This is a rotational element. It comes from the arc created by your
> stroke, not from the cue itself. The mass of the cue is an input, a
> larger mass will give a larger moment of inertia, but as to how the cue
> is constructed, I see no correlation to "moment of Inertia". I'm not a
> physics expert, so I could be wrong. If so, I'm sure one of the real
> experts that hang out in here will step in and straighten this out.
See one of Mike Page's old posts regrading moment of inertia and weight
distribution.
The upshot is that weight distribution can affect the MoI to a measureable
degree, and that this will in turn affect the final amount of cue sideways
error, for a given arm torque input.
It's not huge, but it's measureable.
Tony
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > ... with certain cloths, increasing the
> > spin, without increasing the speed might even reduce the amount of actual spin
> > left on the cue ball at the moment of impact with the object ball due to the
> > "braking" effect of backspin.
>
> Come again? Maintaining the same speed but increasing the spin (i.e.,
> increasing the spin/speed ratio) won't increase the spin remaining at contact?
Try it on virtual pool and you can see the result. Also, that french carom simulator
gave similar results. Yes it's possible, and well with the realm of experience if you
though about it for a minute.
> > My experiments with super soft tips showed ...
> > ... You
> > just couldn't get the same amount of cue ball SPEED
>
> Are you saying contradictory things, or am I missing something?
I guess you are missing something!
> > the extra time required for the cue ball to reach the object ball worked to remove
> > the spin, and reduced the draw (likely the rpm was reduced as well).
>
> This might be true if you reduce cue ball speed, but not just from adding spin.
It depends on the distance to the object ball, and the initial cue stick speed. At some
set of distances and speeds, it could be possible to attain more draw by NOT striking
the ball as low as possible.
We've talked about this before. Didn't you get the memo?
> If this tiny amount of added force was applied solely to spin, I'd think it
> might be significant. But added to the relatively huge amount of "normal" force
> already being applied, I can't see that it matters.
Even if it applies to both speed AND spin, it can matter. The amount of draw still on
the ball at long distances can be sensitive to the initial conditions (speed and spin
and cloth friction etc.). A small change can make a difference in the outcome, and might
bring the cue stick speed into the range of stick speeds that a player is most accurate
with. This can affect the performance of the player.
> I think these are theoretically real but would never "show up" on the table.
I think that they do.
> > It's just that [squirt] isn't the whole story here.
>
> Unless the story is about the things that probably matter.
In your mind perhaps.
Tony
-it all matters in the long run....
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Can't say I have. Can't think why I would. Wouldn't the curve stay the same
> but just be pointed a little differently?
Yes, swerve cannot be changed by the cue itself. But if Ken is setting the tip
farther from center than he "thinks" he is, he will be getting more spin, and ergo,
more swerve. Also, now that he is getting much less squirt, he feels that he is
"seeing" the effects of swerve more than before. In other words, previously, he
thought he was aiming for squirt, with just a bit of swerve. Now that he doesn't
have as much squirt, he is realizing just how much swerve was really present all
along.
Or who knows, maybe Fred or David (jacked up Hamster) Malone have convinced him to
jack up the cue more than is "neccessary"?
Tony
-or maybe his table warped......
tony mathews
Fred Agnir wrote:
> I'd further this line of thinking by dismissing discussions of "equal
> spin/speed ratios" as a way to judge "which cue gives more spin."
> Spin/speed ratio, though important, isn't what people are generally
> talking about when they say X cue gives more spin. What they're really
> saying is that they can get more absolute spin (rotational velocity)
> given the same stick speed.
My argument exactly.
Tony
-and Pat won't buy this one either.....
Patrick Johnson
>>>in speed between the cue stick at impact, and the cue ball immediately after
> ... Predator was able to measure about a 10% to 20% variation
They're saying the stick alone can increase break speed by 5 mph. That's a
pretty tall claim. I assume they're claiming it for their own break stick.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
>>increasing the spin/speed ratio) won't increase the spin remaining at contact?
You must be talking about maintaining the same STROKE speed. Since we're
talking about spin/speed ratio, I thought you meant BALL speed.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Gregory
> However, if asked: "would I experience superior performance at the
table when
> using one cue over another?" I would have to say....most likely.
The farthest I could go would be, "For me, probably not. For you, I
don't know, maybe. What do you mean by that?"
Ken Bour
news:3DF1A6B4...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > Can't say I have. Can't think why I would. Wouldn't the curve stay the
same
> > but just be pointed a little differently?
>
> Yes, swerve cannot be changed by the cue itself. But if Ken is setting the
tip
> farther from center than he "thinks" he is, he will be getting more spin,
and ergo,
> more swerve. Also, now that he is getting much less squirt, he feels that
he is
> "seeing" the effects of swerve more than before. In other words,
previously, he
> thought he was aiming for squirt, with just a bit of swerve. Now that he
doesn't
> have as much squirt, he is realizing just how much swerve was really
present all
> along.
Stated more accurately than I did. Thanks for the added clarification. So,
Pat, aren't you making a smaller relative squirt adjustment now and see
swerve and the more compensating factor than with your Predators?
> Or who knows, maybe Fred or David (jacked up Hamster) Malone have
convinced him to
> jack up the cue more than is "neccessary"?
Negatory.
Ken Bour
Patrick Johnson
Yeah, I think my adjustment has been cut at least in half, although I haven't
measured it. I'd rather play pool when I'm at the pool hall.
> and see
> swerve and the more compensating factor than with your Predators?
I see the changed direction of the shot, but it doesn't look like more swerve
effect to me; it looks like less squirt effect (the swerve curve looks the
same). I assume that's because thinking of it like that has become natural for
me - an example of the value of being interested in that "science" stuff.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > ... Predator was able to measure about a 10% to 20% variation
>
> They're saying the stick alone can increase break speed by 5 mph. That's a
> pretty tall claim. I assume they're claiming it for their own break stick.
Well variation is just that. The difference between the worst and the best. Some
sticks might well take off 5 mph from the top end of the breaking speeds. That's
not the same as saying your cue adds 5 mph is it?
The difference between the better cues might only be a few percent.
Tony
tony mathews
Gregory wrote:
> The farthest I could go would be, "For me, probably not. For you, I
> don't know, maybe. What do you mean by that?"
Well, to each his own, different strokes and all that!
Tony
tony mathews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> You must be talking about maintaining the same STROKE speed. Since we're
> talking about spin/speed ratio, I thought you meant BALL speed.
No I was talking about stroke speed. Since that's the feedback measure that we
actually use (or feel to be more precise) when taking about relative "effort".
We can only really measure the result (how much draw we observe) versus what we
experienced (how fast we moved our arm).
When people talk about one cue requiring more or less "effort" to do something with
the cue ball, it is almost always a measure of the relative amount of feedback
perceived, and rarely an accurate measure of absolute performance of the cue itself.
Tony
Dinasa
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002 at 11:32:43 AM UTC-8, Jensen Ho wrote:
> Jerry Franklin Era Southwest cues are worth the price, as to others, I
> don't think so...
tmglg...@gmail.com
> I've never hit with a southwest and i've only seen two in person. Are they
> worth the money? I mean whats so darn great about there cues? They have this
> awesome reputation and that long waiting list. Aren't they built just like any
> other cue joined at the wrap and forearm? That joint pin can't make that much
> of a difference. Please give me some opinions.
>
> F.L.
Yes. I owned a Kersenbrock in 1988 till 1998. I shot with some very fancy SouthWest cues as I had a friend who took some tours with SouthWest at their shop back then. It's an amazing era and legacy for the history of pool.
baitk...@gmail.com
> I've never hit with a southwest and i've only seen two in person. Are they
> worth the money? I mean whats so darn great about there cues? They have this
> awesome reputation and that long waiting list. Aren't they built just like any
> other cue joined at the wrap and forearm? That joint pin can't make that much
> of a difference. Please give me some opinions.
>
> F.L.
pata...@me.com
Bill
> I have had 3 southwest cues. First one was unplayable for me, 2nd was amazing( offered too much money) now I have a Sugartree that speaks the same language
"table time" in the long run. Choose one that you can afford and that
you think you will enjoy, and you'll forget what you payed pretty fast.
Good luck!
John Disque
> I've never hit with a southwest and i've only seen two in person. Are they
> worth the money? I mean whats so darn great about there cues? They have this
> awesome reputation and that long waiting list. Aren't they built just like any
> other cue joined at the wrap and forearm? That joint pin can't make that much
> of a difference. Please give me some opinions.
>
> F.L.
Rarity, professional endorsements, reputation, marketing & main-stream hype (such as... the cue being in a movie or used by some celebrity, etc) all play into it.
To me.... No... It's a piece of wood... and the less concerned I am about the cue the better I play. -- To someone else like a cue-collector the answer will be "yes," and to them it's much more than a piece a wood.
People pay crazy money for the things they really want and for bragging-rights. It is what it is and it kinds down to "how the person thinks."
percuss...@gmail.com
> I've never hit with a southwest and i've only seen two in person. Are they
> worth the money? I mean whats so darn great about there cues? They have this
> awesome reputation and that long waiting list. Aren't they built just like any
> other cue joined at the wrap and forearm? That joint pin can't make that much
> of a difference. Please give me some opinions.
>
> F.L.