GideonF said:

Interesting. My buddy had a 11.8 Cynergy and found that his new Mezz 12.2 had less deflection.

Click to expand...

Don’t know about the 11.8 but vs the 12.5 the Mezz does deflects less but not by much, I find that using both requires the same adjustment to pocket a ball

Bavafongoul said:

The best cue makers respect the importance of balancing the weight of the shaft with the weight of the cue butt.
I’m not referring to the balance point of the cue but rather the weight ratio of the cue shaft with the overall weight.

Cues falling within that range overwhelmingly tend to be the cues pool players prefer the most, in my experience.
You don’t need years of cue building experience to emulate that approach or long periods of trial and error either.

Click to expand...

you would love Todd Carpenter's work, get your hands on one of his

I ordered a Springfield CF cue shaft and am not impressed on what I received. Maybe of if I was one of those people that had a recreational table in the basement for when kids or company came over every so often, but not at all from a competitive quality level. I found it to be a somewhat dead contact with low cue ball action and spin travel. Plus, the tip arrived with the edge flared beyond the diameter of the ferrule, likely on its way to mushrooming. This was supposed to be one of their best tips. I called and no returns allowed unless the cue was not chalked. Can’t tell much without playing it for a few shots, can ya. Gotta love that customer satisfaction and someone standing behind their product. Just my opinions.

skogstokig said:

the new predator table isn't generous, 4.125" and what seems like mean pocket facings. side pockets are tight too.

Click to expand...

One side pocket shot got a long stare from Fedor.

SA96 said:

I can't take the Predator/WPA events seriously.

1. Generous pockets
2. Sets instead of racks
3. Shoot-out if tied

I judge a player based on their record in WNT majors, with heavy weighting on the US Open and World Championship.

So for me, the top 3 are still Yapp, Biado and Gorst.

Filler's recent record in the US Open and World Championship is really poor, especially for a player of his calibre.

Click to expand...

the new predator table isn't generous, 4.125" and what seems like mean pocket facings. side pockets are tight too.

Simple answer ~ McDermott, basic GS Series with maple shaft.
$400 +or - a little bit. Done deal. IMHO

g0ds gReeN said:

Never paid retail for any of my cues, wasn't intentional just a series of lucky accidents.

Click to expand...

I bought a 2009 mcdermott COTY brand new with certificate of authenticity for $700. Ended up trading it for a custom Putnam. Wish I would've kept it. With the I-2 shaft that came with it was one of the better cues I've played with and it was gorgeous. The Mcdermott embossing in the leather wrap did not interfere with play at all either, if anything it gave good frames of reference.

wrldpro said:

I’m not sure what that even means not submitting for verification. Had a 833 or higher been made you could bet the house something would have been sent in.
It’s real simple at least one foul happened and the run stops at that shot. Jayson’s 714 has nothing to do with this run. The BCA made Shaw’s run a 669 because they referred to WPA tournament rules as all high runs now are under the WPA guidelines. It’s simple there is no 820 run. I really was hoping there was no fouls or a gaffed table but now I’m disappointed. I even congratulated John for his accomplishment. So it’s 672 unless other fouls are found. Bob Keller and John should concede to a new number and correct the information put out before it gets out and gets worse press. I am staying out of it but will always reply with facts when questioned.

Click to expand...

The run may not qualify for consideration but AFAIC, he went 800+ without missing. Complete run for all intents and purposes.

Still looking , thank you

wrldpro said:

You are the master of stats.

Click to expand...

And someone would rather be ett by a goat and shat off a cliff...

Is linking to a facebook marketplace listing acceptable? This would be in addition to the requirements for the standard for sale ad. I ask because I have a video of the cue I want to sell rolling there.

If not the listing directly, would it be ok to link the video from facebook?

AtLarge said:

He fouled on ball 143. 820 - 143 = 677.

Click to expand...

You are the master of stats.

iusedtoberich said:

Pretty sure JS or SSOP or whomever said they weren't submitting this for official verification and didn't comb though it yet to see if any OB fouls occurred, and if they did, it wouldn't matter since they were't submitting.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what that even means not submitting for verification. Had a 833 or higher been made you could bet the house something would have been sent in.
It’s real simple at least one foul happened and the run stops at that shot. Jayson’s 714 has nothing to do with this run. The BCA made Shaw’s run a 669 because they referred to WPA tournament rules as all high runs now are under the WPA guidelines. It’s simple there is no 820 run. I really was hoping there was no fouls or a gaffed table but now I’m disappointed. I even congratulated John for his accomplishment. So it’s 672 unless other fouls are found. Bob Keller and John should concede to a new number and correct the information put out before it gets out and gets worse press. I am staying out of it but will always reply with facts when questioned.

Buy a Naked Becue and get it over with.

iusedtoberich said:

Sorry if Bob or anyone else here wrote the WPA rules, but why are they written so poorly/ambiguously. In this "calling obvious shots" case, the CSI rules are so clear for what must be called, while the WPA leaves one scratching their head. Same thing for the push and double hit shots from last week. The WPA rules stink the way they are written.

I vaguely recall Mark Griffen wanted the CSI rules to be written from scratch to be clear, because the other rule sets were always ambiguous.

Click to expand...

The CSI rules as a whole don’t seem to me to be written from scratch but rather to have taken the WPA rules and made a few changes, and then added a lot of discussion and applies rulings. The result is that the rules and ruling document is 127 pages. Most people won’t read that. Hell, you won’t even watch a 20 minute video!

On the specific issue of call shots, I prefer the WPA version for professional play. No professional player or referee should be in doubt about obvious shots like the one that Justin played. I get why CSI wants a black and white rule for leagues where some jackass is going to say that the 1-6 combo wired over the hole wasn’t obvious, but I don’t think it should be necessary at the pro level or with any good players playing honestly.

By the way, I actually do like the applied rulings etc in the CSI rules. They deal with all kinds of weird situations. I actually referenced them in dealing with the question of whether threads and fibers from the cushion that are touching a ball are part of the cushion on a “frozen ball to a rail” issue (they aren’t).

mr3cushion said:

I can understand, let's say someone of Your caliber claiming to run 526 balls You wouldn't believe!

But, You don't believe the Greatest Straight Pool player at the time for 20 years did! Wow!

Maybe this will refresh Your memory!

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Well you know as they say, cool story bro. lol...